APPENDIX A 

## RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE/1983 NATIONAL WATER BENEFITS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

Robert Cameron Mitchell and Richard T. Carson

Hello, I'm of Opinion Research Corporation in Princeton, New Jersey. We are talking to a cross-section of how much public programs are worth to them. Your views will be used to help people in the United States about policy makers make informed decisions. First, let be begin by saying that most of the question have to do with your attitudes and opinions, and these are no right or wrong answers. This interview is completely confidential; your name will never be associated with your answers.
1. First, I'm going to read a list of several issues which, over the years, have been of concern to taxpayers. For each, please tell me whether you feel the amount of money we are spending as a nation is too much, just about the right amount, or too little. 4. ASK EVERYONE (HAND RESPONDENT BOOKLET) I'd like you to look at this booklet that contains several cards. Please look at Card 1. It contains three statements regarding pollution control and costs of pollution control. Please follow along as I read these statements to you, end then tell me which statement you agree with most. (READ EACH STATEMENT TO RESPONDENT.) 1 Protecting the environment is so important that pollution control requirements and statements cannot be too strict and continuing improvement must be made regardless of cost, or 2 We have made enough progress on cleaning up the environment that we should now concentrate on holding down costs rather than requiring stricter controls, or 3 Pollution control requirements and standards have gone too far and they already cost more then they are worth. 4 BETWEEN 1 AND 2 (VOLUNTEERED) 5 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSEDSECTION B: HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES GRID 3 4
5. Some national goals are more important to people than others. How important to you personally is a national goal of protecting nature and controlling pollution? Is it very important, somewhat important, or not very important to you?

If "1" ON 0.5 ASK: You said a national goal of protecting nature and controlling pollution is "very important" to you. Would you say it is one of your very top priorities or is it of somewhat less importance to you?

1. Please turn to Card 2. It contains a list of six different sources of water pollution in freshwater lakes, rivers and streams. Tell me which one or two sources you feel probably cause the most water pollution in the nation. Just read me the numbers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Runoff from agriculture Sewage from cities and towns Drainage from mines Runoff from roads and highways Seepage from garbage dumps Dumpling of factory waste into waterbodies NONE DON'T KNOW REFUSED5 6 IF ANY HOUSEHOLD MEMBER FISHED, ASK Q.18; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.19 (ASK Q.18 ABOUT HOUSEHOLD MEMBER WHO FISHED THE MOST DAYS BOTH IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE. IF MORE THAN ONE QUALIFIES, ASK ABOUT OLDEST MEMBER OF HOUSEHOLD.) 18. How important to (you/HOUSEHOLD MEMBER) is freshwater fishing as a recreational activity? Would you say it is . . . ?

ASK EVERYONE 19. Did you (or any member of your household) swim in a swimming pool or in the ocean in this state during the past 12 months? 1 Yes 2 No 3 DON'T KNOW 4 REFUSED
20. During the past 12 months, did you (or any member of this household) take part in recreational activities on the shore of or near any freshwater lakes, river, or streams anywhere in the U.S.? These could be activities like picnicking, camping, bird watching, duck hunting, or living in a vacation cottage?

IF "YES" TO Q.20, ASK: 21. Were these activities done in-state, out-of-state, or both?

1 In-state 2 Out-of-state 3 Both 4 DON'T KNOW 5 REFUSED7 8

SECTION C: WATER QUALITY LEVELS This next series of questions is about different levels of water quality in the nation's lakes, rivers, and streams and about how much different levels of water quality in those freshwater bodies is worth to you (and all other members of this household). In these questions, I will not be talking about saltwater, or water that is underground, or about drinking water, for the remainder of the interview, I will always be referring to the freshwater in lakes, rivers and streams across the country. Because of growing water pollution problems nationwide, Congress passed strict water pollution control laws in 1972 and 1977 and provided money to pay most of the costs for building new sewage plants for communities. These laws also required many industries to install and pay for expensive water pollution control equipment. The laws Congress passes are intended to improve the quality of water. One way or thinking about different levels of water quality is to use a ladder like the one shown on Card 3 of the booklet. The top of the water quality ladder stands for the best possible quality of water, and he bottom of the ladder stands for the worst. On the ladder you can see the different levels of water quality. For example: Level "D" (POINT) is so polluted that is has oil, raw sewage and other things like trash in it; It has no plant or animal life, smells bad, and contact with it is dangerous to human health. Water at level "C" (POINT) is boatable. Water of this quality would not harm you it you happened to fall into it for a short time while boating or sailing. In the United States today, because of water pollution control programs, this is now the minimum national quality level. In other words, the present quality of more than 99 percent of all the nation's freshwater lakes, rivers and streams is at least at this level. Those water bodies which can only be used for boating at the present time are mostly locates in areas with a lot of industry and also where large members of people live. If we stopped spending money for water pollution control, the quality of these and many other water bodies would fall below the boatable level. 1
2
3
4
5 6 7 level "D" (POINT) is fishable. Although some kinds of fish can live in boatable water, it is only when water gets this clean that game fish like bass can live in it. Today many of the nation’s freshwater bodies are as clean as this. Level "A" (POINT) is swimmable. Today perhaps 70 - 80% of the nation's (freshwater is as clean as this. 22. Perhaps as I have talked, you have thought about the quality of water in this area. Think about the nearest freshwater lake, river, stream, pond or creek that is large enough so that game fish might live in it. I t does not matter if if is manmade or not, how would you rate its quality of water? Choose a letter on the water quality ladder which you think best describes the water quality of this lake or pond. (PROBE: Your best estimate will do.) CORRESPONDING LETTER ON LADDER NUMBER ON LADDER 1 D (0 - less than 2) 2 C (2 - less than 3) 3 B (3 - less than 6) 4 A (6 - less than 8) 5 More than A (8 - 10) 6 DON'T KNOW 7 REFUSED
23. How I’d like you to think about how much having clean water in the United States, including this state, is worth to you and (all members of your household). Some people believe that controlling water pollution is of great value, while other people do not feel that control of water pollution is very important to them. Card 4 in your booklet shows various reasons why some people might value water quality. Please read it over. Which two of these reasons, if any, for reducing water pollution are most important to you personally? Just read me the numbers.

