Valuing Visibility in National Parks: Study Plan

VALUING VISIBILITY IN NATIONAL PARKS: STUDY PLAN

DRAFT FINAL

Prepared by:

Kevin J. Boyle (Virginia Tech University) Richard C. Carson (University of California, San Diego) Christopher G. Leggett (Industrial Economics) Robert Paterson (Industrial Economics) Robert Unsworth (Industrial Economics)

With contributions from:

Pam Rathbun (PA Consulting) Robert Baumgardner (PA Consulting) John Molenar (Air Resource Specialists) Robert Cameron Mitchell (Clark University) Carlos Silva (Industrial Economics)

Prepared for:

Susan Johnson Air Resources Division U.S. National Park Service 12795 W. Alameda Parkway P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225

July 2006

Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

INTRODUCTION

This document describes a plan for a study designed to estimate the benefits of visibility improvements in national parks and wilderness areas. The study will focus in particular on the visibility improvements expected to result from the implementation of the Regional Haze Rule, but it is anticipated that the results may also be used to evaluate benefits associated with other regulations that impact visibility. The study will involve a nationally representative survey with valuation questions designed to determine the benefits of visibility improvements to U.S. households.

Policy Context

Specific visibility provisions were included in Sections 169A, 169B, and 110(a)(2)(j) of the Clean Air Act that directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the states, and federal land managers to prevent any future, and remedy any existing, human-induced visibility impairment at mandatory Federal Class I areas. Mandatory Federal Class I areas (hereafter referred to as "Class I areas") are defined as national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. There are 156 Class I areas throughout the country, including many well-known national parks and wilderness areas, such as the Grand Canyon, Great Smokies, Shenandoah, Yellowstone, Yosemite, the Everglades, and the Boundary Waters (Exhibit 1).

In 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment reasonably attributable to one or a small group of sources. The EPA defined visibility impairment as “any humanly perceptible change in visibility (visual range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions.” The 1980 regulations established procedures to evaluate existing stationary sources and new sources:

• States are required to determine which existing stationary facilities should install the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for controlling pollutants that impair visibility in a Class I area.

• Permit applicants must assess potential visibility impacts in Class I areas due to new or modified major stationary sources.

• States must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) detailing a long-term strategy for reversing existing visibility impairments in Class I areas and preventing future impairments.

In 1999, the EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR Part 51) to address emissions of visibility-impairing fine particles and their precursors from numerous sources over wide geographic areas. This rule calls for states to establish goals and emissions reduction strategies for improving visibility in all 156 Class I national parks and wilderness areas. The Regional Haze Rule encourages states to work together in regional partnerships to develop and

implement multi-state strategies to reduce emissions of visibility-impairing pollution. As fine particles are often transported hundreds of miles, all 50 states must participate in the planning and analysis required by the Regional Haze Rule, including states that do not contain Class I areas.

Although the Clean Air Act explicitly prohibits the consideration of costs and benefits in setting primary air quality standards, federal and state agencies may consider costs and benefits when analyzing policies that impact visibility:

• States may consider costs and benefits when evaluating alternative BART control options for stationary sources.

• States and/or regional planning organizations may consider costs and benefits in selecting appropriate visibility-reduction goals under the Regional Haze Rule.

• If a regulation is likely to involve annual effects on the economy of $100 million or more, then under Executive Order 12866, a formal regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is required. The RIA must evaluate the costs and benefits of the proposed regulations as well as alternative regulatory approaches.

This study will provide benefit estimates for visibility improvements that can be used in these analyses. While the study will focus specifically on the visibility improvements anticipated due to the Regional Haze Rule, we anticipate that the results will also be used to value related visibility improvements through benefits transfer.

Valuation Methodology

The value of visibility improvements to U.S. households will be determined through a statistical analysis of individuals' responses to carefully constructed survey questions. These survey questions, which are called "conjoint" or "attribute-based" choice questions, will use a combination of photographs and text to provide brief descriptions of policy scenarios, then ask the respondent to choose his or her preferred scenario. The attributes of the policy scenarios vary across questions and respondents, and a statistical analysis of the respondents’ choices allows the researcher to evaluate trade-offs among the attributes and to estimate marginal willingness to pay for improvements in specific attributes.

Attribute-based choice questions were initially developed in the transportation and marketing literatures (Louviere, et al., 2000) as a way of estimating implicit prices/marginal willingness to pay for changes in the attributes of goods and determining how subjects trade off various attributes of goods that have yet to be introduced into consumer markets. Recently, the attribute-based choice question methodology has been applied to value a variety of environmental goods, including Atlantic salmon fishing (Teisl et al., 1996), benign timber harvesting practices (Boyle et al., 2001), waterfowl hunting (Gan and Luzar, 1993), green electricity (Roe et al., 2001), farmland preservation (Roe et al., 2004), groundwater protection (Stevens, Barrett, and Willis, 1997), rainforest protection (Holmes, Zinkhan, and Mercer, 1998), ecosystem management (Stevens, 2000), species conservation (Adamowicz et al., 1998),

environmentally sensitive areas (Hanley et al., 1998), and nature-based tourism (Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2005).

The remainder of the study plan is organized as follows. First, we describe in detail the nature of the commodity that will be valued in the study. Next, we lay out our approach to data collection, including survey design, survey implementation, and sampling procedures. The plan concludes with a schedule for implementing the study and a draft survey instrument.

DESCRIPTION OF VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO BE VALUED

This section describes the nature of the good to be valued, which is one of the most important and difficult challenges of a visibility valuation study. Our study focuses on visibility improvements expected to occur in seven geographic regions -- each of which incorporates several national parks and wilderness areas -- due to the implementation of the Regional Haze Rule.

Because visibility improvements will need to be presented to the general public within a survey context, our discussion of visibility improvements to be valued necessarily involves two distinct steps. The first step is to characterize the expected visibility improvements associated with the Regional Haze Rule. This step ensures that the visibility improvements valued in the survey are based on actual changes expected to result from the implementation of the Rule. The second step is to distill these improvements into realistic, simplified scenarios that could be presented to survey respondents. After a brief review of the policy context, these two steps are described in detail below.

Expected Visibility Improvements Associated with the Regional Haze Rule

The Regional Haze Rule requires that each state develop an implementation plan establishing "reasonable progress goals" for visibility in each Class I area within the state and describing emissions reduction strategies designed to achieve these goals. The reasonable progress goals serve as benchmarks along a path designed to lead to natural visibility conditions by 2064. Natural visibility conditions are defined as the distribution of visibility that would exist at Class I areas in the absence of human-induced impairment. The Regional Haze Rule sets 2000 to 2004 as the "baseline" period against which progress towards natural visibility is to be measured. The first state implementation plans will be completed in the 2007-2008 time frame, and they will consider visibility improvements through 2018.

In establishing reasonable progress goals for visibility improvements, the Rule requires that states focus on improving visibility on the haziest days of the year (referred to as the "worst 20% days" and defined as all days falling below the 20th percentile of the visibility distribution) while preventing any degradation in visibility on the clearest days of the year (referred to as the "best 20% days" and defined as all days falling above the 80th percentile of the visibility distribution). More specifically, for the mean of the worst 20% days, the Rule requires that states consider visibility goals that would be consistent with a uniform rate of progress (i.e.,

linear through time) towards the mean of the worst 20% days under natural visibility conditions. For the mean of the best 20% days, the Rule requires that states consider visibility goals that would involve no deterioration in visibility.

Exhibit 1: Class 1 Areas

Nor th Ca sca de s NP Olympic NP Pasayten Wilderness Glacier NP Mount Rainier NP Lostw ood Goat Rocks Wilderness Scapegoat Wilderness Voyageurs NP UL Bend Medicine Lake Isle Royale NP Moosehorn Mount Hood Wilderness Gates of the Mountains Wilde Eagle Cap Wilderness Theodore Roosevelt NP Acadia NP Hells Canyon Wilderness Anaconda-Pintler Wildernes s Seney Great Gulf Wilderness President ial Range-Dry River Diamond Peak Wilderness Crater Lake NP Yel lowst one NPNorth Absaroka Wilderness Kalmiopsis Wilderness Lye Brook Wilde rne ss Redwood NP Lava Beds NM Grand Teton NP Teton Wilderness Bri dger Wil derness Badlands NP Lassen Volcanic NPCaribou Wilderness Jarbidge Wilderness Wi nd Cave NP Thousand Lakes Wilderness Mokelumne WildernessDesolation Wilderness Brigantine Rawah Wi lderness Rocky Mountain NP Flat Tops Wi lderness Yosemi te N P Ansel Adams Ea gles N est Wi lder ness Arches NP Shenandoah NP Sequoia NP Kings Canyon NP Zion NP Canyonlands NP James River Face Wilderness Pinnacles NM Ventana Wilderness West Elk Wilderness Dome Land Wilderness Me sa Ver d e N P Gr ea t Sa nd Dunes NM Mammoth Cave NP San Rafael Wilderness Gr and Ca nyon NP Wheeler Peak Wilderness Mingo Swanquarter Pecos Wilderness Hercules-Glades Wilderness Linville Gorge Wilderness Bandelier NM Shining Rock Wilderness Joshua Tree NM Upper Buffalo Wilderness Petrified Forest NP San Pedro Parks Wilderness Great Smoky Mountains NP Agua Tibia Wilderness Mazatzal Wildernes s Mount Baldy Wilderness Cohutta Wilderness Wichita Mountains Sipsey Wilderness Gila Wilderness Salt Creek Cape Romain Caney Creek Wilderness Saguaro NM Chiricahua NM White Mountain Wilderness Carlsbad Caverns NPGuadalupe Mountai ns NP Wolf Island Okefenokee Sai nt Marks

Bi g Bend NP Chassahowitzka

Everglades NP

The Rule stipulates that visibility goals should be expressed in "deciview" (dv) units. Deciviews can be calculated directly from measures of light extinction.1 An increase in deciviews corresponds to an increase in haze (and a decrease in visibility).

Baseline Visibility

The Rule specifies that the baseline distribution of visibility for each Class I area must be determined by examining monitoring data from the 2000 to 2004 period. Using monitoring data from the IMPROVE network for these years, we calculated the mean of the worst 20% days and the mean of the best 20% days for all Class I areas in the U.S.2 For each Class I area, we use data from the IMPROVE monitoring station specified in Table A-2 of EPA's "Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 2003a)." These visibility levels are mapped in Exhibits 2 and 3.

