APPENDIX A

RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE/1983 NATIONAL WATER BENEFITS STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

Robert Cameron Mitchell and Richard T. Carso n

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 REFUSED
SECTION 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

REFUSED
5 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 REFUSED
7 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

REFUSED
9

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 h of 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 als o continue 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 the
13 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 enough to 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 REFUSED
19

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 LADDER
CARD 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 OVER
CARD 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 LADDER
65450 

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 AND OVER ................... 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 

HIGHWAYS 
65450 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 9 0
65450

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 11410
65450 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 - $29,99 9

$30,000 - $49,99 9

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 Taxe s

$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 $1,50 0

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 IN MIND 

1. 

2. 

EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE COUNTRY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HOW MUCH THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL. 

YOU WILL CONTINUE TO PAY WHAT YOU ARE NOW PAYING FOR ALL OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS, AND THE AMOUNT YOU ARE WILLING 

TO PAY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IS IN ADDITION TO THESE OTHER AMOUNTS. 

65450 

DOLLARS PER YEAR 

IN TAXES AND PRICES 

GOAL A 

To raise national minimum water quality 

so that no water bodies are less than 

swimmable in quality, the most my household is willing to add 

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

GOAL B 

In order to raise national minimum water 

quality so that no water bodies are less 

than fishable in quality, the most my 

household is willing to add. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 

GOAL C 

The most my household is willing to add 

is maintain national minimum water quality 

so that no lakes, rivers or streams are 

less than in quality is . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . 

TOTAL AMOUNT TO REACH GOAL . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . ... .. 
(RESPONDENT) 

WORKSHEET 

65450 

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND 

1. EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE COUNTRY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HOW MUCH THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR WATER CONTROL. 

2. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO PAY WHAT YOU ARE NOW PAYING FOR ALL OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS, AND THE AMOUNT YOU ARE WILLING 

TO PAY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IS IN ADDITION TO THESE OTHER AMOUNTS. 

DOLLARS PER YEAR 

IN TAXES AND PRICES 

GOAL A 

To raise national minimum water quality 

so that no water bodies are less than 

swimmable in quality, the most my household is willing to add . . . . . . . . . .................... 

GOAL B 

In order to raise national minimum water 

quality so that no water bodies are less 

than fishable in quality, the most my 

household is willing to add . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

GOAL C 

The most my household is willing to add 

to maintain national minimum water quality 

so that no lakes, rivers or streams are 

less than boatable in quality 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.