Your (Your household’s) use of freshwater for fishing, boating or swimming Your (Your household’s) use of areas surrounding freshwater for picnicking, bird watching, or staying in a vacation cottage You (Your household) get satisfaction from knowing other people may use and enjoy freshwater You (Your household) get satisfaction from knowing that the nation's water is cleaner NONE/I DO NOT VALUE WATER QUALITY DON'T KNOW REFUSED9

SECTION D: WATER QUALITY EVALUATION In this next section of the questionnaire, I am going to ask you how much it is worth to you in real dollars and cents to reach three different national water quality goals. Since this is not something we usually think about, It may be helpful for you to know what the average household like yours pays in takes and higher prices for some other types of public programs. would you please look at the next card, Card 5, in the booklet and give me the In order to do this, letter next to the category income from all sources, that is, before taxes in 1982. Once again, I’d like to which includes your (household’s) total, yearly gross remind you that this interview is completely confidential and your name will never be associated with your answers. (CIRCLE LETTER OF PAYMENT CARD CHOSEN.) COLOR OF PAYMENT CARD WHITE YELLOW BLUE GREEN PINK GIVE RESPONDENT BLUE PAYMENT CARD, AND SAY: If you would look at this payment card which reflect the middle range of incomes in the United States. GIVE RESPONDENT APPROPRIATE PAYMENT CARD FOR HIS/HER INCOME RANGE. The payment card I have given you lists many different amounts. It also gives an estimate of how much households in your Income range paid in 1982 in taxes and product prices for programs like the space program, police and fire protection, roads and highways, public education, and the defense program. As you may also know, programs to control air and water pollution are also something we all pay for. We pay for water pollution control in two ways, as shown on the next card, Card 6. First, part of the money we pay in federal and state taxes goes to construct sewage treatment plants, conduct research on water pollution and to enforce the water pollution laws. Any local taxes and sewer fees which are often part of your water bill help to pay the cost of running there plants. The second way involves the price of things we buy. A small amount of the money you pay for many products goes for the water pollution control equipment the government requires industries to install. In order to pay for this equipment. companies increase somewhat the cost of the products they sell to consumers. GIVE RESPONDENT WORKSHEET AND PENCIL. RESPONDENT SHOULD ALSO HAVE COLORED PAYMENT CARD. REFER TO WORKSHEET AS YOU READ. Here are (POINTING TO THE LEVELS ON THE WORKSHEET) three national water pollution goals. The lowest one is goal C which is where we are today with 99 percent or more of all freshwater bodies at least at the boatable quality level, although many are higher in quality. 10
Goal B would be to raise the minimum level to where 99 percent or more of the freshwater bodies would at least be at the fishable level so game fish like bass could live in them. Goal A would further raise the minimum level to where 99 percent or more of the freshwater bodies would be swimmable. I’m going to ask you to say how much (you are/your household is) willing to pay each year, if anything, to reach eac hof there three goals. In doing this, I want you to keep in mind:

First, imagine that if the amount you are willing to pay is more than you are currently paying in taxes and higher prices for this purpose. your taxes would be raised to cover the cost. Of course, if the amount you are willing to pay is lower, you would receive a refund. In this way, every household in the country, including yours, has the opportunity to say how much they are willing to pay for water pollution control. Second, no matter what amount you give for water pollution control, you will alsocontinue to pay for the nation's other environmental programs such as pollution, and that air quality will remain at its present level or improve slightly. Do you have any questions? (If RESPONDENT ASKS HOW MUCH HE OR SHE IS CURRENTLY PAYING): I can't give you that information at this point in the interview, because we need to know how much water pollution control is really worth to you without any reference to what you are currently paying for it. However, in order to help you understand how much you are already paying for things the government provides, the payment card gives information about how much you are paying for other types of government programs. At the end of the interview, I will be glad to give you information about your actual payments for water pollution control. 24

25 First, Goal C. What amount on the payment card, or any amount in between is the most you (your household) would be willing to pay In taxes end higher prices each year to continue to keep the nation’s freshwater bodies from falling below the boatable level where they are now? In other words, what is the highest amount you (your household) would be willing to pay for Goal C each year before you would feel you are spending more than its really worth to you (all members of your household)?

ENTER DOLLAR AMOUNT HERE, ON FLAP AND ON WORKSHEET 000 ZERO OR "NOTHING" 998 DON'T KNOW 999 REFUSED Would it be worth anything (more) to you (your household) to achieve goal B, where 99 percent or more of the freshwater bodies are clean enough so game fish like bass can live in them? SKIP TO Q.26. PAGE 14 SEE Q.24; IF DOLLAR AMOUNT GIVEN ON Q.24 THEN SKIP TO Q.27. IF "ZERO", "NOTHING" GIVEN ON Q.24 AND "NO" ON Q.25 THEN SKIP TO Y1; All OTHERS SKIP TO Y3.11 1 2

because that is what water quality is worth to you (your household) or because of other reasons?

If "2" ON Q.Y1 ASK: Y2. You already paying some amount for water pollution control In your taxes and prices. It is very important to us to learn what value you place on achieving the water quality goals when you are given the chance to make the choice yoursel f to answer these questions if I later tell you how much you are currently paying in taxes and prices and give you the chance to make any changes in your answers you would like to make?

Y3. People have different reasons for saying they don’t know or can’t answer these questions. I’m going to read you some reasons. Please tell me whether or not they represent your feelings about this question. Y3a. Did you give this answer because you are (your household is) paying too much in taxes already and don’t want to spend more?

Y4. I'd like to remind you that you are (your household is) already paying some amount for water pollution control in your taxes and prices

. It is very important to us to learn what value you place on achieving the water quality goals when you are given the chance to make the choice yourself. Would you be willing to answer these questions if I later tell you how much you are (your household is) currently paying in taxes and prices and give you the chance to make any changes in your answers you would like to make? able to meet this goal with the money they have or because you think the government wastes too much money? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.)

If "YES" 1 OR 2 ON Q.Y5, ASK: Y6. It is very important to us to learn what value you (your household) place on achieving the water quality goals when you are given the13 1 4

If "YES" ON Q.Y9 ASK: Y10. It is very important to us to learn what value you (your household) and other citizens place on the water quality goals because asking you directly for this information is one of the best ways to measure the benefits of achieving these goals. Would you be willing to answer these questions if I noted here your view that industry should pay its share?

If "NO", "DON’T KNOW", "REFUSED", ON Q.Y9, ASK: Y11. Is there a reason why you gave this answer (ANSWER TO Q.24 AND Q.25) other than the ones i just read to you? ENTER DOLLAR AMOUNT HERE, ON FLAP AND ON WORKSHEET 000 ZERO OR "NOTHING" 998 DON’T KNOW 999 REFUSED 27. Lastly, would it be worth anything more to (you/your household) to achieve goal A, where 99 percent or more of the nation’s freshwater bodies are clean enough to be swimmable?

ENTER DOLLAR AMOUNT HERE, ON FLAP AND ON WORKSHEET. 000 ZERO OR "NOTHING" 998 DON’T KNOW 999 REFUSED
INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT VOLUNTEERS AT ANY POINT UP TO NOW HE/SHE WANT TO CHANGE THEIR ANSWER PLEASE GO BACK AND DO SO. JUST MAKE SURE THE ANSWERS ARE CHANGED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THE FLAP AND THE WORKSHEET.
29. ADD UP THE AMOUNTS THE RESPONDENT GAVE FOR Q.24, 26 AND 28 AND ENTER THE AMOUNT ON FLAP AND ON WORKSHEET. At this point in the interview, I want to review what you have just said and give you the chance to make adjustments and changes. We often find when we ask questions like these that people don’t realize that we are going to ask them about three different goals until after we have basked all the questions. Looking at the WORKSHEET you said you were willing to pay $ for goal

more for goal 8 and $ more for goal A. This gives total dollars as the maximum annual amount (you/your household) would be willing to pay to reach the nation's water quality goals. If you would like to make any changes, please don’t hesitate to do so. get your best judgement about how much each of these goals is worth to your We want to household There are no right or wrong answers. Would you like to shift any amounts around or raise or lower the total amount? HELP RESPONDENT CHANGE AMOUNTS ON QUESTIONNAIRE AND ON WORKSHEET INCLUDING TOTAL. RECORD NEW AMOUNTS ON FLAP UNDER COLUMN HEADED Q.29.15 VERSION A VERSION A INTERVIEWER NOTE: THE DOLLAR VALUES TO BE INSERTED IN QUESTIONS 30, 31, AND 32 IN THE FINAL DOLLAR VALUES GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT UP TO THIS POINT. THEREFORE, IF RESPONDENT CHANGED DOLLAR AMOUNTS ON QUESTION 29, USE THOSE FIGURES WHEN ASKING QUESTIONS 30, 31 AND 32.