Natural Visibility

In the case of the natural distribution of visibility, the Rule requires that states develop and document a methodology for estimating mean visibility for the worst 20% days and the best 20% days. The EPA provides guidance for developing these estimates in "Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA, 2003b)." This guidance document also provides default estimates for each Class I area, and states may choose to use these default values rather than developing original estimates. For the purposes of this study, we assume states will adopt these default values for natural visibility.

Expected Improvement

The expected visibility improvements through 2064 for the worst 20% days can be calculated as the difference between the default natural visibility and the baseline visibility values presented in Exhibit 2. If states develop emissions reduction strategies that lead to a uniform rate of progress towards natural visibility, the expected improvement for the worst 20% days through 2018 (fourteen years from the end of the baseline period) can be calculated as 14/60 of the full improvement. These fourteen-year expected improvements for the worst 20% days are presented in Exhibit 4.

1 The relationship between visibility (V) measured in deciviews and light extinction

()bext measured in inverse megameters is given by: V = 10ln(bext /10 ).

2 These data were provided by National Park Service Air Resources Division, May 16, 2006.

The visibility improvements depicted in Exhibit 4 represent the foundation of the visibility policy scenarios that will be presented in our survey. These are the visibility improvements that are expected to occur at Class I areas by 2018 if states establish goals consistent with uniform rates of progress towards natural visibility. Thus, the first set of state implementation plans will likely consider emissions reductions expected to lead to visibility improvements similar to those presented in Exhibit 4, and this study would evaluate the benefits of those reductions.

It is important to note that the visibility improvements required by the rule and depicted in Exhibit 4 focus only on the worst 20% days. Moreover, households' values for visibility improvements could very well be influenced by visibility on the remaining 80% of the visibility distribution. As a result, it will be important to characterize the expected shift in the entire visibility distribution for the stated preference survey questions. We discuss our assumptions regarding these distributional shifts below.

Visibility Improvements to be Valued

The visibility improvements that will be valued in this study will be designed to be consistent with the visibility improvements expected to occur due to the implementation of the Regional Haze Rule. As it would be extremely difficult to communicate all details of the expected improvements to survey respondents, given their complexity in both time and space, we have developed draft valuation scenarios that involve simplified but realistic versions of the improvements.

Visibility Improvement Regions

The study will value visibility changes occurring within well-defined geographic regions, which we hereafter refer to as “visibility improvement regions.” The visibility improvement regions are geographic regions containing sets of Class I areas that are roughly homogenous with respect to current visibility levels and potentially controllable sources of visibility-impairing particles. To the extent possible, the regions exclude large cities in order to minimize the presence of large populations within the regions. By minimizing these populations, we hope to minimize the extent to which survey respondents might implicitly consider improvements in the health of residents of these regions when responding to the valuation questions. As the purpose of the study is to value visibility improvements alone, health considerations could bias our value estimates.

The visibility improvement regions selected for the survey are depicted in Exhibit 5. They include:

• a Southeast region covering the southern Appalachians;

• a Northeast region covering areas of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New York;

• a North Central region covering northern portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan;

• a Colorado Plateau region covering the four corners area;

• a Northern Rockies region covering portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming;

• a Pacific Northwest region covering portions of the Cascade Range in Washington and northern Oregon; and

• a Sierra Nevada region covering the Sierra Nevada Mountains in east central California.

Important characteristics of these seven visibility improvement regions are presented in Exhibit 6, including total land area, total population, average population density, and Class I areas located in the region.

Visibility changes will occur throughout the entire visibility improvement regions, not just in Class I areas within those regions. In addition, to reduce the complexity of communicating the visibility improvements to survey respondents, visibility levels are assumed to be uniform within each visibility improvement region.

The visibility improvement regions clearly do not include all Class I areas in the United States. Many Class I areas are geographically isolated from all other Class I areas (e.g., Everglades National Park (Florida), Wichita Mountains (Oklahoma), and Rainbow Lake (Wisconsin). Although it would technically be possible to develop a set of visibility improvement regions that would encompass these isolated areas, doing so would require that we either (1) specify very large visibility improvement regions, which would lead to regions that are less homogeneous with respect to visibility, regions that may not be affected by a single emissions abatement policy, and regions that would likely include major population centers, or (2) specify a very large number of smaller visibility improvement regions, which would substantially increase the cost of the survey.

Exhibit 6: Visibility Improvement Regions

Visibility (dv) Visibility 20% 20% Improvement Area Population Persons per Worst Best Region (sq. mi.) (2003) Sq. Mi. Class I Areas Days Average Days Southeast 158,337 16,024,000 101 Cohutta Wilderness 28.79 21.13 13.79 Dolly Sods Wilderness 27.63 19.87 12.71 Great Smoky Mountains National Park 28.77 21.07 13.65 James River Face Wilderness 27.69 20.77 14.35 Joyce-Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 28.77 21.07 13.65 Linville Gorge Wilderness 27.56 19.26 11.19 Mammoth Cave National Park 29.94 22.97 16.65 Otter Creek Wilderness 27.63 19.87 12.71 Shenandoah National Park 27.88 19.52 11.35 Shining Rock Wilderness 26.88 17.07 7.18 Sipsey Wilderness 27.72 21.57 15.70 Northeast 78,330 3,541,000 45 Acadia National Park 22.32 14.13 8.08 Great Gulf Wilderness 22.24 13.65 7.49 Lye Brook Wilderness 23.69 13.77 6.20 Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge 21.19 14.05 8.49 Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness 22.24 13.65 7.49 Roosevelt Campobello International Park 21.19 14.05 8.49 North Central 85,682 778,000 9 Boundary Waters Canoe Area 19.92 12.32 6.21 Isle Royale National Park 20.28 12.26 6.03 Seney National Wildlife Refuge 23.60 13.76 6.50 Voyageurs National Park 18.46 11.84 6.30 Colorado 67,038 540,000 8 Arches National Park 11.84 8.00 4.72 Plateau Bryce Canyon National Park 12.04 7.68 3.78 Canyonlands National Park 11.84 8.00 4.72 Capitol Reef National Park 10.71 7.59 4.58 Grand Canyon National Park 12.04 7.41 3.20 Mesa Verde National Park 13.33 8.87 5.27 Weminuche Wilderness 10.84 7.28 4.06 Zion National Park 13.37 9.02 5.24 Northern 118,653 904,000 8 Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness 12.90 7.35 2.78 Rockies Bob Marshall Wilderness 13.90 8.49 4.11 Bridger Wilderness 11.44 6.99 3.17 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness 13.76 8.64 3.83 Fitzpatrick Wilderness 11.44 6.99 3.17 Gates of the Mountains Wilderness 11.59 6.70 2.72 Glacier National Park 19.37 12.89 7.02 Grand Teton National Park 11.91 7.48 3.63 Mission Mountains Wilderness 13.90 8.49 4.11 North Absaroka Wilderness 11.72 7.03 3.03

Exhibit 6: Visibility Improvement Regions Visibility (dv) Visibility 20% 20% Improvement Area Population Persons per Worst Best Region (sq. mi.) (2003) Sq. Mi. Class I Areas Days Average Days Northern Rockies (Continued) Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 11.91 7.48 3.63 Scapegoat 13.90 8.49 4.11 Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 12.90 7.35 2.78 Teton Wilderness 11.91 7.48 3.63 Washakie Wilderness 11.72 7.03 3.03 Yellowstone National Park 11.91 7.48 3.63 Pacific 55,478 6,214,000 112 Alpine Lake Wilderness 17.55 11.11 4.74 Northwest Diamond Peak Wilderness 13.75 7.55 2.52 Glacier Peak Wilderness 14.00 8.11 2.76 Goat Rocks Wilderness 12.84 6.64 1.62 Mount Adams Wilderness 12.84 6.64 1.62 Mount Hood Wilderness 14.86 7.93 2.03 Mount Jefferson Wilderness 14.94 8.56 2.18 Mount Rainier National Park 18.05 11.60 4.66 Mount Washington Wilderness 14.94 8.56 2.18 North Cascades National Park 14.00 8.11 2.76 Pasayten Wilderness 14.69 8.00 2.83 Three Sisters Wilderness 14.94 8.56 2.18 Sierra Nevada 35,675 1,928,000 54 Ansel Adams Wilderness 14.89 8.91 3.08 Desolation Wilderness 12.76 8.02 3.44 Dome Land Wilderness 19.15 12.65 5.30 Emigrant Wilderness 16.78 10.32 3.50 Hoover Wilderness 12.90 7.06 2.44 John Muir Wilderness 14.89 8.91 3.08 Kaiser Wilderness 14.89 8.91 3.08 Kings Canyon National Park 23.46 16.66 8.52 Mokelumne Wilderness 12.76 8.02 3.44 Sequoia National Park 23.46 16.66 8.52 Yosemite National Park 16.78 10.32 3.50

Improvements for the Worst 20% and the Best 20% Days

Within each visibility improvement region, the visibility change evaluated would be a shift in the visibility distribution associated with 14 years of progress toward natural visibility conditions at a prominent Class I area in the region.3 We evaluate the expected improvements

3 Prominent Class I areas are used only to calculate the expected improvement in visibility for each region. As we discuss in a later section, the photographs used to represent the shift will portray scenes at three Class I areas.

occurring over a 14-year time period because that is the length of time that will be the focus of states' implementation plans (2004 through 2018). Baseline and natural visibility levels at prominent Class I areas within each of the seven visibility improvement regions are shown in Exhibit 7. Baseline visibility levels are calculated empirically using the 2000-2004 IMPROVE data, while natural visibility levels were obtained from U.S. EPA (2003b). 4

Fourteen years of progress for the worst 20% days would be determined by assuming that the mean of the worst 20% days improves linearly through time on a path that would lead to natural conditions by 2064. For example, for the Great Smoky Mountains, the mean of the 20% worst days for the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 28.77 dV, while the mean of the 20% best days is 13.65 dV. EPA recommends using 11.80 dV for the mean of the worst 20% days and 3.40 dV for the mean of the best 20% days as default values to represent natural conditions at the Great Smoky Mountains. Thus, with 14 years of progress toward natural conditions, mean visibility on the worst 20% days would be calculated as:

28.77 −11.80 24.81dv = 28.77 −14* 2064 − 2004

and mean visibility on the best 20% days would be calculated as:

13.65 − 3.40 11.26dv = 13.65 −14* . 2064 − 2004

4 In Appendix B of U.S. EPA (2003b), EPA presents the 10th and 90th percentiles of the natural visibility distribution for each Class I area. The 10th and 90th percentiles are not the same as the mean of the worst 20% days and the mean of the best 20% days. Thus, in all calculations of natural visibility, we calculate the mean of the worst 20% days by evaluating the expectation of a normally distributed random variable with mean and standard deviation provided in U.S. EPA (2003b), conditional on visibility being below the 20th percentile. We calculate the mean of the best 20% days similarly. These calculations indicate that for all Class I areas, the mean of the best 20% days and the mean of the worst 20% days are both 0.12 standard deviations further from the mean than the 90th and 10th percentiles presented in the EPA document, a relatively minor adjustment.

