The items contained in the index, its manner of construction and its distribution are described in Appendix VIII. To test its metric qualities 5 13 we re estimated our regression equations using several different forms of the index to see if the parameters of the other variables or the R 2 of the equations were affected. The results of these tests suggest the 8 use of the linear form.

Concern About Water Pollution  None of the items in the environmental index treat water pollution because we wanted to see if concern about water pollution had the separate effect on willingness to pay we thought it should.

The item in our questionnaire which measured water pollution concern was one of a series of items about which the respondent was asked:

( Q. 11) Now I'd like to find out how worried or concerned you are about a number of problems I am going to mention: a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or not at all. If you aren't really concerned about some of these matters, don't hesitate to say so.

C. Cleaning up our waterways and reducing water pollution.

In answer to thise question, thirty nine percent said they were concerned a great deal, 44 percent a fair amount, 13 percent not very much and 3 percent not at all. We constructed a dummy variable CWPOLD) where 1  those who say they are concerned a great deal and 0 = the remainder.

Recreational Use of Water  We reasoned that the greater the respondent's recreational use of freshwater, the greater value water pollution control 8 We estimated equation 2 ( Table 5.4) using squared and cubed forms of ENVINDEX in addition to ENVINDEX. The squared and cubed forms were insignificant Equation 2 was also estimated substituting the log ENVINDEX for ENVINDEX. The R2 of this equation was lower. In both of these cases we used F tests to test whether any of these alternative equations had significantly different coefficients for the other parameters in the equation 2. Each F test of the paired coefficients was insignificant. As a result of these tests we decided to use the linear form of the index. 5 14 would have for him or her. Previous WTP studies examined the relationship between recreational use and willingness to pay without finding any correlation. The Colorado State study regressed the reported number of water based recreation activity days experienced annually in the South Platte River Basin and the degree to which respondents liked outdoor water based recreation on their WTP measures and found no effect ( Walsh,

et al., 1978: 52, 69 72). Similar findings of no or marginal significance for recreational use are also reported for air quality ( Eastman, et al.,

1978: 16 17) and water quality ( Gramlich, 1977: 187).

We measured recreational freshwater use by a series of questions ( Qs. 58 66 in Appendix IV) which asked the respondent whether in the past two years he or she had gone:

" sailing, canoeing, power boating, water skiing and the like"

" swimming in a freshwater lake or stream as opposed to a swimming pool or the ocean"

" fishing in a freshwater lake or stream"

Each person who said yes to an item was asked further whether he or she did this " within fifty miles of your home, or farther away, or both?"

and " roughly how many times would you say you ( did the activity) over the past two years?" Personal use of freshwater for these purposes varied from 34 percent who went fishing to 39 percent who went boating, We tested various forms of a recreational measure and our tests showed that neither the location of use nor the amount of use contributed to the estimation,

a finding similar to the Colorado State study. We therefore created a simple dummy variable, USERD, which was set at 1 for those who reported freshwater use of any kind over the past two years ( 60 percent of the sample)

and 0 for those who reported no personal use during this time period. 5 15 Estimation Our final explanatory model for national water quality values consists of six variables: three are socioeconomic characteristics, two are attitudinal measures and one is a self reported behavioral measure. Table 5.3 gives the Pearson( r) correlation matrix for these variables. Although no correlation is .40 or above, three of the fifteen are above .30.

Multicollinearity cannot be ruled out, but the symptom of insignificant coefficient estimators in conjunction with large R values was not observed. 2 ( continue ) 5 16 Table 5.3 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR VARIABLES USED IN THE REGRESSION EQUATIONS INCOME AGE EDUC ENVINDEX CWPOLD USERD Variable INCOME AGE EDUC ENVINDEX CWPOLD USERD INCOME AGE 1.00000  0.07698 0.0000 0.0425  0.07698 1.00000 0.0425 0.0000 0.37733  0.27897 0.0001 0.0001 0.05241  0.25041 0.1675 0.0001  0.05756  0.05206 0.1295 0.1704 0.16160  0.32212 0.0001 0.0001 EDUC ENVINDENX CWPOLD USERD 0.37733 0.05241  0.05756 0.16160 0.0001 0.1675 0.1295 0.0001  0.27897  0.25041  0.05206  0.32212 0.0001 0.0001 0.1704 0.0001 1.00000 0. 20955 0.02733 0.19735 0.0000 0.0001 0.4719 0.0001 0.20955 1.00000 0.34516 0.23361 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.02733 0.34516 1.00000  0.00231 0.4719 0.0001 0.0000 0.9516 0.19785 0.23361  0.00231 1.00000 0.0001 0.0001 0.9516 0.0000 N Mean Std Dev Sum Minimum Maximum 695 19946.8 13647.8 13863000 2000 60000 695 42.3 16.0 29418 20 70 695 4.3 1.3 2978 2 7 695 6.4 1.8 4439 1 11 695 0.4 0.5 285 0 1 695 0.6 0.5 435 0 1 5 17 Equations were estimated using ordinary least squares regression for the three levels of water quality as shown in Table 5.4. The patterns for the three levels are very similar with the fit, as measured by R2, increasing slightly from .28 for the boatable equation to .31 for the swimmable one. Using the swimmable equation as our example, each of the independent variables is statistically significant at the .05 level or better. Income is the major factor in the equation followed by the environmental index. Despite its affinity with the index, concern about water pollution enters separately at a highly significant level. The recreation use variable also enters,