Would you still be willing to pay (READ AMOUNT AT Q.28). If the best we could do was to raise the amount only halfway from fishable to swimmable? (POINT TO MIDWAY BETWEEN LEVELS B AND A ON WORKSHEET.) At halfway, more water bodies would be improved over the fishable level, and some additional, but not all, water bodies would even be improved to the swimmable level.

IF ANY DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN Q.24, 26, OR 28, ASK: 32. You said that you (your household) would be willing to pay a total of (TOTAL AMOUNT FOR Q.24, 26, 28) to reach the nation's water quality goals. Presuming that people in other states would also divide their money honestly, how many dollars or what percent of this amount would you give to (THIS STATE) and how many dollars or what percent to the rest of the nation for water improvement? DON'T KNOW REFUSED 16 please look at the water quality ladder again (Card 3). A major purpose of this survey is to learn the value people place on reaching the three national water pollution goals. Because so many people find it hard to say just how much these goals are worth to them in dollars, they sometimes ask us to tell them how much they are currently paying for water pollution control. We don't provide this information early in the interview because we want people to Influenced by information such as this. Now that you have had a chance to think about this, we would like to tell you the dollar range paid for water pollution control by households in your income bracket and offer you the chance to revise your dollar amounts for water pollution. If you should wish to do so for any reason. Before doing this you need to know two things. First, the actual amount people pay varies according to the size of their household and other factors. Second, It is uncertain whether paying this amount of money each year will provide enough money to reach any of the goals higher than boatable GIVE RESPONDENT APPROPRIATE CARD A9 FOR HIS/HER INCOME. Last year, households like yours paid between (READ RANGE FROM BELOW FOR RESPONDENT'S INCOME GROUP) for the nation's water pollution control programs.

INCOME GROUP COLOR CARD WATER POLLUTION AMOUNT UNDER $10,000 WHITE $10 to $100 $10,000 - $19,999 YELLOW $10 to $150 $20,000 - $29,999 BLUE $175 to $300 $30,000 - $49,999 GREEN $400 to $600 $50,000 OR MORE PINK $1,200 to $1,500 POINT TO WORKSHEET. 33. Here are the amounts you said you would be willing to pay for the three goals. Please feel free to change any of these amounts, up or down. Remember, what we want is your realistic estimate of the highest amount of money each of these goals is worth to you whether or not you are currently paying that amount. Would you like to make any changes? (PAUSE; IF RESPONDENT APPEARS HESITANT, ENCOURAGE RESPONDENT BY REPEATING RELEVANT PARTS OF THE QUESTION.)17 18 SECTION E: BACKGROUND INFORMATION amounts you gave here were not enoughto reach any of these three goals. Including goal C, the boatable level where we are now. Would you (your household) be willing to pay anything more to try to reach any or all of these goals or are these amounts the most you (your household) would realistically give to reach each of them? (PAUSE, IF RESPONDENT APPEARS HESITANT ENCOURAGE RESPONDENT BY REPEATING RELEVANT PARTS OF THE QUESTION.) This last section asks a few questions about you. 37. What was the last grade of regular school that you completed? Do not include specialized schools like secretarial, art, or trade schools.

1 Grade school or less (0-8) 2 Some high school (9-11) 3 High school graduate (12) 4 Some college or junior college 5 College graduate (4 or 5 year degree) 6 Post graduate work or degree 7 DON'T KNOW

39. ASK ONLY IF NOT OBVIOUS: How would you describe your racial or ethnic background? READ CHOICES.

1 White INTERVIEWER NOTE: 2 Black White & Black - Black 3 Hispanic White & Hispanic - Hispanic 4 Asian or Pacific Islander Black & Hispanic - Hispanic 5 Or some other race (SPECIFY) 6 DON'T KNOW 7 REFUSED19 40. Please turn to the last card in the book -- Card 7. For classification purpose only, please tell me which category best describes the total income that you (and all other members of this household) earned during 1982 before taxes. Please be sure to include each member’s wages and salaries, as well as net income from any business, pensions, dividends, interest. tips, or other income. household's income. Just tell me the number that best describes your

A 1 B 2 C 3 D 4 E 5 F 6 G 7 H 8 I 9 J 10 K 11 L 12 13 14 UNDER $5,000 $5,000 to less than $10,000 $10,000 to less than $15,000 $15,000 to less than $20,000 $20,000 to less than $25,000 $25,000 to less than $30,000 $30,000 to less than $35,000 $35,000 to less than $40,000 $40,000 to less than $45,000 $45,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 and over DON'T KNOW REFUSED IF THIS IS A RESPONDENT - ONLY HOUSEHOLD, SKIP TP Q.42 41. How much of this total household income is income that you personally make? Is your share 75% or less of the total household income or is your share more than 75% of the total household income?

1 2 3 4 75% (3/4) or less More than 75% DON'T KNOW REFUSED 20
SECTION F: INTERVIEWER'S EVALUATION INTERVIEWER: COMPLETE THESE QUESTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE INTERVIEW. These two questions are only concerned with how the respondent answered Questions 24 - 29, which asked the respondent to value the three levels of water quality.
43. Irrespective of whether or not the respondent answered Q.24 - 29. In your judgement, how well did the respondent understand what he or she was asked to do in these questions?

44 Which of the following descriptions best describe the degree of effort the respondent made to arrive at a value for the three levels of water quality? 1 Gave the questions prolonged consideration in an effort to arrive at the best possible value ASK EVERYONE: 42. I would like you to think back to the questions I asked you about how much your household is willing to pay to reach each of the three water quality goals, C, B, and A. We find that some peoples are more sure than others about the amounts they gave for Goals C, B, and A. How about yourself? Would you say you are very sure, somewhat sure, somewhat unsure or very unsure about the amounts you gave for these goals?