Exhibit 7 Baseline and Natural Visibility at Prominent Class I Areas in Visibility Improvement Regions

Visibility Mean Visibility (Deciviews) Improvement 0th-20th 80th-100th Region Percentile Percentile Overall Class I Area Days Days Mean Northern Acadia Appalachians Baseline (2000-2004) 8.08 22.32 14.13 Natural (2064) 3.41 11.81 7.61 Southern Great Smoky Mts. Appalachians Baseline (2000-2004) 13.65 28.77 21.07 Natural (2064) 3.40 11.80 7.60 North Central Boundary Waters Baseline (2000-2004) 6.21 19.92 12.32 Natural (2064) 3.17 11.57 7.37 Cascades Mount Rainier Baseline (2000-2004) 4.66 18.05 11.60 Natural (2064) 2.54 8.14 5.34 Sierras Yosemite Baseline (2000-2004) 3.50 16.78 10.32 Natural (2064) 1.78 7.38 4.58 Colorado Plateau Grand Canyon Baseline (2000-2004) 3.20 12.04 7.41 Natural (2064) 1.59 7.19 4.39 Northern Yellowstone Rockies Baseline (2000-2004) 3.63 11.91 7.48 Natural (2064) 1.76 7.36 4.56

Improvements for the Remainder of the Distribution

There is no reason to expect that public values for visibility improvements depend only on visibility levels on the best 20% days and the worst 20% days. As a result, it is important to characterize the entire shift in the distribution of visibility. While there are an infinite number of potential distributional shifts associated with each improvement in the worst 20% and best 20% days, we follow EPA's lead and assume that the distribution of improved visibility will be normal. Given the normality assumption, knowledge of mean visibility on the worst and best 20% days allows one to determine the remainder of the distribution of improved visibility.5 The parameters of these improved distributions are presented in Exhibit 8.

5 As the normal distribution is symmetric, the mean can be calculated as the average of 1) the mean of the worst 20% days, and 2) the mean of the best 20% days. The standard deviation

In Exhibit 9, we compare the baseline and improved distributions of visibility in each of the seven visibility improvement regions. The baseline distributions are determined empirically using the 2000-2004 IMPROVE data. The improved distributions are calculated by evaluating the conditional expectation of visibility for each segment of the distribution, given the parameters in Exhibit 8.

Exhibit 8 Expected Distribution of Visibility in 2018 at Prominent Class I Areas

Visibility Standard Deviation Improvement Prominent Class I Mean Visibility of Visibility Region Area (Deciviews) (Deciviews) Northern Acadia 13.43 4.60 Appalachians Southern Great Smoky 18.03 4.84 Appalachians Mountains North Central Boundary Waters 11.74 4.45 Cascades Mount Rainier 9.95 4.13 Sierras Yosemite 8.84 4.10 Colorado Plateau Grand Canyon 6.87 2.89 Northern Rockies Yellowstone 7.02 2.73

(σ ) can then be obtained by standardizing the mean of the best 20% days, setting the result equal to the mean of the bottom 20% of a standard normal distribution (-1.40) and solving for the unknown σ . The mean of the bottom 20 percent of the standard normal distribution is obtained by calculating the expected value of a standard normal variable (x), conditional on the variable being less than -0.842 (the 20th percentile of the standard normal distribution):

−0.842 −0.842 x2 x − xf (x)dx e 2 dx ∫ ∫ 2π −1.40 = E[]x | x < −0.842 = −∞ = −∞ . −0.842 0.2 ∫ f (x)dx −∞

Continuing with the Great Smoky Mountains example from above, the mean of the improved distribution would be calculated as 18.1 = (24.9 + 11.3)/2 and the standard deviation would be calculated as 4.86 = (11.3 - 18.1)/(-1.40).

Exhibit 9 Expected Shift in Visibility Distribution Through 2018 Due to Regional Haze Rule

Mean Visibility (dv) 0th-20th 20th-40th 40th-60th 60th-80th 80th-100th Overall Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Mean Class I Area Days Days Days Days Days (dv) Acadia Baseline (2000-2004) 8.08 10.98 12.97 16.10 22.32 14.13 Improved (2018) 6.99 10.98 13.43 15.88 19.87 13.43 Change -1.09 0 +0.46 -0.22 -2.45 -0.70

Great Smokies Baseline (2000-2004) 13.65 18.06 21.02 23.72 28.77 21.07 Improved (2018) 11.26 15.46 18.03 20.61 24.81 18.03 Change -2.39 -2.6 -2.99 -3.11 -3.96 -3.04

Boundary Waters Baseline (2000-2004) 6.21 9.34 11.56 14.63 19.92 12.32 Improved (2018) 5.50 9.36 11.74 14.11 17.97 11.74 Change -0.71 +0.02 +0.18 -0.52 -1.95 -0.58

Mount Ranier Baseline (2000-2004) 4.66 8.24 11.76 15.04 18.05 11.60 Improved (2018) 4.17 7.75 9.95 12.16 15.74 9.95 Change -0.49 -0.49 -1.81 -2.88 -2.31 -1.65

Yosemite Baseline (2000-2004) 3.50 7.34 10.57 13.18 16.78 10.32 Improved (2018) 3.10 6.65 8.84 11.03 14.58 8.84 Change -0.40 -0.69 -1.73 -2.15 -2.20 -1.48

Grand Canyon Baseline (2000-2004) 3.20 5.45 7.38 8.86 12.04 7.41 Improved (2018) 2.83 5.33 6.87 8.41 10.91 6.87 Change -0.37 -0.12 -0.51 -0.45 -1.13 -0.54

Yellowstone Baseline (2000-2004) 3.63 5.68 7.16 8.82 11.91 7.48 Improved (2018) 3.20 5.57 7.02 8.48 10.85 7.02 Change -0.43 -0.11 -0.14 -0.34 -1.06 -0.46

DATA COLLECTION

Information about WTP for visibility improvements will be obtained through a mail survey of U.S. households, the results of which will be calibrated using data from a mail/in- person response rate pilot study. The target population for the survey will be all households within the continental U.S, and the sample frame will be all households within the continental U.S. with listed phone numbers. The study will be implemented in four stages:

(1) focus groups,

(2) response rate pilot study,

(3) national pilot study, and

(4) main survey.

After briefly discussing the selection of the survey mode, these four steps are described in detail below.

Selection of Survey Mode

The study team selected a mail survey after considering a variety of alternative approaches to surveying U.S. households. In particular, careful consideration was given to two alternative approaches designed to minimize non-response bias: (1) a mail survey with an in- person follow-up of non-respondents and (2) an Internet-based survey with an in-person follow- up of non-respondents. Due to cost considerations, a full nationwide in-person survey was not considered.

The first alternative approach, a mail survey with an in-person follow-up of non- respondents, would offer the advantage of increasing the overall response rate for the main survey. This is the methodology used in the 1990 U.S. Census and the 2000 U.S. Census. Rather than conducting an in-person survey of all mail survey non-respondents, one could draw a sample of the mail survey non-respondents for the follow-up survey.6 In order to further reduce the cost of the in-person follow-up, the mail survey could use a geographically clustered sample design similar to that used for in-person surveys. That is, one would sample contiguous geographic areas such as counties or groups of counties (e.g., clusters), then randomly sample households within each selected cluster. With this type of sample design, mail survey non- respondents would not be widely dispersed geographically, thus reducing costs for the follow-up survey.

Unfortunately, unless a very low sampling rate and a small number of clusters are used in the follow-up survey, this alternative would be nearly as costly as conducting a full nationwide

6 Random sampling of non-respondents for a follow-up survey was first suggested by Hansen and Hurwitz (1946). Subsampling nonrespondents is described in several major sampling texts such as Cochran (1977, pp. 370-374), Kish (1965, pp. 556-557), and Lohr (1999, pg. 263).

in-person survey. There are two factors that combine to increase costs. First, the in-person follow-up survey would focus on non-respondents (from the mail survey), and this group would be more difficult to contact than a fresh sample of households. Second, even with geographic clustering, interviewers would need to be stationed in many locations throughout the country for several weeks.

The second alternative considered by the study team was an Internet-based survey with an in-person follow-up of non-respondents. The type of Internet survey considered was one where a panel of pre-selected households regularly completes Internet surveys. The panel is recruited via a random-digit dial (RDD) telephone survey, and recruited households without internet access are given access free of charge. This approach avoids the coverage bias that would result if only households that currently have internet access were sampled. To our knowledge, the only company that currently maintains such a panel is Knowledge Networks, Incorporated, which has a panel of adults who complete several surveys each month.

The primary disadvantage of an Internet survey is the potential non-response bias due to very low overall response rates. Although response rates of 70 to 80 percent could probably be expected from the primary survey, the RDD telephone survey used to recruit panelists would likely be on the order of 20 percent, resulting in overall response rates of 15 percent or lower. The magnitude of the resulting non-response bias in a visibility valuation survey is unknown, but it could potentially be significant. This issue is currently being investigated by other researchers (Cameron et al. 2005).