although in the boatable equation its t value is slightly below the .05 level.

Alternative functional forms for these equations were tested. The most obvious candidate for an alternative form, considering our strong income effect, is a log log estimation ( Gramlich, 1977). The results for this type of estimation were not appreciably different or better than the OLS estimation except that the significance of the recreational use variable was increased. 6 6 The results of the log log estimation for fishable waters are as follows:

Dependent Variable = Log of Level C Coefficient t Intercept  4.24  4.89 LOG INCOMER 0.70 7.50 EDUC .29 4.73 AGECAT . 13  5.53 ENVINDEX .32 7.06 USERD .85 5.39 CWPOLD N = 645 .27 R2 = .39 1.81 F = 74.33 5 18 Table 5.4 OLS REGRESSION OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL VARIABLES ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY AMOUNTS FOR THREE LEVELS OF NATIONAL WATER QUALITY1 INTERCEPT Levels of Water Quality eq. 1 Boatable ( D) eq. 2 Fishable ( C)

Coefficient ( t)

 141.91 ( 3.07)  163.83 ( 3.03)

INCOME AGE .0058 ( 10.36) .0072 ( 10.95)

 1.34 . 2.85)  1.84 ( 3.25)

EDUC 14.39 ( 2.27) 15.15 ( 2.04)

ENVINDEX 21.81 ( 4.79) 28.74 ( 5.40)

CWPOLD USERD 47.90 ( 3.11) 51.18 ( 2.84)

27.25 ( 1.71) 40.88 ( 2.20)

N 695 695 R2 .28 .31 F 44.54 50.61 eq. 3 Swimmable ( B)

 143.47 ( 2.41)

.0075 ( 10.43)

 2.60 ( 4.16)

17.35 ( 2.12)

31.77 ( 5.46)

56.68 ( 2.86)

45.52 ( 2.23)

695 .31 51.39 1 For Versions A, B, C combined less a few cases which were dropped for reasons described in Appendix VI. 5 19 Heteroskedasticity is to be expected in regression equations which use any kind of consumer expenditure data ( Prais and Houthacker, 1955)

and our estimations are no exception. Initial tests of heteroskedasticity showed we had heteroskedasticity with respect to almost very variable.

Since the presence of heteroskedasticity indicates that the OLS assumption of a covariance matrix of the form a31 has been violated, a generalized least squares ( GLS) procedure must be used to obtain correct parameter estimates.

( Johnson, 1932; Rao, 1965). The GLS procedure uses the covariance matrix 2 instead of , z'I. The GLS estimator of E is and the variance of the GLS estimator is When 2  1 is known, estimation of the GLS estimator is straightfoward.

When Q l is not known, special techniques must be used to estimate it.

2 Standard adjustments such as weighting by l/ income ( Johnson, 1972) or 11;" ( Goldberger, 1964) did not correct the problem. Since the standard constructive tests for heteroskedasticicy are not appropriate for a combination of dummy and continuous variables such as ours ( except for some maximum likelihood estimators and some sophisticated grouping techniques which are almost impossible to implement) we devised our own test. Inspired by the Park test, the Carson Vaughan constructive test uses a semilog weight 7 transformation.

7 See Appendix VIII for an extended discussion. 5 20 Table 5.5 presents the estimations corrected for heteroskedasticity.

The income coefficients and significance levels are now 20 percent lower than in the OLS equations. Significance levels for education and the two environmental attitude variables are also reduced while those for age and recreational use are increased somewhat.

To give an indication of price flexibility we calculated the ranges shown in Table 5.6. The range is from moderate inelastic to unitary elasticity. They are slightly higher but in the same general range as those found by Brookshire, et al. ( 1980: 485) for elk hunting (. 306) and Randall, et al. ( 1974: 147) for air pollution (. 39  .65).