1 Very sure 2 Somewhat sure 3 Somewhat unsure 4 Very unsure 5 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 2 Gave the questions careful consideration, but the effort was not prolonged 3 Gave the questions some consideration 4 Gave the questions very little consideration 5 Other (SPECIFY):

CLOSING: Thank you for your time and cooperation.1-

2-

3- WATER BENEFITS SURVEY EXHIBIT BOOKLET

CARD I STATEMENTS REGARDING POLLUTION CONTROL

Protecting the environment is so important that pollution control requirements and standards cannot be too strict, and continuing improvement must be made regardless of cost. O R We have made enough progress on cleaning up the environment that we should now concentrate on holding down costs rather than requiring stricter controls. OR Pollution control requirements and standards have gone too far, and they already cost more than they are worth.CARD 2 SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION

1 RUNOFF FROM AGRICULTURE 2 SEWAGE FROM CITIES AND TOWNS 3 DRAINAGE FROM MINES 4 RUNOFF FROM ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 5 SEEPAGE FROM GARBAGE DUMPS 6 DUMPING OF FACTORY WASTE INTO WATERBODIES CARD 3 WATER QUALITY LADDERCARD 4 WHY MY HOUSEHOLD MIGHT VALUE NATIONAL FRESHWATER QUALITY

1. I (MY HOUSEHOLD) USE FRESHWATER FOR: FISHING BOATING, OR SWIMMING
2. I (MY HOUSEHOLD) USE AREAS SURROUNDING FRESHWATER FOR: PICNICKING BIRDWATCHING, OR STAYING IN A VACATION COTTAGE

3. I (MY HOUSEHOLD) GET SATISFACTION FROM KNOWING OTHER PEOPLE MAY USE AND ENJOY FRESHWATER

4. I (MY HOUSEHOLD) GET SATISFACTION FROM KNOWING THAT THE NATION'S WATER IS CLEANER CARD 5
1982 HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

A UNDER $10,000
B $10,000 - $19,999
C $20,000 - $29,999
D $30,000 - $49,999
E $50,000 AND OVERCARD 6

1 A PORTION OF YOUR TAXES

LOCAL SEWER/WATER TAXES STATE FEDERAL To build, maintain, and run community sewage plants, conduct research, enforce water pollution laws, etc.

2 A PORTION OF THE PRICES YOU PAY

ON PRODUCTS SOLD TO To build, maintain, and run waste CONSUMERS BY COMPANIES disposal plants the government requires industries to install in order to meet water pollution standards. CARD 6A WATER QUALITY LADDER65450 CARD 7
1982 HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

READ LETTER TO INTERVIEWER
UNDER $5,000

...................... A $5,000 - $9,999

..................... B $10,000 - $14,999

.................... C $15,000 - $19,999

.................... D $20,000 - $24,999

.................... E $25,000 - $29,999

.................... F $30,000 -$34,999

.....................G $0

1
2

3

4
6
10

15
20

25
30

35

40 -POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION

$35,000 - $39,999

.................... H $40,000 - $44,999

.......... .......... I $45,000 - $49,999

................ ... J $50,000 - $99,999

.................... K $100,000 ANDOVER

................... L PAYMENT CARD
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

UNDER $10,000

(AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT IN 1982 TAXES AND PRICES

PAID FOR SOME PUBLIC PROGRAMS)

SPACE PROGRAM $45

50
55

60
65

70

75
80
85
90
95

100
110 $120

130
140

150

160
170
180
190

200
220

240
250

260 $270

280

290
300

320
340
360

380
400

420
440
460

480 -DEFENSE PROGRAM

-PUBLIC EDUCATION -ROADS AND HIGHWAYS65450 65450

PAYMENT CARD

$ 0 5 10 15 20 25 --- SPACE PROGRAM 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES $10,000 - $19,999 PAYMENT CARD
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

$20,000 - $29,999

(AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT IN 1982 TAXES AND PRICES

PAID FOR SOME PUBLIC PROGRAMS) (AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT IN 1982 TAXES AND PRICES PAID FOR SOME PUBLIC PROGRAMS)
$ 90 POLICE 100 AND FIRE PROTECTION 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 ROADS AND 190 HIGHWAYS 205 220 235 250 265 280 $295 310 325 340 355 370 385 400 415 430 445 460 475 490 PUBLIC 505 EDUCATION 520 535 $550 565 580 595 615 635 655 675 695 715 735 755 775 795 815 $ 0 10 20 30 40 50 SPACE 60 PROGRAM 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 DEFENSE 835 PROGRAM 855 150 170 $190 POLICE 210 AND FIRE PROTECTION 2 30 250 270 290 310 330 350 ROADS AND 380 HIGHWAYS 410 440 470 500 530 $ 620 650 680 710 740 770 800 830 860 890 PUBLIC 920 EDUCATION 950 980 1010 1040 1070 1100 $1140 1180 1220 1260 1300 1340 1380 1420 1460 1500 1540 1580 1620 1660 1700 1740 DEFENSE PROGRAM 1780 5 6 0 5 9065450

PAYMENT CARD
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES PAYMENT CARD
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES

$50,000 AND OVER $30,000 - $49,999

(AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT IN 1982 TAXES AND PRICES

PAID FOR SOME PUBLIC PROGRAMS)
$ 0 15 30 45 60 90 SPACE 120 PROGRAM 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 $ 450 480 POLICE AND FIRE 510 PROTECTION 540 570 600 630 695 ROADS AND 770 HIGHWAYS 845 920 9 9 5 1070 1145 1220 1295 1370 $1445 1520 1595 1670 1745 1820 1895 1970 2045 2120 2195 2210 2345 2420 PUBLIC 2495 EDUCATION 2670 2645 $2720 2805 2890 2975 3060 3145 3230 3315 3400 3485 3570 3655 3740 3825 3910 3995 (AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT IN 1982 TAXES AND PRICES PAID FOR SOME PUBLIC PROGRAMS)
$ 0 $1150 $3860 $ 7410 25 1250 4060 7660 POLICE 50 1350 AND FIRE 4260 7910 PROTECTION 75 1450 4460 8160 100 1550 4660 8410 150 1660 4060 8660 200 1760 5060 8910 ROADS AND 250 1860 HIGHWAYS 5260 9160 300 2060 5460 9410 SPACE 350 PROGRAM 2260 5660 9660 450 2460 6860 9910 650 2660 6060 10160 650 2860 6260 10410 750 3060 6460 10660 PUBLIC 850 3260 6660 EDUCATION 10910 DEFENSE 950 3460 6910 11160 PROGRAM 1050 3660 7160 1141065450 65450

CARD A9
Annual Household Income Before Taxes

Under $10,000

AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID IN 1982 FOR WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
In 1982, households in your income group paid the following amount in local, state and federal taxes and in higher prices for: All Water Pollution Control Programs Between $10 and $100

It is uncertain whether annual payments at this level will be enough to search the fishable and swimmable water quality goals. CARD A9
Annual Household Income Before Taxes

$10,000 - $19,999

AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID IN 1982 FOR WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
In 1982, households in your income group paid the following amount in local, state and federal taxes and in higher prices for: All Water Pollution Control Programs Between $70 and $150

It is uncertain whether annual payments at this level will be enough to reach the fishable and swimmable water quality goals.65450 65450

CARD A9 CARD A9

Annual Household Income Before Taxes Annual Household Income Before Taxes

$20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $49,999

AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID IN 1982 FOR WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID IN 1982 FOR WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS

1982, households in your income group paid the following amount in local , state and federal taxes and in higher prices for: All Water Pollution Control Program s Between $175 and $300

It is uncertain whether annual payments at this level will b e enough to reach the fishable and swimmable water quality goals

. In 1982, households in your income group paid the following amount in local , state and federal taxes and in higher prices for : All Water Pollution Control Program s Between $400 and $600

It is uncertain whether annual payments at this level will be enough to reach the fishable and swimmable water quality goals.