In-person follow-ups with non-respondents would increase the overall response rate from an Internet survey, but the time lag between RDD panel recruitment and the implementation of the Internet survey would lead to substantial complications. The panelists currently completing Internet surveys were recruited up to two years ago. As a result, a subset of non-respondents from the original RDD telephone survey would be impossible to contact: they will have moved, switched households (due to a marriage or divorce), died, or changed telephone service. Furthermore, as the original telephone survey used a standard RDD design (rather than cluster sampling), non-respondents would be widely dispersed geographically, thus increasing the cost of conducting an in-person follow-up.

An additional concern with an Internet survey results from the need to display high quality photographs to respondents. The screens that the respondents are viewing during Internet access may vary dramatically with respect to age, image quality, resolution, and cleanliness. Thus, in order to carefully control the visibility changes that the respondents are evaluating, photographs would need to be mailed to the respondents. However, this forces respondents to identify and save the relevant mailing, then view the photographs wherever the computer or Internet access device is located.

When compared with these two alternative approaches, it is our opinion that a well- designed mail survey provides an attractive combination of a response rate on the order of 40 to 50 percent and a low cost per response. However, we recognize that non-response bias remains a potential issue, and we have designed a pilot study to address this issue. The pilot study will involve a comparison of in-person and mail survey responses using a split sample and identical sampling frames for the two modes. This pilot study is described in detail in a later section.

Focus Groups

The survey instrument will be developed through a series of focus groups. Focus groups are a qualitative data collection technique frequently used to inform the design of stated preference valuation survey instruments. They are organized as group discussions led by an experienced moderator. Focus groups allow researchers to obtain important feedback on issues such as question wording, question sequence, respondents' ability to understand quantitative and qualitative information presented in the visibility valuation scenario, and researchers' interpretation of responses.

We will conduct 12 focus groups in three different cities: Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, and Sacramento, CA. In each city, four groups will be conducted, two each on two consecutive evenings. These particular locations were selected because (1) focus group facilities are readily available in these areas, and (2) these three cities allow us to obtain information from individuals living in three different regions of the country. Focus groups are a qualitative research tool and it is not necessary to obtain a representative sample of cities. However, having participants from three different regions of the country will allow us to develop our survey using respondents who are likely to differ with respect to their experiences with visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.

Each focus group will take place in a professional facility with an adjacent viewing room, last approximately two hours, and include 8 to 10 adults recruited from the local population through a random selection of phone numbers (not from a database or panel). In order to maintain consistency, the same moderator will be used for all focus group discussions. In order to avoid bias in presentation and interpretation, this moderator will be independent of the core research team. No information about the purpose of the groups will be provided during the recruitment process, other than that the groups will focus on "a current public policy issue." Each focus group participant will receive a $75 honorarium. Local marketing firms will recruit 13 individuals for each group with the expectation that 8 to 10 of these individuals will ultimately attend. The following criteria will be applied in recruiting participants from each city:

• Age: Approximately 30% of the participants will be 20 to 34 years old, approximately 30% of the participants will be 35 to 49 years old and approximately 40% of the participants will be 50 or older.

• Education: Approximately 50% of the participants will have a high school education or less, approximately 25% of the participants will have a some college or an associate degree, and approximately 25% of the participants will have a bachelor's degree (or greater).

• Income: Approximately 1/3 of the participants will be from households with annual incomes less than $30,000, approximately 1/3 of the participants will be from households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $65,000, and approximately 1/3 of the participants will be from households with annual incomes greater than $65,000.

• Gender: Approximately 50% of the participants will be male and approximately 50% will be female.

• Focus group experience: None of the participants will have participated in a focus group within the last two years.

The first four recruitment criteria (age, education, income, and gender) are designed to ensure that the characteristics of the participants approximately mirror those of the general population of the United States (based on recent Census data). The last criterion (focus group experience) is designed to avoid habitual focus group participants. The draft telephone screener that will be used to recruit focus group participants is attached in Appendix A.

The focus groups in the three cities will be implemented sequentially, with approximately three weeks allowed for survey modifications between each city. Prior to conducting a set of focus groups in each city, the research team will develop a "discussion guide" and a "moderator script." The discussion guide is a packet of survey-related materials that will be distributed to all focus group participants. It will contain draft survey questions and explanatory text, and it will form the basis of much of the focus group discussion. The moderator script is a set of instructions that will provide guidance to the moderator during the discussion. Prior to the second evening's focus groups, the research team will meet to discuss the results obtained from the first two focus groups. The team will then revise the discussion guide and moderator script based on the experiences from the first evening.

The first set of focus groups will be held in Atlanta, GA. This location was selected for the first set of focus groups because it is located close to the Southern Appalachians visibility improvement region, and we expect the visibility improvement scenario for this region to be relatively straightforward. That is, there is a relatively large area of the Southern Appalachians where visibility levels are similar and where a plausible link can be made to a single set of emissions sources. In contrast, in the western U.S., visibility exhibits a greater degree of variation across geographic areas and the links to emissions sources are more complicated. Thus, having the first set of focus groups in Atlanta provides an opportunity to evaluate the basic structure of the valuation scenario before moving to regions where the visibility improvement scenarios are likely to be more complicated.

The Atlanta focus groups will be primarily exploratory in nature, testing various approaches to presenting information to respondents. The first night will include draft survey questions and explanatory text associated with a visibility improvement scenario that focuses on the Southern Appalachians. Specific goals of the first set of focus groups include:

• Evaluate the wording of draft survey questions and the visibility valuation scenario.

• Investigate respondents' reactions to the scenes selected to depict the visibility improvement.

• Investigate the best approach to presenting information about the distribution of visibility to respondents.

• Investigate whether or not respondents are able to focus on visibility rather than the other impacts of air pollution on human health, vegetation, animals, or geologic resources.

• Evaluate the degree to which respondents believe that visibility improvements will only occur within the designated "visibility improvement region."

• Evaluate whether electric bills, increased energy costs, taxes, or other mechanisms would be successful as a payment mechanism.

• Assess appropriate levels for the attributes in the choice questions.

The draft moderator script for this set of focus groups is provided in Appendix B, while a draft discussion guide is provided in Appendix C. The discussion guide is an aide that the moderator will distribute to participants to stimulate participation. As the focus group plans will evolve in response to information obtained during the Atlanta focus groups, we do not present discussion guides or detailed goals for the Chicago or Sacramento focus groups at this time. However, our current plan is to have the focus groups in Chicago and Sacramento explore the following topics:

• Respondents' ability to comprehend scenarios with visibility improvements occurring in multiple regions.

• Respondents' reaction to scenarios involving visibility improvements occurring far from their current residence.

• Respondents' reaction to the complete survey instrument, including the overall flow and length of the instrument.

Additional goals and detailed plans for the Chicago and Sacramento focus groups will be developed after the Atlanta focus groups have been completed.

Response Rate Pilot Study

The Response Rate Pilot Study will be conducted in Syracuse and Phoenix, and it will involve a split-sample comparison of the data obtained from self-administered questionnaires collected through mail and in-person survey modes. The study will be designed to develop a calibration equation that would be used to adjust responses to the nationwide mail survey data for potential non-response bias.

One potential concern with a mail survey is that individuals can examine the contents of the survey before choosing whether or not to respond. This could lead to non-response bias if the individuals who choose to respond are more interested in the survey topic (e.g., improving visibility) than those who choose not to respond. In the Response Rate Pilot Study, the individuals randomly assigned to the in-person survey group will not be aware of the survey topic when choosing whether or not to respond. Thus, if other potential mode differences are held constant, observed differences between the mail and in-person responses can be attributed to non-response bias.

The Response Rate Pilot Study would be conducted by selecting 8 neighborhoods in each of the two metropolitan areas, enumerating all owner-occupied households in each

neighborhood, taking a simple random sample of 100 owner-occupied households from each neighborhood, then randomly assigning one-half of each neighborhood sample to a group of mail survey households (50 households) and a group of in-person survey households (50 households). Using this strategy, the total sample will consist of 1600 households – (8 neighborhoods) x (2 cities) x (100 households)). Assuming a response rate of 50 percent, we would obtain approximately 800 completed surveys. With this sampling approach, the sample frame for the two survey modes would be identical.

Owner-occupied households would be used in the pilot in order to ensure identical sample frames for the two modes. With owner-occupied households, residents' names could be identified from city tax records, and both the in-person and the mail surveys could target these specific named individuals. In contrast, with households that are not owner-occupied, the names of the residents of each household would be unknown. Consequently, it would not be possible to name the individual that the mail survey was directed to. Differences between individuals who are likely to answer the door and individuals who are likely to open the mail could then obscure the impact of response rates.

The mail pilot survey would be implemented using a methodology identical to the methodology used in the nationwide mail survey (see discussion below). The in-person pilot survey would be conducted in a manner that would minimize the differences between the two modes. That is, rather than administering the survey through a personal interview, the interviewer would hand the questionnaire to the respondent and ask the respondent to fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire would be identical to the one mailed to respondents. The respondent would place the completed survey in a "ballot box" carried by the interviewer, thus minimizing the potential for social desirability bias and mimicking the “self-administered” nature of the mail survey, as much as possible.

The in-person pilot survey will be administered by experienced personal interviewers. Unlike most on-site surveys, the interviewers will not actually administer the survey. However, they must still be experienced and knowledgeable about issues specific to conducting on-site interviews (e.g., identifying the appropriate respondent, initial contacts with the household to ensure cooperation, importance of repeated follow-ups at different times of the day and days of the week to ensure survey completions, remaining neutral in all interactions with the respondent, personal safety). To ensure the high level of quality control, interviewers will receive project- specific training from the research team. This training consists of a thorough review and discussion of the study objectives, study procedures, questionnaire and poster, and other documents that the field staff will be required to use during the course of the study. During the actual data collection, the research team have a supervisor on-site to assist with any questions or issues interviewers might have.

After completing the Response Rate Pilot Study, each unique neighborhood/mode combination would be a single observation, so that 16 mail survey administration observations and 16 in-person survey administration observations could be analyzed, allowing us to estimate the parameters of a calibration relationship such as:

MeanWTP = f (Re sponse Rate, SurveyMode)

The pilot will need to provide sufficient variation in response rates across neighborhoods in order to estimate the parameters of this relationship. This variation would be obtained through the use of different monetary incentive in each of the neighborhoods, ranging from $0 to $35 in five dollar increments. Mean WTP from the nationwide mail survey could then be calibrated using the response rate actually obtained and the estimated parameters of the above relationship.

