Fish Population: Benefit-Cost Analysis

Reviewing Stated Preference Surveys
This week we'll take a look at a couple of stated preference survey instrument that has been used for recent research. One of these is attached and another is linked at the end of this post. Please read through each of these surveys and evaluate i.
What we are looking for is your comparisons of how each of these survey instruments attempted to address some of the design issues (e.g., method of provision, communicating about the commodity, payment vehicle) and challenges (e.g., strategic bias, hypothetical bias, validity) discussed and described in this week's materials.
Some specific prompts to consider are:
1. What kind of stated preference approach - dichotomous choice, double-bounded dichotomous choice, choice experiment - did the researchers adopt for each survey? How can you tell? Why might they have chosen this approach and what does it mean for the kinds of values they will be able to estimate?
2. Given the materials and the readings for this week, why did the researchers make the choices they did for key design issues such as payment vehicle and method of provision and how do these compare across the two surveys? Using information from this week's lesson, how successful do you think these choices might be? What are the strengths and weaknesses of their approach?
3. What aspects of the surveys attempt to address some of the biases (e.g., hypothetical bias, warm glow/yea-saying) and related issues associated with stated preference methods? Why might the researchers have chosen to deal with them in the way(s) that they did?
Of course, your submissions may address other topics, but you should make sure that you are doing so as an economist and are using the terms and concepts from our course.
The survey attached here is about fish and fish populations.
A second survey (here) is close to a state-of-the-art survey for valuing health risks, in this case cancer risks. The survey instrument starts on page 100 of pdf (labeled as page 98 "Appendix 2") and is quite complex. What you are seeing isn't exactly what would appear to someone taking the survey because it contains directions for the researcher. The survey was actually taken online. You are welcome, of course, to read the full report but for the discussion you are only required to evaluate the survey instrument itself.
(Just in case, here is the full URL: https://echa(dot)europa(dot)eu/documents/10162/13630/study_economic_benefits_avoiding_adverse_health_outcomes_3_en.pdf).