65450

CARD A9

Annual household Income Before Taxes

$50,000 AND OVER

AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID IN 1982 FOR WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS

In 1982, households in your income group paid the following amount in loca l state and federal taxes and in higher prices for : All Water Pollution Control Program s Between $1,200 and $1,500

It is uncertain whether annual payments at this level will b e enough to reach the fishable and swimmable water quality goals

.(RESPONDENT) WORKSHEET PLEASE KEEP INMIND 1. 2. EVERY HOUSEHOLD INTHE COUNTRY HASTHEOPPORTUNITY TOSAY HOW MUCH THEY AREWILLING TO PAY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO PAYWHAT YOU ARE NOW PAYING FOR ALLOTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS, ANDTHEAMOUNT YOU AREWILLING TO PAY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ISINADDITION TOTHESE OTHER AMOUNTS. 65450

DOLLARS PERYEAR INTAXES AND PRICES

GOAL A To raise national minimum water quality sothat nowater bodies arelessthan swimmable inquality, themost myhousehold iswillingtoadd

......... .................
GOAL B Inorder toraise national minimum water quality sothat nowater bodies areless than fishable inquality, themost my household iswillingtoadd.

.. . . . . . . . . . .........
GOAL C The most myhousehold iswillingtoadd ismaintain national minimum water quality sothat nolakes, rivers orstreams are lessthan inquality is

. . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . .

TOTAL AMOUNT TO REACH GOAL

. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . .....(RESPONDENT) WORKSHEET 65450

PLEASE KEEP INMIND 1. EVERY HOUSEHOLD INTHE COUNTRY HASTHEOPPORTUNITY TOSAY HOW MUCH THEY AREWILLING TO PAY FOR WATER CONTROL. 2. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO PAYWHAT YOU ARE NOW PAYING FOR ALLOTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS, ANDTHEAMOUNT YOU AREWILLING TO PAY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ISINADDITION TOTHESE OTHER AMOUNTS.
DOLLARS PERYEAR IN TAXES AND PRICES

GOAL A Toraise national minimum water quality so that no water bodies are lessthan swimmable inquality, themost myhousehold iswillingtoadd

. . . . . . . . . ....................
GOAL B In order toraise national minimum water quality sothat nowater bodies areless than fishable inquality, themost my household iswillingtoadd

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
GOAL C The most myhousehold iswillingtoadd to maintain national minimum water quality sothat nolakes, rivers orstreams are lessthan boatable inquality is

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

# Appendix B THE RFF WATER QUALITY LADDER William J. Vaughan Water quality can either be described in terms of the uses for which a particular body of water is suitable or in terms of the objective characteristics of the water itself. In turn, objective characteristics traverse a continuum from those that are readily perceptible to those that can only be detected by scientific measurement. In certain dimensions (e.g., visible phenomena such as the extent of algal growth, the clearness of the water, and the existence of suds, foam or debris (David, 1971) people at large find it easy to preceive changes in water quality. However, some characteristics which delineate water quality levels more finely, such as dissolved oxygen content, escape visual and olfactory perception. Thus it is not surprising that people's ratings of water quality levels are likely to exhibit a less-than-perfect degree of association with any one or a combination of the several scientific measures of quality conditions (Binkley and Hanemann, 1978). This poses a problem for benefit estimation because the existence of a positive willingness to pay for water quality improvement depends upon the ability of people to perceive water quality changes when such changes do, in fact, occur. This problem had lead previous investigators either to attempt to engineer the fortunate marriage of an objective water quality index (based on some weighted combination of scientific quality parameters) and a subjective

B-1

# index of publicly perceived quality (Bouwes and Schneider, 1979) or to link

subjective indices of public perception and expert perception (Dornbusch, 1975). We choose to describe water quality primarily in terms of the uses for which water becomes suitable, and secondarily in terms of a few obvious water quality conditions (clearness, odor, debris, etc.). However, we located the numerical position of the five posited water quality levels (Boatable, Fishable-2 levels, Swimmable, Drinkable) by indexing a set of five objective scientific water quality parameters using a variant of the National Sanitation Foundation’s Water Quality Index (Booth, et. al., 1976; McClelland, 1974) along with informed judgment. In so doing we hope to establish, ex-ante, an admittedly tenuous link between scientifically measured quality characteristics (anchors of the rating scale) and perceived water quality characteristics (the use and readily perceivable objective characteristic descriptors of these anchors). Specifically, a number of sources were consulted to ascertain the minimally acceptable concentration levels of five measurable quality characteristics associated with five potential uses of natural water courses. These were fecal coliforms (organisms/100 ml), dissolved oxygen (mg/1), maximum BOD-5 (mg/l), turbidity (JTU) and pH. 1

1.Sources consulted include Thomann (1971), U.S.G.S. (1978), Pickle, et. al. (1973), Davis (1968), Economics Research Associates (1979), Katz (1969), Dorfman, et. al. (1972), North Carolina environmental Management Commission. APHA, AWWA and FSIWA (1955), National Technical Advisory Committee (1968). NAS-NAE (1972), EPA (1976), Davidson. Adams and Seneca (1966), National Planning Association (1975).

B-2

# Table B-1. Consensus Water Quality Characteristics of Five Water Quality Classes

Measurable Water Quality Characteristics Fecal Dissolved 5-day Turbidity Ph Water Quality Classification Coliforms Oxygen BOD (#/100 mi) (mg/1) (mg/1) (JTU) Acceptable for drinking water treatment 7.25 0 7.0 (90) 0 5 Acceptable for swimming 200 6.5 (83) 1.5 10 7.25 Acceptable for game fishing 1000 5.0 (64) 3.0 50 7.25 Acceptable for rough fishing 1000 4.0 (51) 3.0 50 7.25 Acceptable for boating 2000 3.5 (45) 4.0 100 4.25
a. Percent saturation at 85’in parentheses.

B-3

# The five quality measures were the only ones for which numerical values could

be obtained across all use classifications, a requirement dictated by the index approach. Particular attention was given to state water quality standards (North Carolina environmental Management Commission, Dorfman, 1972)) because they report specific critical water quality parameters associated with a set (usually four or five) of descriptive water quality classifications. The consensus results for each quality level are summarized in Table B-1. In order to associate each of the five possible sets of scientific measures with a single-valued ordinate or the quality ladder a truncated version of the National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index (WQI) was used:

qi = the quality of the i th parameter, a number from 0 to 100 obtained from the transformation functions for water quality measures in Mclelland (1974). V.1 = the weighted assigned to the i th parameter. The original weights (vi>report in McClelland (1971) cover nine quality measures and i9&,1= 1.00 Our adjusted weights cover a small number of measures which also sum to 1.0 from:

The resultant ladder appears in Figure B-1.

B-4

# Figure B-1 RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE WATER QUALITY LADDER

# For example, the index value for the “Acceptable for Fishing”

classification was developed as shown below:

Value Scaled Value Weight

(qi) &;I Weighted Scale Value Characteristic Fecal Coliform 1000/100ml Dissolved Oxygen 51%’ Max 5-Day BOD 3 mg/1 Turbidity 50 JTU PA 7.25 Cs; i) 20 0.242 1.985 44 0.274 2.820 74 0.161 2.000 38 0.129 1.599 93 0.194 2.049

a. Percent saturation at asoF. Similar calculations for the remaining classes yield the water quality ladder shown in Figure 1.