Given the size of our sample, the fact that our explanatory variables are chosen for their theoretical relevance, and the cross sectional character of data; the variance explained by our model is reasonably high. We regard this as important evidence that the contingent market described in our research instrument is sufficiently realistic to minimize hypothetic bias. 5 21 Table 5.5 1 ADJUSTED REGRESSION OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND ATTITUDINAL VARIABLES ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY AMOUNTS FOR THREE LEVELS OF NATIONAL WATER QUALITY Levels of Water Quality eq. 4 Boatable ( D) eq. 5 Fishable ( C) eq. 6 Swimmable ( B)

INTERCEPT  30.61 ( 1.14)  25.63 (. 80) 5.97 (. 17)

INCOMER .0047 ( 8.71) .0058 ( 9.06) .0062 ( 8.75)

AGE  1.01 ( 3.71)  1.48 EDUC 8.70 ( 2.24) 10.37 ENVINDEX 8.42 ( 3.28) 11.04 CWPOLD 30.34 ( 3.09) 34.30 USERD 24.06 ( 2.69) 32.92 N 2 F 695 695 .28 .32 45.02 52.82 ( 4.56)  2.15 ( 5.77)

( 2.25) 12.52 ( 2.47)

( 3.63) 12.14 ( 3.56)

( 2.97) 38.62 ( 2.91)

( 3.07) 30.73 ( 2.58)

695 .33 55.79 1 Data are adjusted for heteroskedasticity by the Carson Vaughan Constructive Test ( see Appendix VIII for description). Table 5.6 5 22 PRICE FLEXIBILITY OF INCOME Level D .68  1.06 Level C .70  1.12 Level B .69  1.12 The high end of the range for the price flexibility of income for the different levels of water quality was estimated from the equation:

( 1) Log( Leve1 X) = Intercept + BILog( Income)

The low end of the range was estimated from the equation:

( 2) Log( Leve1 X) = Intercept + PILog( Income) + S2Educ +

BjPge + Sl~ NV~ 3DEx + B5usEm + S6cxPo~ D Because income is moderately correlated with some of the variables in ( 2) only a range rather than a point estimate can be given. 5 23 INTRINSIC AND RECREATION BENEFITS In Chapter 1 we identified direct use recreation benefits and intrinsic benefits ( which include indirect, option and existence benefits) as the subject matter of our research. Unlike the Colorado State researchers,

we did not ask our respondents separate WTP questions for each type of benefit we sought to measure. We believe it is beyond the capability of many respondents to reliably determine the separate value they have for sub categories of water benefits and the results of the Colorado State study confirm us in this belief. Our approach adopts a different technique which we will describe and illustrate with our data.

At the heart of the distinction between recreational and intrinsic benefits is the direct use vs. other than direct use distinction. The latter, our intrinsic category, includes a wide array of benefits ranging from indirect benefits to duck hunters of " clean" water to the pleasure gained from knowing that the nation's freshwater bodies have attained a certain quality level. Since our WTP questions measure the overall value respondents have for water quality, the amount given by each respondent represents the combination of recreational and intrinsic values held by that person. We reason the values expressed by the respondents who do not engage in in stream recreation should be almost purely intrinsic in nature. In calculating the average WTP amount for the non recreator's alone, therefore, we get an approximation of the intrinsic value o water quality. By subtracting the non recreator's WTP amount from the total the recreators are willing to pay, we can estimate, in a rough way, the portion of the recreator's benefits which are attributable to intrinsic values. 5 24 Of the 832 respondents for whom we have use and WTP data, 323 or 39 percent reported that they had not boated, fished or swum in freshwater in the past two years. These non users gave a mean WTP amount for fishable water ( level C) of $ 111. Bearing in mind the crudity of our use measurement ( which we will discuss later) $ 111 may be regarded as an estimate of the mean intrinsic value which fishable level water quality nationwide has for our sample. The mean WTP amount given by the users ( 61 percent of our sample)

was $ 237. By assuming that users value the intrinsic benefits of freshwater at the same level as the non users, we can subtract $ 111 from $ 237 to arrive at a mean recreational benefit of $ 126 for the users. By these calculations,

about intrinsic benefits are large; comprising/ 45 percent of the benefits for each user ($ 111/ 237); 100 percent of the benefits for the non users ($ 111/ S111); about 55 8 and/ percent of the total mean benefit for the sample as a whole ($ 111/$ 194) .

An alternative way to estimate intrinsic benefits is to estimate equation 7.