National Pilot Study

The purpose of the National Pilot Study is to implement a trial run of the main survey in order to identify potential problems or difficulties. Given the substantial logistical challenges associated with a major survey effort, it is important to conduct a pilot study that fully mimics the main survey. The pilot study will be identical to the main survey with respect to all survey materials, survey mailings, follow-up telephone interviews with non-respondents, and data entry. The only difference between the two surveys will be a much smaller sample size for the National Pilot Study. The National Pilot Study will have a sample size of 600 households (i.e., approximately 300 completed surveys), divided equally among the nine versions of the survey instrument described below.7

We will conduct a preliminary analysis of the data from the National Pilot Study in order to evaluate the appropriateness of the response categories for all questions and of the attribute levels used for the choice questions. If the analysis indicates that certain attributes are not appropriate, they will be adjusted prior to the main survey.

Main Survey

The main survey will be a mail survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens 18 years of age and older. The random sample will be purchased from a professional sampling vendor.8 Based on previous experience, up to 15% of these types of samples can be expected to be bad or unusable addresses. Each survey package will include an introductory letter, a survey instrument that takes approximately 30 minutes to complete (approximately 25 questions), a fold-out poster illustrating visibility changes, and a stamped envelope to return the completed questionnaire.

7 Note that the Response Rate Pilot Study can not fulfill the traditional "trail run" role of a pilot study because it will not be nationwide and it will only focus on one version of the survey instrument.

8 Candidate vendors include Acxiom, Experian, Survey Sampling Int’l, and Genesys, all of whom are high quality vendors with high population coverage rates (85% to 95%), but which vary in the methods used to assemble lists and in the percent of their population with telephone numbers.

Although the draft survey instrument will be developed and refined through several sets of focus group, we currently envision a survey with four distinct sections, described in detail below.

Section A: Introduction/Warm-up

This section will consist of simple, straightforward questions designed to engage respondents in the survey while avoiding excessive text or explanatory materials. The first few questions will focus on the respondent's visits to natural areas with scenic vistas. Such questions should be simple and enjoyable to answer. They will be followed by questions about the respondent's preferences for federal government spending. The questions about federal government spending serve two purposes: (1) they provide some indication of the respondent's desire to protect the environment, thus providing a check on the analysis of the valuation questions, and (2) they remind the respondent of substitute public goods before focusing on visibility.

Section B: Introduction to Haze

This section will describe what haze actually is and where it comes from, explain how it can impact national parks and wilderness areas, and describe how it can vary over the course of a single year. The goal is to use a combination of explanatory text, illustrative photographs, and simple questions to present this information in a manner that is complete, unbiased, and interesting. The questions in this section are designed to engage the respondent and evaluate the respondent's understanding of the issues presented.

Section C: Programs to Reduce Haze

This section is designed to obtain information about the respondent's preferences for government programs designed to reduce haze in national parks and wilderness areas. The section begins with a general discussion of various actions that could lead to reductions in haze. Although later questions will focus on specific geographic areas, the introductory text in this section explains that haze-reduction efforts are being considered throughout the country. This will encourage the respondent to consider substitute visibility improvements when responding to questions about WTP for improvements in specific geographic areas. In order to encourage the respondent to begin to consider the possibility that he or she would actually have to pay a portion of the costs of such actions, the survey describes several mechanisms whereby haze-reduction actions could increase costs for consumers.

The general discussion of haze-reduction actions is followed by a section that describes a haze reduction program in a specific geographic region. This section will vary across the nine versions of the survey instrument. In the draft survey instrument presented in Appendix D, the focus is on improvements occurring in the Southern Appalachians. The program involves federal government grants to owners of power plants, industries, and vehicles that encourage the adoption of pollution control equipment. The use of a federal government grant program is designed to allow for the use of a credible payment vehicle that will require households throughout the country to pay for the improvements: higher federal taxes. Although it would be possible to describe programs focused on utilities and higher electricity rates, the payment

vehicle for such a program would likely not seem credible to survey respondents living in areas far from the Southern Appalachians, such as respondents in the Pacific Northwest.

Finally, the survey points the respondent to a fold-out poster illustrating four different haze reduction programs (see example at end of Appendix D). At the top of the poster, there will be three rows of 4" x 6" photographs, with five photographs in each row. Each row will depict a single view under five different levels of computer-generated visibility impairment. The three views will be selected so that one depicts a prominent Class I Area from the visibility improvement region and the other two depict less prominent scenes thought to be generally representative of views within the region. In the case of the Southern Appalachians, the selected views are from Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, and Cohutta Wilderness Area.

Photographs from the three scenes will be digitally modified using WinHaze so that the visibility levels are consistent with mean baseline visibility for the 0th to 20th percentile days (Photo A), 20th to 40th percentile days (Photo B), 40th to 60th percentile days (Photo C), 60th to 80th percentile days (Photo D), and 80th to 100th percentile days (Photo E) at the prominent Class I Area.9 For example, as Exhibit 9 indicates, mean baseline visibility levels associated with these days for Great Smoky Mountains National Park are 13.65dv, 18.06dv, 21.02dv, 23.72dv, and 28.77dv, respectively. As a result, the digitally modified photographs depict Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, and Cohutta Wilderness Area at these five visibility levels.

Below the photographs, a table indicates the percent of days that would be associated with these visibility levels under five different visibility improvement programs, with the first row representing no change from current conditions.10 As the Regional Haze Rule focuses on the worst 20% days, the scenarios representing improved conditions will all depict visibility improvements on the worst 20% days that are consistent with the improved visibility levels in Exhibit 9. These improvements will be constructed by shifting days from Photo E (the worst visibility) to Photo D (the second worst visibility) until the appropriate mean visibility is achieved for the worst 20% days.

For example, for the Southern Appalachians visibility improvement region, we calculate that mean visibility for Great Smoky Mountains National Park on the 20% worst days will be 24.81dv (Exhibit 9) in year 2018. This visibility level could be achieved (approximately) using the existing photographs by assigning 4% of all days to Photo E and shifting the other 16% of all days previously assigned to Photo E to Photo D.11 For the remainder of the photographs, the

9 WinHaze was developed by John Molenar of Air Resource Specialists.

10 During the focus groups, we will explore whether respondents find it easier to understand the percentage of days or the absolute number of days.

11 Mean visibility on the worst 20% days, as seen by the respondent, would then be calculated as:

allocation of days would vary by scenario. This variation would allow us to evaluate the value of various changes in the distribution of visibility that are consistent with a given improvement in the 20% worst days.

After explaining the poster with the visibility improvement scenarios, three separate choice questions are presented to the respondent. Each choice question presents two visibility improvement programs and an option described as "no change." The visibility improvement programs are characterized by the levels associated with five different attributes:

• Visibility: The visibility attribute describes the distribution of visibility under the program (i.e., the number of days at each visibility level). The respondent is referred to the fold-out poster for details (discussed above).

• Health: The health attribute describes temporary health effects for visitors and residents of the visibility improvement region. This attribute is deliberately kept vague, with only two levels: "very minor" and "none." This attribute will be set equal to "very minor" in our analysis of hypothetical programs in order to exclude health from our benefit estimates.

• Timing: The timing attribute describes when the improvement would occur. This attribute will allow RPOs to evaluate the impact on benefits of accelerating or delaying visibility improvement efforts. This attribute will have four possible levels: 5, 10, 15, and 20 years from now.

• Cost: This attribute describes the annual household cost of the program. The cost is described as beginning the year the program is implemented and continuing as long as the program remains in place. The appropriate level for the cost attribute will be explored during the focus groups.

• Scope: This attribute describes the geographic scope of the visibility program. The program is either confined to the visibility improvement region or it is national (with visibility change similar to those presented occurring in national parks and wilderness areas nationwide).

Section D: Demographics

This section is designed to obtain standard demographic information from the respondent. Answers to these questions will be used to evaluate the overall quality of the sample (through comparisons with U.S. Census data). They will also be used in the analysis of responses to the choice questions, as preferences for visibility improvements may be related to demographic characteristics.

⎛ 4% ⎞ ⎛ 16% ⎞ 24.73 = 28.77 *⎜ ⎟ + 23.72*⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 20% ⎠ ⎝ 20% ⎠

Sample Size and Organization

The sample size for the survey will be 3,000 individuals. Assuming a 50 percent response rate is achieved, this will result in approximately 1,500 completed surveys. For comparison, the Chestnut and Rowe (1990) visibility survey conducted for NPS had 1,632 respondents. The sample for the mail survey will be divided evenly into eight groups, with each group receiving a survey that focuses on visibility changes in a different geographic area. Analysis of responses from each group will provide independent estimates of U.S. households' WTP for visibility changes within a particular geographic area, assuming that visibility in all other areas remains constant.

Seven of the groups will receive surveys that focus on visibility changes in each of the seven visibility improvement regions. WTP estimates from these groups would be used to support benefits analysis at the level of the regional planning organization (RPO) or state. For example, the regional planning organization in the Southeast will need to analyze various options for improving visibility in the Southern Appalachian region. In order to estimate the benefits of these improvements, they would use the WTP estimates that we obtained from the group of respondents receiving surveys focusing on visibility improvements in the Southern Appalachians. Although these estimates are specific to the Southern Appalachians, they will be obtained from a national probability sample, so they will incorporate benefits to all households in the U.S. If possible, we will also provide benefit estimates specific to households in the Southeast, as these households may be paying the bulk of the costs of the local improvements.

One of the groups will receive a survey that focuses on visibility changes occurring in all four of the visibility improvement regions located in the West. WTP estimates from this group would support benefits analysis for the western RPO (WRAP), which encompasses these four visibility improvement regions. WTP estimates that include changes in all four regions would be useful to WRAP, as WRAP will be evaluating policies that could impact visibility in all four of these regions in various ways. Thus, it will be important to account for the possibility that visibility changes in these regions are substitutes for one another.