B-6

# REFERENCES
Sewage, and Industrial Wastes, 10th ed. (New York, American Public Health Association, Inc.). APHA, AWWA, and FSIWA. 1955. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water,

Arrow, Baker, Kenneth J. 1986. “Comments," in Ronald G. Cummings et al., Valuing Environmental Goods (Totawa, NJ, Rowman and Allanheld). R.J. and J.A. Nelder. 1978. The GLIM System Release 3: Generalized Linear Interactive Modeling (Oxford, Numerical Algorithm Group/Royal Statistical Society). Baumol, William J. and Wallace E. Oates. 1979. Economics, Environmental Policy, and the Quality of Life (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., PrenticeHall). Belsley, David A., Edwin Kuh, and Ray E. Welsh. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity (New York. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.). Benedict, Robert. 1980. “A Test of the Direct Legislation Process: The Presence of an Informed Voter?," The Social Science Journal, vol. 17. pp. 21-39. Bergstrom, Theodore C., Daniel L. Rubinfeld, and Perry Shapiro. 1982. “MicroBased Estimates of Demand Functions for Local School Expenditures,” Econometrica, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1183-1205. Bergstrom, Theodore C., R.P. Goodman. 1973. “Private Demands for Public Goods,” American Economic Review, vol. 63, pp. 780-796. Bettman, James R. 1979. An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley). Binkley, Clark S. and W. Michael Hanemann. 1978. The Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvement: (Washington, D.C., U.S. Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban Setting Environmental Protection Agency). Bishop, Richard C. and Thomas A. Heberlein. 1979. “Measuring Values of ExtraMarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 51. no. 5, pp. 926-930. Bishop, Richard C. and Thomas A. Heberlein. 1980. “Simulated Markets, Hypothetical Markets, and Travel Cost Analysis: Alternative Methods of Estimating Outdoor Recreation Demand,” Staff Paper Series no. 187 (University of Wisconsin, Department of Agricultural Economics). Bishop, Richard C., Thomas A. Heberlein and Mary Jo Kealy. 1983. “Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation: Results From a Simulated Market,” Natural Resources Journal, vol. 23, no. 3. pp. 619-633.

# 2 References

Blomquist, Glenn C. 1983. “Measurement of the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements," eds., in George S. Tolley, Dan Yaron, and Glenn C. Blomquist, Environmental Policy: Water Quality (Cambridge, MA, Ballinger). Blomquist, Glenn C. 1984. “Measuring the Benefits of Public Goods Provision Using Implicit and Contingent Markets,” working paper, College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky. Bohm, Peter. 1984. “Revealing Demand for an Actual Public Good,” Journal of Public Economics, vol. 24, pp. 135-151. Bohm, Peter and Clifford S. Russell. 1985. “Comparative Analysis of

Booth, Alternative Policy Instruments,” in Allen V. Kneese, ed., Handbook of Environmental and Resources Economics, vol. 1 New York, North Holland). William E., Paul C. Carubia, and Francis C. Lutz. 1976. A Methodology for comparative Evaluation of Water Quality Indices (Washington, D.C., Council on Environmental Quality) NTIS PB 251-572. Bouwes, Nicolaas W., Sr., and Robert Schneider. 1979. “Procedures in Estimating Benefits of Water Quality Change,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Bradford, David F. 1970. “Benefit-Cost Analysis and Demand Curves for Public Goods,” Kyklos, vol. 23, pp. 775-791. Breiman, L., J.E. Friedman, R.A. Olshen and C. Stone. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees (Belmont, CA, Wadsworth). Brookshire, David S. and Thomas D. Crocker. 1981. “The Advantages of Contingent Valuation Methods for Benefit-Cost Analysis,” Public Choice. vol. 36, pp. 235-252. Brookshire, David S., Alan Randall and John R. Stoll. 1980. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 478-488. Brookshire, David S., William D. Schulze, and Mark A. Thayer. 1985. “Some Unusual Aspects of Valuing a Unique Natural Resource,” unpublished manuscript, Economics Department, University of Wyoming. Brookshire, David S., Mark A. Thayer, William P. Schulze, and Ralph C. d’Arge. 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," The American Economic Review, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 165-176. Brookshire, David S., Alan Randall, and John R. Stoll. 1984. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 62, pp. 478-488. Bureau of the Census. 1984. “Household and Family Characteristics: Maron 1983,” Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No. 388 (Washington. D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce).

# 3 References

Carson, Richard T. 1984. “Compensating for Missing and Invalid Data in Contingent Valuation Surveys,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Section of the American Statistical Association, Washington, D.C., American Statistical Association). Carson, Richard T. and Robert Cameron Mitchell. 1984d. “The Value of Clean Water: The Public’s Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and . Swimmable Quality Water,” Discussion paper QE85-08 Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future). Carson, Richard T. and Robert Cameron Mitchell. 1986. “The Value of Clean Water: The Public’s Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water,” Discussion Paper No. QE85-08 revised (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future). Chavas, Jean-Paul, Richard C. Bishop, and Kathleen Segerson. 1986. “Ex Ante Consumer Welfare Evaluation in Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 255-268. Clawson, Marion and Jack Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future). Cochran, William G. 1977. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. (New York, Wiley). Council on Environmental Quality. 1979. Environmental Quality: The Tenth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington. D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office). Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Public Opinion on Environmental Issues (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office). Courant, Paul N., Edward M. Gramlich, and Daniel L. Rubinfeld. 1980. “Why Voters Support Tax Limitation Amendments: The Michigan Case,” National Tax Journal, vol. 33, pp. 1-20. Cox, D.R. 1970. Analysis of Binary Data (London, Meuthen). Crosby, Lawrence A. , James D. Gill, and James R. Taylor. 1981. “Consumer/Voter Behavior in the Passage of the Michigan Container Law,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 45, pp. 19-32. Cummings, Ronald G., David S. Brookshire, and William D. Schulze, eds. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Method (Totowa, NJ, Rowman and Allanheld). Cummings, Ronald G., Louis Anthony Cox, Jr., A. Myrick Freeman III. 1984. Chapter 6, “General Methods for Benefits Assessment,” in Arthur D. Little Company, Evaluation of the State-of-the-Art in Benefits Assessment Methods for Public Policy Purposes. Report to the Division of Policy Research and Analysis, National Science Foundation. (Cambridge, HA, Arthur D. Little), pp. 6-1 to 6-31. Cummings. Ronald G., William D. Schulze. Selby D. Gerking and David S. Brookshire. 1986. “Measuring the Elasticity of Substitution of Wages

# 4 References for Municipal Infrastructure: Hedonic Approaches”, A Comparison of the Survey and Wage Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 269-276. Daubert, John T. and Robert A. Young. 1981. “Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: A Contingent Valuation Approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 63, pp. 666-676. David, Elizabeth L. 1971. “Public Perception of Water Quality,” Water Resources Research, vol. 7, no. 3. David M. Dornbusch and Company, Inc. 1975. The Impact of Water Quality

Improvements on Residential Property Prices. Report prepared for the National Commission on Water Quality (San Francisco, David M. Dornbusch and Company, Inc.). Davidson, Paul, F. Gerard Adams, and Joseph Seneca. 1966. “The Social Value

of Water recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water Quality: The Delaware Estuary,” in A. V. Kneese and S. C. Smith. eds., Water Research (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for RFF). Davis, Robert K. 1963a. “Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem,” Natural

Resources Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 239-249. Davis, Robert K. 1968. A Study of Dissolved Oxygen in the Potomac Estuary

(Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for RFF). Deacon, Robert and P. Shapiro. 1975. “Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda,” American Economic Review, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 943-955. Deming, W. Edwards. 1977. “An Essay on Screening, or on Two-Phase Sampling, Applied to Surveys of a Community,” International Statistical Review, vol. 45, pp. 29-37. Desvousges, William H., V. Kerry Smith, and Matthew P. McGivney. 1983. “A

Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements,” (Washington, D.C..U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, EPA230-05-83-001). Dorfman, Robert. 1977. “Incidence of the Benefits and Costs of Environmental

Programs," American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, vol. 67, pp. 333-340. Dorfman, Robert, Henry D. Jacoby and Harold A. Thomas, Jr., eds. 1972.