Eq. 7: WTP = WTP Total Intrinsic + WTPRecreation This may be done by regressing USERD on the WTP amount for fishable water.

Table 5.7 gives the results. Both the intercept and the USERD terms are highly significant. The coefficient of the intercept may be interpreted as the intrinsic value. This amount, $ 113, is very close to the $ 111 arrived at by the other method.

In an effort to see whether it is possible to gain insight into the differential contribution to the equation of the three types of freshwater use which comprise the USERD variable, we estimated equation 8 ( Table 5.8).

8 From Table 5.1. Table 5.7 5 25 USER OLS INTRINSIC BENEFIT ESTIMATE FOR FISHABLE WATER QUALITY Intercept USERD Coefficient 112.6 131.7 N = 794 R2= .06 t 7.7 7.0 F = 49.0 USERD = Dummy variable where 1 = personal use of freshwater for fishing, boating, or swimming in the past two years. Table 5.8 5 26 BOAT, SWIM, FISH OLS INTRINSIC BENEFIT ESTIMATE FOR FISHABLE WATER QUALITY Eq. 8 Coefficient Intercept 120.1 BOAT 93.8 FISH 22.5 SWIM 75.4 N = 792 R2= .08 F 22.1 t 9.3 4.4 1.1 3.6 BOAT = Dummy variable where 1 = boated on freshwater in last two years.

FISH = Dummy variable where 1 = fished in freshwater in last two years.

SWIM = Dummy variable where 1 = swam in freshwater in last two years. 5 27 Collinearity between boating, fishing, and swimming precludes making firm estimates of the size and significance of the coefficients on boating,

fishing and swimming, so we will only highlight major differences between the types of recreation. 9 The intrinsic term ( intercept) remains stable and gains in significance. However, only two of the three types of uses,

boating and swimming, have significant t values. Fishing is not a good predictor of the respondent's value for fishable water, an anomaly which is not easy to interpret. On the hypothesis that there may be an interaction between fishing and income which depresses the effect of fishing use in an equation which includes people from all income levels, we reestimated equation 8 for each of our four income levels. According to the t statistics for this new estimation, which are shown in Table 5.9, fishing continues to be non significant. A more detailed analysis of this question, which we have not undertaken at this point, may provide clues to why fishing is unrelated to people's value for national water quality at the fishable level.

Table 5.9 also shows some interesting findings with respect to the other two recreation variables and the USERD measures. At the lower income levels, boating and swimming have significant t values whereas at the higher two levels ( with the exception of swimming for the highest income level) the values are not significant. Likewise, USERD is strongly 9 It may be possible to use ridge regression to arrive at more accurate parameter estimates. Table 5.9 5 28 t RATIOS FOR REGRESSION OF USE ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FISHABLE WATER ( C) l HOLDING INCOME CONSTANT Recreational Use of Water in last two years Income Level USERD / BOAT FISH SWIM I. $ 0  9,999 5.3 2.6 .03 2.7 II. $ 10,000  14,999 4.8 2.0 1.5 3.0 III. $ 15,000  24,999 1.9 1.4 1.3 .6 IV. $ 25,000 and over 1.8 .8 .5 2.7 R2 for BOAT + SWIM + FISH ( Eq. 8)

.16 .21 .03 .07 Underlined t values are significant at 1 .05.

1 Using equation 8, Table 5.8. 5 29 significant for income levels I and II and barely significant for III and IV.

This suggests that recreational use is an important determinant of the value lower income people have for water quality, This is confirmed by the R2s of .15 and .21 for these regressions ( equation 8, for income levels I and II on WTP for fishable quality water). Using our regression estimation technique described earlier, we calculated the intrinsic benefits for each of the four income groups. Table 5.10 gives the results which show the dominance of recreational benefits for the people in the lower income categories. Only one third of the WTP amounts expressed by those in income levels I and II may be attributed to intrinsic benefits by our technique.

For the two higher income groups almost three fourths of the benefits are shown to be intrinsic.

