Demographic Ination - Colgate University.docx

《Demographic Ination - Colgate University.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Demographic Ination - Colgate University.docx（4页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Democraphic InformationPlease identify yourself by selecting which of the following categories pertains to you (Check all which apply):a) Permanent Local Residentb) Seasonal Vacationer (Home-Owner)c) Seasonal Vacationer (renter)d) Resident of New York/Vermont (Outside of Lake Champlain Area)e) US re

2、sident, none of above applies to meIncome levela) below 19,999b) 20,000-29,999c) 30,000-49,999d) 50,000-74,999e) 75,000+Agea) 17 and underb) 18-29c) 30-39d) 40-59e) 60+4) On average, how much time do you spend in the Lake Champlain area in a typical yeara)b)c)d)e)Done weekendone weektwo-three weeks1

3、-2 months3-6 monthsall year17 / / abed ef gh5) Please tell us your favorite recreational activities (Mark as many as apply): fishing camping hiking boating hunting swimming runningOther (please fill in either one or two choices) 6) Do you use the Lake as a part of your business?a) Yes (seasonal)b) Y

4、es (year-round)c) NoWc would ask you to please rank the following sets of scenarios on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being most preferable, and I being least preferable.Please note that the second column indicates the type of zebra mussel reduction device. Chemicals have been the method of reducing zebr

5、a mussels in the past, but a new device has been developed that cleans mussels from intake pipes (though in lesser numbers than the chemicals). The third column deals with the costs associated with the two devices. Column four refers to the impacts that the method used will have on the environment a

6、nd human beings, the fifth the added costs in water utilities that will be brought on by that scenario, and finally the level of zebra mussel reduction in that scenario.ScenarioRed. DeviceControlNeg.Added WaterZeb. musCostsImpactsUtility costsreduclion1nonenoneincreased musselshigh ($100/yr)none2che

7、micalshighhuman/env. costs(high)high ($8O/yr)high (60%)3mix chcm. W/mediumhuman/env.devicecosts(mod.)mod. ($50/yr)high (80%)4mech. devicemediumhuman/env. costs(low)nonemod. (50%)Please indicate your approval of the following scenarios for dealing with the levels of phosphorus in the lake by ranking

8、them using a system of numbers from 1 to 4, with 1 being the least preferable.Please note that the second column refers to the relative level of phosphorous levels in the Lake. The third column deals with the level of fertilization that occurs in the agriculture around the Lake. The fourth column re

9、fers to the number of watersheds (areas with localized water supplies) that will be cleansed in that time period. The fifth column refers to the relative level of waste water that will be allowed in that scenario, the sixth will represent the level of control that will go into controlling 4tnon-poin

10、t sources, (agricultural runoff, septic system leakage, etc.), and the last represents the cost that will be borne by individual taxpayers.ScenarioPhosphorousFertilizationWatersheds W astcnon-pointcostaffectedWatercontrol1highexcessive5lowlow$202mediumacceptable9highlow$503mediumacceptable12lowhigh$

11、604lowbelow normal19highhigh$100Please indicate you support for the following proposals to clear up these toxic substances from the lake by ranking the following set of scenarios using a system of 1-10, with one being the lowest score, or that of which you least approve. Second column deals with the

12、 number of different 4tHigh Priority, toxins (those posing the greatest environmental and health risk). The third column refers to the relative number of aquatic species that will be harmed with that states level of pollution in the Lake. The fourth refers to the cost shouldered by individual taxpay

13、ers, and the fifth deals with the relative reduction in health risks for persons living around the Lake.ScenarioHigh Pri. Toxins# of Species hurt CostReduct, in health risks1Removed2high$20negligible24medium$40moderate38low$60moderate411none$100largePlease review the following set of scenarios conce

14、rning the level of wetlands protection in the Lake Champlain area, indicting your preference by ranking the scenarioson a scale of 1-10, with one being the least desirable. Column two refers to the number of wetland acres filled in each year for various purposes. The third deals with the relative le

15、vel of biodiversity preserved in the Lake. Column four refers to the relative cost of the economic opportunities lost by not converting wetlands, and the last column deals with the cost burden to individual taxpayers.ScenarioWetland acres filledBiodiversityReduction ofper yearpreservedpotential economic benefils110highvery high2250moderatehigh3500lowmoderate41000extremely lowlow