Models for Managing Regional Water Quality (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). Dragstedt, C.A. and V.F. Land. 1928. “Respiratory Stimulants in Acute

Cocaine Poisoning in Rabbits." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 32, pp. 215-222. Dwyer, John F., John R. Kelly, and Michael D. Bowes. 1977. Improved

Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National

# 5 References Economic Development (Urbana-Champaign, IL, University of Waters Resources Center). Illinois, Dyson, Pamela J. 1984. Recreational Water Availability in the United States. The Impact of Pollution Control (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future). Economics Research Associates. 1979. “Cost Impact of Marine Pollution on Recreation Travel Patterns.” (Corvallis, OR, U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory) 68-01-3197, NTIS PB-290655. Enelow, James M. and Melvin J. Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An

Introduction (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Eu, March Fong and William G. Hamm. 1984. California Ballot Pamphlet: 1984

General Election November 6 (Sacramento, California Secretary of State). Farber, Kit D., Frederick J. Dreiling, and Gary L. Rutledge. 1984.

“Pollution Abatement and Control Expenditures, 1972-1982,” Survey of Current Business, vol. 64, pp. 22-30. Feenberg, Daniel and Edwin S. Hills. 1980. Measuring the Benefits of Water

Pollution Abatement (New York, Academic Press). Fienberg, Stephen E. and Judith M. Tanur. 1985. “A Long and Honorable Tradition: Interwining Concepts and Constructs in Experimental Design and Sample Surveys," paper presented at the International Statistical Institute Meeting, Amsterdam. Finney, David. 1971. Probit Analysis, 3rd ed. (London, Cambridge University

Press). Finney, David. 1978. Statistical Methods in Biological Assay, 3rd ed. (New York, John Wiley). Fischhoff, Baruch, Paul Slovic, and Sarah Lichtenstein. 1980. “Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values,” in Thomas S. Wallsten, ed., Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior (Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers). Fisher, Ann and Robert Raucher. 1984. “Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives,” in V. Kerry Smith. Ed., Advances in Applied Economics (Greenwich, CT., JAI Press). Freeman, A. Myrick III. 1979b. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: -7 Theory and Practice (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future). Freeman, A. Myrick III. 1982. Air and Water Pollution Control: A Benefit 7-r’ Assessment New York, Wiley). Freeman, A. Myrick III. 1986 “On Assessing the State of the Arts of the Contingent Valuation Method of Valuing Environmental Changes,” in Ronald G. Cummings et al., Valuing Environmental Goods (Totawa. ‘9, Rowman and Allanheld).

# 6 References

Gianessi, Leonard P. and Henry M. Peskin. 1980. “The Distribution of the

Costs of Federal Water Pollution Control Policy,” Land Economics, vol. 56, pp. 85-102. Goldberger, Arthur S. 1968. “The Interpretation and Estimation of CobbDouglas Functions,” Econometrica, vol. 35, 464-472. Goldfeld, S.M. and R. E. Quant. 1972. Nonlinear Methods in Econometrics

(Amsterdam, North-Holland). Graham, Daniel A. 1981. “Cost-Benefit Analysis Under Uncertainty,” American

Economic Review, vol. 71, pp. 715-725. Gramlich, Frederick W. 1977. “The Demand for Clean Water: The Case of the

Charles River," National Tax Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 183-194. Green International, Inc. 1979. Clean Water. Comprehensive Water Quality

Management Plan, Ohio Valley Study Area, Study Area 9, Chapter 13, report to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Sewickley, PA). Greenley, Douglas A., Richard G. Walsh, and Robert A. Young. 1981. “Option

Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 657-672. Greenley, Douglas A., Richard G. Walsh, and Robert A. Young. 1982. Economic

Benefits of Improved Water Quality: Public Preceptions of Option and Preservation Values (Boulder, CO., Westview Press). Hammack, Judd and Gardner Mallard Brown, Jr. 1974. Waterfowl and Wetlands:

Toward Bioeconomic Analysis (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future). Harrison, David and Daniel L. Rubinfield. 1978. “The Distribution of

Benefits from Improvements in Urban Air Quality,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 5, pp. 313-332. Hoehn, John P. and Alan Randall. 1982. “Aggregation and Disaggregation of

Program Benefits in a Complex Policy Environment: A Theoretical Framework and Critique of Estimation Methods,” a paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association summer meetings, Utah State University. Jones-Lee, M.W., M. Hammerton, and R.R. Philips. 1985. “The Value of Safety: Results from a National Survey,” The Economic Journal, vol. 95, pp. 49- 72. Just, Richard E., Darrell L. Hueth, and Andrew Schmitz. 1982. Applied Welfare

Economics and Public Policy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ., Prentice Hall). Katz, Max. 1969. Appendix F in Robert Nathan Associates. “Mine Draining

Pollution and Recreation in Appalachia.” (Washington, D.C., Robert Nathan Associates). Knetsch, Jack L. and Robert K. Davis. 1966. “Comparisons of Methods for

Recreation Evaluation,” in Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smith, ecs.

# Lake, 7 References Water Research (Baltimore, for the Future). Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources Ladd, Everett Carl. 1982. “Clearing the Air: Public Opinion and Public Policy on the Environment," 16-20. Public Opinion, February/March, vol. 5, pp. Lake, Elizabeth E., Michael W. Hanneman, and Sharon M. Oster. 1979. Who Pays for Clean Water? The Distribution of Water Pollution Control Costs (Boulder, CO, Westview Press). Laura. 1983. “The Environmental Mandate: Activists and the Electorate,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 98, pp. 215-233. Langkford, R. Hamilton. 1985. “Preferences of Citizens for Public Expenditures

on Elementary and Secondary Education,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 27, pp. 1-20. Lareau, Thomas J. and Douglas A. Rae. 1985. “Valuing Diesel Odor Reductions: Results from Philadelphia Survey,” draft manuscript, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.). Loomis, John and Cindy Sorg. 1982. “A Critical Summary of Empirical Estimates of the Values of Wildlife, Wilderness and General Recreation Related to National Forest Regions.” unpublished manuscript (Fort Collins, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station). Lutrin, Carl E. and Allen K. Settle. 1975. “The Public Role of Initiatives in California’s environmental Political Quarterly, vol. 28, pp. 352-371. and Ecology: The Politics,” Western Magleby, David B. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions

in the United States (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press). McClelland, Nina I. 1974. Water Quality Index application in the Kansas River Basin (Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) EPA-907/9-74-001. McCullagh, P. and J. Nelder. 1983. Generalized Linear Models (London:

Chapman and Hall). McFadden, Daniel. 1976. “The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy:

Empirical Evidence,” Bell Journal of Economics, vol. 7, pp. 55-72. Mead, R. and R.N. Curnow. 1983. Statistical Methods in Agriculture and

Experimental Biology (London: Chapman and Hall). Mitchell, Robert Cameron. 1979b. “Silent Spring/Solid Majorities,” Public

Opinion, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 16-20. 55. Mitchell, Robert Cameron. 1984. “Public Opinion and Environmental Politics

in the 1970s and 1980s,” in Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds. Environmental Policy in the 1980s: The Impact of the Reagan Administration (Washington, D.C., 51-74. Congressional Quarterly Press), pp.