We are encouraged by these results which suggest this approach to estimating intrinsic benefits is worth pursuing further. In the Conclusion we propose refinements for the questionnaire and in our analytic techniques which will enable us to make reliable intrinsic estimates. Table 5.10 PERCENTAGE OF FISHABLE WATER QUALITY WTP BENEFITS ESTIMATED AS INTRINSIC BY INCOME LEVEL 1 5 30 Benefits Intrinsic Benefits as Income Level Intrinsic User Total Percent of Total Benefits I. $ 0  9,999 $ 30 $ 172 $ 102 29%

II. $ 10,000  14,999 47 125 172 38 III. $ 15,000  24,999 171 64 235 73 IV. $ 25,000 and over 296 111 407 73 1 Versions A, B, C combined. Estimated using equation 7 , Table 5.7. 5 31 REGIONAL ESTIMATIONS the As a test of / robustness of our estimations we used our final ( corrected)

regression model ( eq. 5, p. 5 21) to predict the regional willingness to pay for national water of fishable quality. To do this we substituted the regional mean value for the variables in equation ( 5) and calculated a predicted WT amount for each of the nine census regions. The actual WTP amount was calculated for the same regions. The two values are shown on the map in Figure 5.2. For all but two of the regions the fit is very close and confirms the stability of our regression model. Only in the Pacific and the East North Central, the two regions with highest mean WTP amounts, did the predicted amounts differ by more than two standard errors of the mean from the actual. When we estimated equation ( 5) using dummy variables for eight of the nine regions, the distinctiveness of these regions was confirmed as they were only ones with significant t values. ( The coefficients of the model's other variables were not significantly changed in the regional dummy estimation.)

Although the difference between the actual and expected amounts is relatively modest, these results suggest that for these two regions one or more explanatory factors unique to these regions may be at work in addition to income, education, recreational use, concern about water pollution and environmentalism. However, we know from our analysis of other data in the survey that respondents in these regions do not differ significantly from those in other regions in either their evaluation of the 5 32 Figure 5.2 ACTUAL AND PREDICTED WTP AMOUNTS FOR NATIONAL SWIMMABLE WATER QUALITY BY CENSUS REGION 5 33 quality level of the local freshwater or in their perception of the change in quality of freshwater in their locality during the past five years. Possibly the presence of the Great Lakes and the abundant freshwater resources in the Michigan penninsula and Wisconsin and the equally unique water resources of the California and the Pacific Northwest give water quality a greater salience for the residents of these areas which translates into these higher values.

In the next chapter we propose a technique by which our regional models may be used to estimate water quality benefits for small geographical areas. Chapter 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this study we have developed and tested a macro WTP method for valuing the benefits of national water quality. The advantage of this method is the ease by which benefits can be reliably aggregated to the sampling frame, in our case the nation. With one exception the method was shown to be resistant to the several biases which threaten WTP studies. In the course of this study we also addressed a number of theoretical and methodological issues including the types of water quality benefits, the role of implied property rights in WTP surveys, the appropriate consumer surplus measures to use in WTP studies, the relationship between strategic and hypothetic bias, the appropriate model for estimating WTP equations, how to correct for heteroskedasticity where the independent variables include both continuous and dummy variables, and how to measure the intrinsic values of water quality.

Although our WTP instrument measures a wide range of water quality benefits which accrue to individual citizens, it does not measure all such benefits. Water pollution is not described as irreversible in our contingent market, so possible long term personal option or intergenerational option benefits ( e. g. from the avoidance of contamination of water bodies by certain toxic chemicals) are not included. Neither are possible drinking water benefits.

One principle we followed in designing our instrument was to enhance the credibility of the estimates by adopting conservative procedures whenever possible. For example, given a choice between monthly payments or an annual payment we chose the latter 6 2 Table 6.1 DIRECTION OF BIASES IN THE RFF SURVEY Type of Potential Bias Survey Context and Construction External Political Context Environmental Trade off Questions Vehicle ( Taxes and Prices) Payment Schedule ( Yearly) Implicit  No Permanent Pollution Damage Zero Encouragement Different Payment Cards Interviewer Effects X Response Inclusion of Protest Zero's Traditional Biases Strategic Hypothetic Estimation Techniques Maximum Amount Constrained at $ 999 Substituting amount from lower level if amount for level being analyzed missing Intrinsic Estimation Procedure Upward X ? X Direction of Probable Bias Downward ? X X ? X ? X X X X x X X Intermediate ? X X None ? indicates uncertainty about whether or not the bias is present. If present, it is in the direction shown. 6 3 on the grounds that it showed the respondent the full magnitude of his or her value for water quality whereas monthly payments might have induced an " easy payment plan" mentality. Table 6. l summarizes the probable biasing effect of the present instrument's components, the response pattern, and our analytic procedures. The rationale for our judgments are contained in the preceeding chapters, especially Chapter 4.

With the exception of the item nonresponse problem, our goal of creating a WTP instrument which is reliable and credible was largely fulfilled in this study. Despite our conservatism in avoiding instrument and procedural factors which might bias the results upwards, respondents express sizable value for clean water. A large fraction of this value comes from the intrinsic benefits of water quality. Yet our illustrative estimates clearly suggest that the incremental benefits, as measured by the WTP methodology, decrease as the level of water quality being evaluated increases.