Survey Mailings

The main survey will involve up to five separate mailings, with the fourth and fifth mailings described below sent only to non-respondents. The mailings will consist of: (1) a pre- survey notification, (2) the initial mailing of the survey instrument with a $5 incentive, (3) a thank you/reminder postcard, (4) a replacement survey and reminder letter for non-respondents, and (5) a second replacement survey (via Priority Mail) and reminder letter for non-respondents. In addition to the mailings, nonrespondents will receive a telephone call urging them to complete the survey. This call will also be used to collect data on some key items in the survey in order to determine the characteristics of nonresponders. This call will commence one week after the first replacement survey is mailed and continue until one week after the second replacement survey is mailed. The schedule for the main survey is depicted in Exhibit 10.

Exhibit 10: Main Survey Schedule

Date Survey Item Purpose Day 1 Pre-survey • Notify respondents that survey will be arriving notice • Eliminate bad addresses Day 7 Survey • Deliver survey instrument instrument • Deliver cash incentive Day 14 Thank • Thank those who have already responded. you/Reminder • Remind non-respondents to complete the survey postcard Day 21 Survey • Replacement survey and reminder for non- instrument respondents Day 35 Survey • Second replacement survey and reminder for non- instrument respondents (via Priority Mail) Days 27-42 Telephone • Telephone call to non-respondents to urge them to survey complete the mail survey.

Strategy for Maximizing Response Rate

Our survey implementation plan contains several strategies to increase the survey response rate and minimize the potential for non-response bias

• Respondent friendly questionnaire. One of the essential elements for achieving high response rates is a respondent-friendly questionnaire. One of the major objectives of the focus groups will be to ensure the questions are clear and easy to comprehend, the question ordering creates a sense of saliency, and the layout follows principles of design for comprehension and easy response (Dillman, 2000).

• High quality initial contact: The initial contact with the respondent is extremely important. It provides an opportunity to provide a strong signal to the respondent that this survey is part of an important, high-quality research effort. The advance letter will clearly explain the purpose of the survey and be on NPS letterhead.

• Multiple survey contacts: The survey contacts will follow a schedule similar to that recommended by Dillman (2000) as part of his Total Design Method for mail surveys. Dillman recommends a particular schedule for survey-related mailings that is designed to maximize survey response rates, and differentiate each communication from the previous one.

• Personalization of correspondence: As recommended by Dillman (2000), personalization of correspondence will be used to increase response rates. This personalization can take many forms--using real stationery printed on high quality paper, real names instead of preprinted salutation of ‘dear resident’, real signatures, and/or sending replacement mailings with the message: ‘to the best of our knowledge, you have not yet responded’.

• Monetary incentive: We will include a five-dollar bill with the survey as a response incentive. Studies have consistently shown that monetary incentives increase response rates (see, e.g., James and Bolstein 1990, 1992) and are generally more effective than non-monetary incentives such as gifts or lotteries (Church, 1993; Warriner et al., 1996). Rathbun and Baumgartner (1996) find that a five-dollar incentive increased response rates by ten percent (from 63% to 73%) relative to a control group with no incentive. In an experiment comparing incentives of $2, $5, and $10, Warriner et al. (1996) conclude that incentives of $2 and $5 provide an appreciable increase in response rate, but the increase from $5 to $10 is negligible.

• Branding of survey materials: All materials mailed to respondents will be clearly “branded” with the NPS logo. This branding will allow respondents to more easily identify our survey materials in a pile of otherwise indistinguishable mail, and provide legitimate sponsorship to the study. The survey materials will contain the name and telephone number of a NPS contact person if respondents require additional verification of the validity of the study.

• Priority Mail for non-respondents: For non-respondents, the second replacement copy of the survey instrument will be sent using Priority Mail (with delivery confirmation), as suggested by Dillman (2000). This will set the survey materials apart from other mail that the respondent receives, and it will provide a signal of the importance of the individual’s response. The delivery confirmation will allow us to determine whether the survey is actually being delivered. Priority Mail has similar effects as certified mail, but does not require that the respondent be at home to accept delivery.

ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

The data from the survey will be analyzed using a random utility framework. An individual’s utility associated with visibility improvement program j (j = 1,2,3) is assumed to be comprised of systematic (V j ) and random (ε j ) elements:

U j = V j + ε j .

If program j is selected by the respondent, it is assumed that this program yields the maximum utility among available program options:

U j > U l ∀ j ≠ l.

Assuming an extreme value distribution of errors, the probability that an individual chooses j out of J available choices is given by:

exp(V j ) Prob[ j = y] = J , ∑exp(V j ) j=1 where y indicates the selected program. This is the standard conditional logit model. We assume that the deterministic component of utility, V j , is a linear function of k program attributes:

V j = α c c j + β ' x = α c c j + ∑ β k xk

where c j is the cost of program j, and x is a vector of k program attributes (e.g., timing of improvement, health effects, etc.). The parameters β , and α c will be estimated using maximum likelihood techniques using information on observed choices across all choice questions and survey respondents. The ratio of a given attribute parameter to the cost parameter reveals the marginal value of that attribute.

The estimation results will be used to obtain household WTP for visibility improvements. For example, suppose x 0 represents a vector of k attributes describing current visibility conditions in the Southeast, and suppose x1 represents a vector of k attributes under a proposed improvement program. Household WTP for a visibility improvement from x 0 to x1 would be calculated as:

ˆ 1 0 ∑ β k (xk − xk ) k WTP = ) − β c

For each improvement, this WTP estimate will be aggregated to 1) the population of households within the RPO experiencing the visibility improvement, and 2) all U.S. households. The attribute-based choice question format provides substantial flexibility with respect to the types of improvement programs that can be valued. Thus, the above approach can be used to value numerous combinations of program attributes, provided the survey questions include these attributes and provided that the attribute levels to be valued lie within the range of the attribute levels included in survey questions. The specific characteristics of improvement programs for which WTP estimates will be reported will be determined collaboratively with NPS at a later stage of the project.

REFERENCES

Adamowicz, W.L., P.C. Boxall, M. Williams, and J.J. Louviere. 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments And Contingent Valuation." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 65-75.

Boyle, Kevin J., Thomas P. Holmes, Mario F. Teisl, Brian Roe. 2001. “A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 83(2): 441-454. May.

Cameron, T., J.R. DeShazo, and M. Dennis. 2005 "Correcting for Self-Selection Bias Using the Heckman Selection Correction in a Valuation Survey Using Knowledge Networks." Presentation at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.

Chestnut, Lauraine G. and Robert D. Rowe. 1990. Preservation Values for Visibility Protection at the National Parks. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and National Park Service, Air Quality Management Division.

Church, A.H. 1993. "Estimating Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A Meta- analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (1): 62-79.

Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gan, C. and E.J. Luzar. 1993. "A Conjoint Analysis of Waterfowl Hunting in Louisiana." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25(2): 36-45.

Hanley, N., D. Macmillan, R. Wright, C. Bullock, I. Simpson, D. Parrsisson, and B. Crabtree. 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland." Journal of Agricultural Economics: 1-15.

Hansen, M. and W. Hurwitz. 1946. "The Problem of Nonresponse in Sample Surveys." Journal of the American Statistical Association 41: 517-529.

Holmes, T., K.A.C. Zinkhan, and E. Mercer. 1998. "The Effect of Response Time on Conjoint Analysis Estimates of Rain Forest Protection Values." J. Forest Econ 4: 7-28.

James, J.M. and R. Bostein. "The Effect of Monetary Incentives and Follow-up Mailings on the Response Rate and Response Quality in Mail Surveys." The Public Opinion Quarterly 54(3): 346-361.

James, J.M. and R. Bostein. 1992. "Large Monetary Incentives and Their Effect on Mail Survey Response Rates." The Public Opinion Quarterly 56(4): 442-453.

Kish, L. 1965. Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Lohr, S.L. 1999. Sampling: Design and Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods - Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Naidoo, R. and W. Adamowicz. 2005. "Biodiversity and Nature Based Tourism: The Potential for Sustainable Development in Uganda." Environment and Development Economics 10: 159-178.

Rathbun, P.R. and R.M. Baumgartner. 1996. “Prepaid Monetary Incentives and Mail Survey Response Rates.” Paper presented at the 1996 Joint Statistical Meetings. Chicago, Illinois. June.

Roe, Brian, Mario F. Teisl, Alan Levy, and Matthew Russell. 2001. "Consumer Preferences for Residential Electricity Services with Different Generation Sources and Air Emission Profiles." Energy Policy 29 (11): 917-925.

Roe, B., E.G. Irwin, and H.A. Morrow-Jones. 2004. "The Effects of Farmland, Farmland Preservation and Other Neighborhood Amenities on Proximate Housing Values: Results of a Conjoint Analysis of Housing Choice." Land Econ. 80: 55-75.

Stevens, T.H. 2000. "Comparison of Contingent Valuation and Conjoint Analysis in Ecosystem Management." Ecological Economics 32(1): 63-74.

Stevens, T.H., C. Barrett and C.E. Willis. 1997. "Conjoint Analysis of Groundwater Protection Programs." Agr. and Resource Econ. Rev. 26: 229-32.

Teisl, M.F., K.J. Boyle, and B. Roe. 1996. "Conjoint Analysis of Angler Evaluations of Atlantic Salmon on the Penobscot River, Maine." North American J. of Fisheries Management 16: 861-871.

U.S. EPA (2003a). Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule. EPA-454/B- 03-005. September.

U.S. EPA (2003b). Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule. EPA-454/B-03-005. September.

Warriner, K., J. Goyder, H. Gjertsen, P. Hohner, and K. McSpurren. 1996. "Charities, No; Lotteries, No; Cash, Yes: Main Effects and Interactions in a Canadian Incentives Experiment." Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (4): 542-562.

APPENDIX A

Focus Group Telephone Screener

Telephone Screener for Focus Groups

Hello, my name is [INTERVIEWER NAME] from [FOCUS GROUP FIRM], a local research company. We are not selling anything. We are recruiting people to participate in a group discussion about a current public policy issue, and we would like to ask you four quick questions to see if you qualify. Each participant in the group discussion will receive $75 for their time.

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY BE PROVIDED TO RESPONDENTS. IF A RESPONDENT INQUIRES ABOUT THE FOCUS GROUP TOPIC, THE INTERVIEWER SHOULD SIMPLY REPEAT THAT IT IS ABOUT A CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE.]