# 8 References

Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Richard T. Carson. 1981. “An Experiment in

Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements," Draft Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C.). Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Richard T. Carson. 1984. A Contingent Valuation

Estimate of National Freshwater Benefits: Technical Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future). Mitchell, Robert Cameron and Richard T. Carson. Forthcoming.

to Value the Benefits of Public Goods: Using Surveys The Contingent Valuation Method (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future). Morgan, James N. 1978. “Multiple Motives, Group Decisions, Uncertainty,

Ignorance, and Confusion: A Realistic Economics of the Consumer Requires Some Psychology,” American Economic Review, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 58-63. Mueller, John E. 1969. “Voting on the Propositions: Ballot Patterns and

Historical Trends in California,” American Political Science Review. vol. 63, pp. 1197-1212. Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc. 1969. “Mine Drainage Pollution and

Recreation in Appalachia.” (Washington, D.C., Robert Nathan Associates.) National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences Engineering

Committee on Water Quality Criteria. 1972. Water Quality Criteria: 1972 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). National Planning Association. 1975. Water Related Recreation Benefits

Resulting from P.L. 92-500 (Washington, D.C., Prepared for National Comm. on Water Quality). National Technical Advisory Committee. 1968. Water Quality Criteria: A

Report on the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior (Washington, D.C., Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.) Neyman, J. 1938. “Contributions to the Theory of Sampling Human

Populations," Journal of the American Statistical Association. vol. 33. pp. 101-116. North Carolina Environmental Management Commission. North Carolina

Administrative Code (Raleigh, N.C., Environmental Management Commission - current through March 1977). Oster, Sharon. 1977. “Survey Results on the Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement in the Merrimack River Basin;” Water Resources Research, vol. 13, pp. 882-884. Peskin, Henry M. and Eugene P. Seskin, eds. 1975. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy (Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute.

# 9 References

Peterson, George. 1975. John E. “Voter Demand for Public School Expenditures,” in

Jackson, ed., Public Needs and Private Behavior in Metropolitan Areas (Cambridge, Ballinger). Pickle, Hal B., Andrew C. Rucks, and Renee Sisson. 1973. The Economic Benefits of Abating Water Pollution in the Steel, Textile, and Paper Industries in Alabama (Auburn, AL, Water Resources Research Institute). Portney, Paul R. 1981. “The Macroeconomic Impacts of Federal Environmental Regulations,” in Henry M. Peskin, Paul R. Portney, and Allen C. Kneese, eds., Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Economy (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future). Pregibon, D. 1981. “Logistic Regression Diagnostics,” Annals of Statistics,

vol. 9, pp. 704-724. Prentice, R.L. 1976. “A Generalization of the Probit and Logit Methods for Does Response Curves,” Biometrics, vol. 32, pp. 761-768. Radosevich, Ted C. 1975. “Electoral Analysis of the Clean Water Bond Law of

1974: Patterns of Support in a Continuing Environmental Issue,” Working Paper No. 15, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Randall, Alan. 1986b. “The Possibility of Satisfactory Benefit Estimation

with Contingent Markets,” in Ronald G. Cummings, et al., Valuing Environmental Goods (Totawa, NJ, Rowman and Allanheld). Randall, Alan, John P. Hoehn, and George S. Tolley. 1981. “The Structure of

Contingent Markets: Some Experimental Results,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, Washington, D.C. Randall, Alan, Berry C. Ives and Clyde Eastman. 1974. “Bidding Games for

Valuation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 1, pp. 132-149. Ridker, Ronald G. 1967. Economic Costs of Air Pollution (New York, Praeger). Rosen, Sherwin. 1986. “Comments,” in Ronald G. Cummings, et al., Valuing

Environmental Goods (Totawa, NJ, Rowman and Allanheld). Rowe, Robert D. and Lauraine G. Chestnut. 1983. “Valuing Environmental

Commodities Revisited,” Land Economics, vol. 59, pp. 404-410. Schulze, William D., Ralph C. d’Arge and David S. Brookshire. 1981. ‘“Valuing

Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments,” Land Economics, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 151-169. Sellar, Christine, John R. Stoll and Jean-Paul Chavas. 1985. “Validation of

Smith, Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques,” Land Economics, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 156-175. V. Kerry. Forthcoming. “Uncertainty. Benefit-Cost Analysis, and the Treatment of Option Value,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

# 10 References

Stynes, D.J., George L. Peterson, and D.H. Rosenthal. 1986. “Log Transformation Bias in Estimating Travel Cost Models,” Land Economics, vol. 62, pp. 84-103. Sutherland, Ronald J. and Richard G. Walsh. 1985. “Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality,” Land Economics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 281-291. Swartzman, Daniel, Richard A. Liroff, and Kevin G. Croke, eds. 1982. CostBenefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations: politics, Ethics, and Methods (Washington, D.C., The Conservation Foundation). Thomann, Robert V. 1971. Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management (New

York, Environmental Research and Applications, Inc.) Tihansky, Dennis. 1975. “A Survey of Empirical Benefit Studies,” in Henry M.

Peskin and Eugene P. Seskin, eds., Cost-Benefit Analysis & Water Pollution Policy (Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute). Tolley, G.S., Dan Yaron, and Glen Bloomquist, eds. 1963. Environmental

Policy: Water Quality (Cambridge, MA, Ballinger). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Water (Washington, D.C., Quality Criteria for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. The Cost of Clean Air

and Water: Report to Congress 1984 (Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis). United States Geological Survey. 1978. “Water-Quality Indices for Specific Water Uses.” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 770. Vaughan, William J., Charles M. Paulsen, Julie A. Hewitt, and Clifford S.

Russell. 1985. “The Estimation of Recreation-Related Water Pollution Control Benefits: Swimming, Boating, and Marine Recreational Fishing," Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future). Vaughan, William J. and Clifford S. Russell. 1982. Freshwater Recreational

Fishing: The National Benefits of Water Pollution Control (Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future): White, H. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator

and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity,” Econometrica, vol. 48. pp. 817-838. Wolfinger, Raymond and Fred Greenstein. 1968. “The Repeal of Fair Housing in

California: An Analysis of Referendum Voting,” American Political Science Review, vol. 62, pp. 753-769.