In what follows, we outline the modifications in wording, procedure and analytic techniques which we have identified on the basis of this experiment as necessary for a successful use of the instrument in a full scale national water benefits survey. We are confident that these modifications will overcome. the item nonresponse problem and improve the other, lesser,

weaknesses in the present form of the instrument. We also discuss how the instrument can be used to derive sub national estimates and to value other forms of national water quality. 6 4 Overcoming Item Nonresponse Bias Earlier in this report we identified item nonresponse bias ( including in this discussion both nonresponse and zero bids) as the major problem with our survey. Some item nonresonse is inevitable, of course. In Chapter 4 we argue that WTP surveys are sufficiently demanding that somewhat higher item nonresponse rates than normal are to be expected ( e. g. 10 20 percent range) for national probability surveys and that such item nonresponse ( continue) 6 5 rates are tolerable. In our experimental test the interviewers did not receive special instructions nor did they have the opportunity to have their questions answered by the researchers. Moreover, the water benefits vehicle was added on to an existing survey instead of comprising a survey in its own right. We believe these are the major reasons for the high item nonresponse rate. The following measures are designed to reduce the item nonresponse bias to manageable proportions:

A. Field Work Procedures 1. A pre test should be conducted with the revised instrument of the survey using several/ research organization's interviewers to interview 50 100 approximately / people. The interviewers would probe all item nonresponses and zero bids to ascertain the reasons why these were given. Following the pre test the interviewers would be debriefed at length.

2. On the basis of the pre test, detailed instructions for the interviewers would be prepared. These would explain the study's procedures to the approximately 100 interviewers who will do the final interviewing.

3. Since the interviewers for a national survey are scattered across the country, there is no easy way to brief them personally.

It is possible, however, to call each of them by phone after they 6 6 have received the instructional materials, but prior to the interviewing, to answer their questions. The interviewers can also be encouraged to call the researchers collect if they have substantive questions about the instrument which arise during the course of the interviewing.

B. Questionnaire Modifications 1. At key points in the description of the contingent market,

should the questionnaire/ instruct the interviewer to pause and ask the respondent " Is that clear?" " DO you have any questions?" This will encourage respondents to obtain clarification and maintain an active interest in the interview. The interviewer will be supplied with a set of standard answers most commonly raised in the pre test.

C. Aggregation Procedures to the questions which were ( e. g. N= 2000)

If the national survey sample is sufficiently large, weighting procedures can be used to correct for the biases introduced by item nonresponse. Such procedures are routinely used by survey research organizations to correct for sample nonresponse. They involve the identification of the relevant underrepresented respondent characteristics ( e. g. old, black) and the weighting of those who did give responses so that these respondents will more accurately represent the full sample ( e. g. old blacks would receive specified weight greater than one, young whites would receive a weight less than one, etc.). 1 1 Holt, et al., in a recent article ( 1980) discuss the implications of using sample survey data in regression analysis when the sample represents an unequal probability sample. They warn that the bias in the OLS estimator b can be large under these circumstances. On the basis of simulations they recommend a procedure for most situations involving unequal probability sample data. Although our original sample is an equal probability sample, because of the item non response problem our effective sample for estimating the WTP amounts is of the unequal probability variety. We do not use their procedure for our data here because we are not trying to make national estimates at this point. In a subsequent survey, however, we would use their technique, if necessary, to correct for item nonresponse. 6 7 Intrinsic Benefit Estimate We are encouraged by the test of our procedure for separating intrinsic and recreational benefits. Further refinements are necessary, however,

before we can reliably estimate intrinsic benefits from macro WTP data on water quality. 1) Because of space limitations in our questionnaire, we limited our use questions to the respondents' own experience. But our unit of analysis is the household, not the individual respondent. Someone who does not use freshwater directly, but who is married to someone who does, may value freshwater quality for its contribution to his or her spouse's enjoyment.

2) Our procedure for estimating an intrinsic value for the entire sample is oversimplified. If non users were randomly distributed among the sample our device of proceeding directly from the mean WTP amount for the non users to inferring the intrinsic value of a water quality level / for the entire sample would be defensible. However, non users are not so distributed, but are differentially older and black, for example, In general, older people and blacks tend to give lower WTP amounts than younger people and whites.

It is necessary, therefore, to devise weighting procedures based on a comparison of the WTP smounts for, say, older users vs. older non users,

to corect for this bias.