1. Have you participated in a focus group discussion within the last two years?

___ Yes TERMINATE ___ No

2. Could you please tell me which of the following categories best describes your age?

___ Under 20 TERMINATE ___ 20 - 34 ___ 35 - 49 ___50 or older

3. Which of the following categories best describes the highest level of education you have achieved?

___ High school or less ___ Some college or associate degree ___ Bachelors degree or higher

4. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income in 2004?

___ $0 to $30,000 ___ $30,000 to $65,000 ___ $65,000 or greater

5. [NOTE GENDER]

___ Male ___ Female

6. On [INSERT DATE], we are holding focus group discussions to gather opinions about a public policy issue. The discussions will last for two hours, starting at 5:30 pm and 8:00 pm, and each participant will receive $ 75 as a thank you gesture. We will also serve light refreshments. These groups will take place at [LOCATION]. Would you be interested in attending? Most people really enjoy these discussions.

____ Yes ____ No TERMINATE

7. Which session would you be able to attend?

___ Group 1 (5:30pm - 7:30pm) ___ Group 2 (8:00pm - 10:00pm)

8. May I please have your name and address so that I can send you a reminder and driving directions?

_____No TERMINATE _____Yes

We are only inviting a few people to participate and we are counting on your attendance. If you should have an emergency, be sure to call us because we will need to find a replacement. Our phone number is [PHONE NUMBER]. Thank you very much. We look forward to seeing you on [DATE] at [TIME] o’clock.

APPENDIX B

Focus Group Moderator Script

Moderator Script: Atlanta Focus Groups

Topics:

1. Introduction 2. Threats to national parks 3. Introduction to haze 4. Distribution of haze 5. Efforts to reduce haze 6. Choice questions

TOPIC #1: INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCE MYSELF

EXPLAIN PURPOSE OF THE GROUP

When you participate in a survey, you only get to check off your answer or select your answer from a group of categories. You sometimes don't get the chance to say what you were thinking when you answered a question or why you answered the way you did. In part of this focus group we are going to be asking you questions that were designed for a survey. After you have answered the questions we will take some time to discuss your answers.

When we are discussing your answers we will be hearing your about your ideas, opinions and attitudes. As a result there really are no right or wrong answers. What ever it is you are thinking is what we want to hear.

In groups of this size we often find a wide variety of ideas. Indeed you were selected at random so that we would hear a wide range of opinions. We are not here to build a consensus. So if your ideas or opinions differ from others we don't want you to try to convince each other that your point of view is right.

The group is being recorded tonight. The tape recording is our way of taking notes. I would like to stress that while we will be using first names tonight, nothing you say tonight will ever be reported along with your name. When we report on this group we

might say that several people expressed the opinion that ... and only one person agreed that...

Since we are recording the discussion tonight, I would ask that only one person talk at a time. If several people are talking it is difficult to understand what is being said and who is saying what.

This discussion is being observed by some of my colleagues that are also working on this survey. They are seated behind the glass mirror taking notes.

DISCUSS JOB AS MODERATOR

I have several jobs as the moderator of the discussion tonight.

I have a list of topics I need to cover. If I find the discussion veering off to topics that are not relevant to the topics I need to cover, I might intervene. If I do don't be offended. If you have something that really needs to be said we can always return to that topic later.

It is also my job to make sure that we hear from everyone. I often find there are some who like to say a lot and others who don't feel like contribute as much. If I haven't heard from one of you in a while I might ask how you feel about a specific issue.

ASK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS

START THE GROUP BY HAVING EACH PARTICIPANT INTRODUCE HIM OR HERSELF AND TELL A BIT ABOUT THEMSELVES

TOPIC #2: THREATS TO NATIONAL PARKS

When you think about national parks and wilderness areas what images or thoughts come to your mind? Take a few minutes and write down any images or thoughts that come to your mind when you think about national parks and wilderness areas.

Probes: Which parks do you think of? What are wilderness areas?

What sorts of problems or threats are faced by national parks and wilderness areas, if any? Please take a few minutes to write down any problems or threats that you can think of.

Probes: Which parks or wilderness areas face these threats? Is anything being done about them?

TOPIC #3: INTRODUCTION TO HAZE

One of the issues we plan to discuss in our mail survey is haze in national parks and wilderness areas. I will now pass out some materials that describe what haze is. These are similar to the materials that we might use in a mail survey. Please read the materials. If there is anything unclear or you would want to comment on please feel free to write on the materials. After you have finished reading the materials we will take some time to discuss you reactions. If you should happen to get done early feel free to quietly help yourself to refreshments while other people finish.

Probes: Did you write down any notes or comments? Was anything unclear? What is different about the two photos?

Have you ever noticed problems with haze in parks or wilderness areas? Do you think this is a problem that should be addressed? Why?

How concerned are you about the effect of haze on people's health?

TOPIC #4: DISTRIBUTION OF HAZE

The amount of haze in the atmosphere varies from day to day, depending on the weather, humidity, air pollution, and other factors. I will now pass out a page that shows two different approaches to describing how the amount of haze varies throughout a typical year in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Please look closely at these two approaches and note anything that is unclear or that you might want to comment on.

Probes: Which approach is the easiest to understand? Why? Is there a better way to explain this to people? Did you notice that the seasons and the weather don't seem to change?

TOPIC #5: EFFORTS TO REDUCE HAZE

The next set of materials describes government efforts to reduce haze in national parks and wilderness areas. Please read these materials and note anything that is unclear or that you might want to comment on.

Probes: Do you believe that it would be possible to reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians [Pacific Northwest] region? Do you think it is important to do so?

Why do you think we mention specific national parks?

Do you believe that the reduction would only occur within this region?

Do you think that your taxes could really increase if one of these programs were put in place?

Does the poster seem clear?

Why do you think there are three sets of photos?

What would change if scenario #1 were adopted? How do the four scenarios differ?

Is there a better approach to presenting these scenarios?

TOPIC #6: CHOICE QUESTIONS

[Note: This topic is likely to be skipped on the first night due to time constraints]

I am now going to give you two questions about programs designed to reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians [Pacific Northwest] region. Please take the time to answer both of these questions. As before, please make a note of anything that is unclear or that you might want to comment on.

Probes: Any troubles or problems?

Take a few minutes to write down the things you considered, the most important factors that affected how you answered these two questions.

Consider Question #1:

How do the two programs differ? Which program did you choose? What factors were most important to you? Least important?

Is there anything else that you wanted to know about the programs?

Was there anything about this question that was confusing?

Was there anything about this question that was unrealistic?

Consider Question #2:

How do the two programs differ? Which program did you choose? What factors were most important to you? Least important? Do you think these changes are realistic?

Is there anything else that you wanted to know about the programs?

Was there anything about this question that was confusing?

Was there anything about this question that was unrealistic?

CLOSE WITH A THANK YOU AND ASK THEM TO PUT FIRST NAMES ON ALL MATERIALS

APPENDIX C

Focus Group Discussion Guide

1. What images or thoughts come to mind when you think about national parks and wilderness areas?

STOP. PLEASE DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

2. What sorts of problems or threats are faced by national parks and wilderness areas, if any?

STOP. PLEASE DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

Section B. In this section we discuss air pollution and visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.

The type of air pollution we would like to ask you about is called haze. Haze decreases visibility. That is, it makes it harder to see distant objects such as tall buildings, hills, mountains, or natural landscapes. On hazy days, distant objects may turn whitish and appear blurry, or they may disappear from view altogether.

• Some haze occurs naturally when dust is blown into the air or when forest fires release soot into the atmosphere. • When people burn wood, coal, oil, or gas (in homes, power plants, factories, or vehicles), small particles are released into the atmosphere that increase the amount of haze.

Winds can carry particles and pollutants hundreds of miles, so that even national parks and wilderness areas are impacted by haze. The haze in national parks and wilderness areas generally does not affect visitors' health. However, on extremely hazy days, visitors with asthma or other respiratory conditions may experience temporary health effects such as shortness of breath.

The photographs below show a vista with different amounts of haze.

Very Little Haze Moderate Haze

STOP. PLEASE DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

APPROACH #1

A B C D E

20% of Days 40% of Days 25% of Days 10% of Days 5% of Days

APPROACH #2

40%

25% 20%

10% 5%

Photo A Photo B Photo C Photo D Photo E

STOP. PLEASE DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

Section C. In this section we ask for your opinion about government efforts to reduce haze in national parks and wilderness areas.

Federal and state officials are considering a variety of actions throughout the country that would reduce haze in national parks and wilderness areas. Although initial improvements may be modest, the goal would be to eventually eliminate human contributions to haze in these natural areas.

All of these actions would have costs for consumers:

• Requiring power plants to could purchase and install pollution control equipment would lead to higher electricity rates.

• Regulations related to motor vehicle pollution would lead to higher car and truck prices, higher gasoline prices, or increased annual inspection costs.

• Regulations that reduce factory emissions would lead to higher prices for the products we purchase.

For now, please focus on government actions that would reduce haze within the region circled in red that is labeled "Southern Appalachians" on the map below. There are several national parks in this region, including Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains. Haze could be reduced in the Southern Appalachians region if vehicles, power plants, and industries located west of the region install new air pollution controls.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

Southern Appalachians

Suppose the federal government could set up a program to provide grants to encourage vehicle owners, power plants, and industries to install new air pollution controls. These controls would only affect air quality within the circled region.

Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to support such a program? (Circle one number)

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON'T KNOW

Focus Group Discussion Guide

Please unfold the poster that came with your survey booklet. The photographs at the top of the poster show five different levels of haze (A, B, C, D, and E) at three scenic vistas in the Southern Appalachians region.

Below the photographs, we indicate the percentage of days each year that typically have visibility levels like those in the photographs.

• The first row represents the current visibility conditions in the region. These are the conditions that will exist without any new government programs to reduce haze.

• The next two rows indicate future visibility conditions under two different federal programs designed to reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians region.

The programs would reduce haze by providing grants to encourage vehicle owners, power plants, and industries to install new air pollution controls.

The grant programs would begin immediately, and visibility would steadily improve until the conditions in the photographs were reached.

Depending on how they are set up, the programs would also differ in the cost, the time required for implementation, and the improvements in temporary health effects experienced by visitors and residents with asthma or other respiratory conditions.

All U.S. households would pay for these programs through higher taxes.