3) Households who do not currently use freshwater for recreation should be asked a question about intended future recreational water use. This will provide useful option value information. 6 8 4) Questions need to be asked about the availability and use of substitute sources of water for recreation. Respondents who own swimming pools or who belong to swimming clubs may value swimmable freshwater less than those who do not have access to such facilities,

Other Refinements and Techniques The strong correlation between the regional WTP estimates from our national WTP equation ( eq. 5 31 33 above) and the actual regional WTP amounts suggest that a scheme can be devised to estimate water benefits for sub national geographic areas. Such a scheme would work approximately as follows: 1) A new ( presumably more predictive) national benefits equation would be estimated from a large national survey. 2) Census data would be used to supply the area mean values for the demographic variables of the equation ( e. g. income, education). 3) A low cost area telephone survey could measure the attitudinal variables for the equation.

4) Local benefits would then be estimated using these data and the coefficients from the national equation. Procedures would have to be devised to determine the correct apportionment of local and national benefits and the appropriate aggregation procedure for people and water bodies. One procedure for the former is to do a pilot regional or local WTP study parallel with the national survey.

In the present study we value a uniform level of national water quality by referring to the " nation's overall water quality at level x where virtually all of it is at least clean enough for x." Our method can be adapted 6 9 to value alternative supply options such as " all the nation's waterbodies except for x, y, and z" with the respondent being shown a map depciting the probable, location of those waterbodies which would not meet a specified level.

A final refinement, which is applicable to WTP surveys of all kinds,

is to ask a series of questions to measure the respondents' firmness of opinion about his or her WTP amount. These questions would show whether or not the contingent market and WTP question sequence create a sufficiently meaningful situation for the respondent. The answers to these items would provide an overall evaluation of the instrument's realism ( and of the danger of hypothetic bias). They may also be used to identify individual respondents who, although they gave answers, really did not have sufficiently firm opinions to warrant the inclusion of their responses in the analysis.

The survey research form of Yankelovich, Skelly and White have devised and tested what they call a " mushiness index" which can be adapted to this purpose. 2 According to them: " Answers to survey questions on such issues ( ones that are not ' thought through') are often top of the head and subject to change." Mushiness describes the volatility and changeability of the public's views. ( Public Opinion, 1981: 50). In the RFF instrument we experimented with a single quality check item which is similar 2 We recommend including three of the four items in the YSW scale. These measure: 1) the degree of personal involvement in the issue, 2) whether the person feels he or she has enough information about it and 3) the firmness with which the person holds his or her views. The wording is contained in Public Opinion  ( 1981: 50). 6 10 to one of the indicators in the Yankelovich, Skelly and White scale. ( We were only able to include it in two of the four versions of our questionnaire,

A and C). The results of this item, which asked people whether we had supplied them with enough information so that they could decide how much they would be willing to pay for better water quality, were encouraging.

Only 12 percent said they did not have " enough ( information) at all" while 56 percent said they had " about enough" or " more than enough" ( 14 percent).

Twenty two percent said they had " not quite enough." R 1 REFERENCES Alwin, Duane F. 1977. " Making Errors in Surveys, an Overview," Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 6, no. 3, November, pp. 131 150.

Amemiya, Takeshi, 1373. " Regression Analysis When the Dependent Variable is Truncated Normal," Econometrica, vol. 41, pp. 997 1016.

Babbie, Earl R. 1973. Survey Research Methods ( Belmont, CA., Wadsworth Publishing Co.).

Backstrom, Charles H. and Gerald D. Hursh. 1963. Survey Research ( Evanston, Ill., Northwestern University Press),

Baumol, William J. and Wallace E. Oates, 1979. Economics, Environmental Policy and The Quality of Life Binkley, Clark S. and W. Michael Hanemann. 1978. " The Recreation and Benefits of Water Quality Improvement: Analysis of Day Trips in An Urban Setting," ( Washington, D. C., U. S. E. P. A.).

Bishop, Richard C. and Thomas A. Heberlein, 1980. " Simulated Markets, Hypothetical Markets, and Travel Cost Analysis: Alternative Methods of Estimating Outdoor Recreation Demand," Journal of American Agricultural Economics, December ( No. 187, Agricultural Economics Staff Paper Series).

Blank, Frederick M., et al., 1978. " Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences: A Case Study of the Economic Value of Visibility," ( paper prepared by Resource and Environmental Economics Laboratory, University of Wyoming, under contract with Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alot, CA), October 6.

Bohm, Peter, 1979. " Estimating Willingness to Pay: Why and How?" Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol. 81, no. 2.