STOP. PLEASE DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

Suppose that you had the opportunity to choose a visibility improvement program for the Southern Appalachian Region described above. The alternatives that you could choose between are as follows:

Program Program 1 Program 2 Neither Program Attributes: Visibility See Poster See Poster Current Conditions

Temporary health Very minor None Very Minor effects for visitors and residents with respiratory problems

When improvement 5 years from now 10 years from now No improvement would be fully implemented

Annual cost to your $50 $100 $0 household

Similar Yes No No improvements at parks and wilderness areas nationwide?

9. Which program would you choose? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 Program 1 2 Program 2 3 Neither program

In considering these programs, please keep in mind that:

• The selected program would only reduce haze in the Southern Appalachian region. No other areas of the country would be affected. The annual cost to your household would begin now and continue for as long as the program remains in place.

Focus Group Discussion Guide

Once again, suppose that you had the opportunity to choose a visibility improvement program for the Southern Appalachian Region described above. The alternatives that you could choose between are as follows:

Program Program 1 Program 2 Neither Program Attributes: Visibility See Poster See Poster Current Conditions

Temporary health None Very minor Very Minor effects for visitors and residents with respiratory problems

When improvement 1 year from now 5 years from now No improvement would be fully implemented

Annual cost to your $200 $100 $0 household

Similar Yes No No improvements at parks and wilderness areas nationwide?

10. Which program would you choose? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 Program 1 2 Program 2 3 Neither program

In considering these programs, please keep in mind that:

• The selected program would only reduce haze in the Southern Appalachian region. No other areas of the country would be affected. • The annual cost to your household would begin now and continue for as long as the program remains in place.

STOP. PLEASE DO NOT TURN PAGE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO DO SO.

APPENDIX D

Draft Survey Instrument

National Park Service Visibility Survey

[SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS VERSION]

Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to:

[INSERT ADDRESS]

Your participation in this survey is voluntary and all responses will remain confidential.

OMB Control # ______Expiration Date ______

Section A. In this section we are interested in learning about your visits to natural areas with scenic vistas and about your general opinions regarding priorities for federal government spending.

1. How much do you enjoy visiting national parks, wilderness areas, national forests, state parks, or other natural areas with scenic vistas? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH

2. Approximately how many days do you spend visiting such areas each year? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 NONE 5 16 TO 20 DAYS 2 1 TO 5 DAYS 6 21 TO 25 DAYS 3 6 TO 10 DAYS 7 MORE THAN 25 DAYS 4 11 TO 15 DAYS

3. The federal government provides many services to U.S. citizens. In your opinion, how important is each of the following services? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER IN EACH ROW)

VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT NEUTRAL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT PUBLIC 1 2 3 4 5 EDUCATION

NATIONAL 1 2 3 4 5 DEFENSE

ENVIRONMENTAL 1 2 3 4 5 PROTECTION

IMPROVE ROADS 1 2 3 4 5 AND HIGHWAYS

HEALTH CARE 1 2 3 4 5

ECONOMIC 1 2 3 4 5 GROWTH

4. There are many environmental issues that the federal government addresses. In your opinion, how important is each of the following environmental issues? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER IN EACH ROW)

VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY UNIMPORTANT UNIMPORTANT NEUTRAL IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

REDUCE WATER 1 2 3 4 5 POLLUTION

REDUCE AIR 1 2 3 4 5 POLLUTION

CLEAN UP TOXIC 1 2 3 4 5 WASTE SITES

PROTECT 1 2 3 4 5 ENDANGERED SPECIES

PROTECT PARKS 1 2 3 4 5 AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS

5. Do you belong to any local or national organizations dedicated to protecting the environment? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 YES 2 NO

Section B. In this section we discuss air pollution and visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.

The photographs below show a vista with different amounts of haze.

Very Little Haze Moderate Haze

6. Have you ever noticed problems with haze in national parks or wilderness areas?

1 YES 2 NO 7. How concerned are you about the impact of haze on national parks and wilderness areas?

(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 NOT AT ALL CONCERNED 2 SOMEWHAT CONCERNED 3 VERY CONCERNED 4 EXTREMELY CONCERNED

The amount of haze in the atmosphere varies from day to day, depending on the weather, humidity, air pollution, and other factors. For example, the photographs below show how visibility at one particular scenic view in Great Smoky Mountains National Park varies during a typical year due to changes in haze.

A B C D E

20% of Days 20% of Days 20% of Days 20% of Days 20% of Days

These photos focus only on haze. They do not show the changes in weather or other factors that would naturally occur throughout the year.

8. Consider Photo B above. Do you think that most days at Great Smoky Mountains National Park have more or less haze than the amount of haze in Photo B?

1 LESS HAZE 2 SAME AMOUNT OF HAZE 3 MORE HAZE 4 DON'T KNOW

Section C. In this section we ask for your opinion about government efforts to reduce haze in national parks and wilderness areas.

All of these actions would have costs for consumers:

• Requiring power plants to purchase and install pollution control equipment would lead to higher electricity rates.

• Regulations related to motor vehicle pollution would lead to higher car and truck prices, higher gasoline prices, or increased annual inspection costs.

• Regulations that reduce factory emissions would lead to higher prices for the products we purchase.

Southern Appalachians

Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to support such a program? (Circle one number)

1 YES 2 NO 3 DON'T KNOW

Below the photographs, we indicate the percentage of days each year that typically have visibility levels like those in the photographs.

• The first row represents the current visibility conditions in the region. These are the conditions that will exist without any new government programs to reduce haze.

• The next two rows indicate future visibility conditions under two different federal programs designed to reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians region.

The programs would reduce haze by providing grants to encourage vehicle owners, power plants, and industries to install new air pollution controls.

The grant programs would begin immediately, and visibility would steadily improve until the conditions in the photographs were reached.

Depending on how they are set up, the programs would differ in cost, the time required for implementation, and the improvements in temporary health effects experienced by visitors and residents with asthma or other respiratory conditions.

All U.S. households would pay for these programs through higher taxes.

[DRAFT POSTER AT END OF SURVEY]

Suppose that you had the opportunity to choose a visibility improvement program for the Southern Appalachians region described above. The programs that you could choose between have the following characteristics:

Program Program 1 Program 2 Neither Program Attributes: Visibility See Poster See Poster Current Conditions

Temporary health None Very minor Very Minor effects for visitors and residents with respiratory problems

When improvement 5 years from now 10 years from now No improvement would be fully implemented

Annual cost to your $50 $100 $0 household

Similar Yes No No improvements at parks and wilderness areas nationwide?

9. Which program would you choose? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 Program 1 2 Program 2 3 Neither program

In considering these programs, please keep in mind that:

• The selected program would only reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians region. No other areas of the country would be affected.

• The annual cost to your household would begin now and continue for as long as the program remains in place.

Once again, suppose that you had the opportunity to choose a visibility improvement program for the Southern Appalachians region described above. The programs that you could choose between have the following characteristics:

Program Program 1 Program 2 Neither Program Attributes: Visibility See Poster See Poster Current Conditions

Temporary health Very minor None Very Minor effects for visitors and residents with respiratory problems

When improvement 1 year from now 5 years from now No improvement would be fully implemented

Annual cost to your $200 $100 $0 household

Similar No Yes No improvements at parks and wilderness areas nationwide?

10. Which program would you choose? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 Program 1 2 Program 2 3 Neither program

In considering these programs, please keep in mind that:

• The selected program would only reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians region. No other areas of the country would be affected. • The annual cost to your household would begin now and continue for as long as the program remains in place.

Program Program 1 Program 2 Neither Program Attributes: Visibility See Poster See Poster Current Conditions

Temporary health None Very minor Very Minor effects for visitors and residents with respiratory problems

When improvement 5 years from now 20 years from now No improvement would be fully implemented

Annual cost to your $100 $200 $0 household

Similar Yes No No improvements at parks and wilderness areas nationwide?

11. Which program would you choose? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 Program 1 2 Program 2 3 Neither program

In considering these programs, please keep in mind that:

• The selected program would only reduce haze in the Southern Appalachians region. No other areas of the country would be affected.

• The annual cost to your household would begin now and continue for as long as the program remains in place.

Section D. In this section we would like to learn more about your background which will help us compare your answers to those of other people. We stress that all of your answers are

strictly confidential.

12. Are you? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 MALE 2 FEMALE

13. How old are you?

______YEARS OLD

14. Which of the following categories best describes your race? (CIRCLE ONE)

1 WHITE, NON-LATINO 4 AMERICAN INDIAN, ESKIMO, OR ALEUT 2 BLACK, NON-LATINO 5 LATINO 3 ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER 6 OTHER ______

15. Are you currently? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 EMPLOYED FULL-TIME 4 UMEMPLOYED 2 EMPLOYED PART-TIME 5 RETIRED 3 FULL-TIME HOMEMAKER 6 STUDENT

16. Including yourself, how many members of your household are in each age group? (IF NONE, WRITE "0.")

______UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE ______18 TO 64 YEARS OLD ______65 YEARS AND OVER

17. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 EIGHT YEARS OR LESS 6 BACHELOR'S DEGREE 2 SOME HIGH SCHOOL 7 MASTER'S DEGREE 3 HIGH SCHOOL OR GED 8 ADVANCED DEGREE (M.D., Ph.D., 4 SOME COLLEGE OR TRADE SCHOOL J.D., etc.) 5 ASSOCIATE DEGREE

18. Please circle the response that comes closest to your total 2005 household income before taxes. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)

1 LESS THAN $10,000 7 $60,000 - $69,999 2 $10,000 - $19,999 8 $70,000 - $79,999 3 $20,000 - $29,999 9 $80,000 - $89,999 4 $30,000 - $39,999 10 $90,000 - $99,999 5 $40,000 - $49,999 11 MORE THAN $100,000 6 $50,000 - $59,999

[BACK COVER]

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance in providing this information is very much appreciated. If there is anything else you would like to tell us about this survey, please do so in the space provided below.

Please return you completed questionnaire in the envelope provided to:

[INSERT ADDRESS]

Haze A Haze B Haze C Haze D Haze E

Haze A Haze B Haze C Haze D Haze E Current 20% of days 20% of days 20% of days 20% of days 20% of days Conditions

Program 1 20% of days 20% of days 20% of days 36% of days 4% of days

Program 2 24% of days 24% of days 24% of days 24% of days 4% of days