Bohm, Peter. 1972. " Estimating Demand for Public Goods: An Experiment," European Economic Review, vol. 3, pp. 111 130.

Bradford, David F. 1970. " Benefit Cost Analysis and Demand Curves for Public Goods," Kyklos, vol. 23, pp. 775 791.

Brannon, R., et al., 1973. " Attitude and Action: A Field Experiment Joined to a General Population Survey," American Sociological Review, vol. 38, pp. 625 36.

Brookshire, David S., Ralph C. d'Arge, and William D. Schulze, 1979. " Methods Development for Assessing Tradeoffs in Environmental Management," vol. 2, U. S. E. P. A. ( available from National Technical Information Service). R 2 Berry C. Ives, and William D. Schulze. 1976. " The Valuation of Aesthetic Preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management," vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 325 346.

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.

Mark A. Thayer, William D. Schulze and Ralph d'Arge, n. d. " Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," ( research funded under grant, Methods Development for Assessing Air Pollution Control Benefits) ( U. S. E. P. A.).

Burch, William R., Neil H. Cheek, and Lee Taylor, 1972. Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the Environment ( New York, Harper & Rowe).

Burington, Richard Stevens and Donald Curtis May. 1958. Handbook of Probability and Statistics with Tables ( Sandusky, Ohio, Handbook Publishers, Inc.).

Cambridge Reports. 1978. " Public and Worker Attitudes Toward Carcinogens and Cancer Risk," ( prepared for Shell Oil Company).

Campbell, D. T., C. R. Seigman and M. B. Bees, 1967. " Direction of Wording Effects in the Relationships Between Scales," Psychological Bulletin, no. 68, November, pp. 292 303.

Carr, L. 1971. " The Srole Items and Acquiescence," American Sociological Review, vol. 35, April, pp. 287 293.

Charbonneau, J. John and Michael J. Hay, 1978. " Determinants and Economic Values of Hunting and Fishing," ( paper presented at 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, March 18 22).

Cicchetti, Charles J., Anthony C. Fisher and V. Kerry Smith, 1976. " An Econometric Evaluation of a Generalized Consumer Surplus Measure: The Mineral King Controversy," Econometrica, vol. 44, November, pp. 1269 1276.

Cicchetti, Charles J., Robert K. Davis, Steve H. Hanke, Robert H. Haveman, and Jack L. Knetsch. 1972. " Benefits or Costs? An Assessment of the Water Resources Council's Proposed Principles and Standards," ( pamphlet available from Department of Geography & Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University).

Cicchetti, Charles J. and A. Myrick Freeman III. 1971. " Option Demand and Consumer's Surplus: Further Comment," Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 85, no. 3, August, pp. 528 539. R 3 Cohen, A. C. Jr., 1957. " On the Solution of Estimating Equations for Truncated and Censored Samples from Normal Populations," Biometrika, vol. 44, pp. 225 236.

1950. " Estimating the Mean and Variance of Normal Populations from Singly and Doubly Truncated Samples," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 21, pp. 557 569.

Couch, A. and K. Keniston, 1960. " Yeasayers and Naysayers: Agreeing Response Set as a Personality Variable," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology vol. 60, March, pp. 151 174.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. " Public Opinion on Environmental Issues," ( Washington, D. C., Council on Environmental Quality).

Crespi, Irving. 1981. " Reporting the Polls" Public Opinion vol. 4, no. 2, April/ May, pp. 48 50.

Curie, John Martin, John A. Murphy and Andrew Schmitz. 1971. " The Concept of Economic Surplus and Its Use in Economic Analysis." The Economic Journal, vol. 81, no. 324. December, pp. 741 799.

d'Arge, Ralph, W. Schulze, and D. Brookshire, 1980. " Benefit Cost Valuation of Long Term Future Effects: The Case of CO 2" ( paper prepared for RFF/ National Climate Program Office Workshop, April 24 25, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida).

Darling, Arthur H. 1973. " Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water Parks," Land Economics, vol. 49, no. 1, February, pp. 22 34.

David, Elizabeth L. 1971. " Public Perceptions of Water Quality," Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 7, no. 1, June, pp. 453 457.

Davis, Robert K. 1980. " Analysis of the Survey to Determine the Effects of Water Quality on Participation in Recreation," ( memorandum to John Parson, National Capital Region, National Park Service, ( Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of the Interior) July 28.

1964. " The Value of Big Game Hunting in a Private Forest," ( Transactions of the 29th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, March), ( Washington, D. C., Wildlife Management Institute).

1963. " Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem," Natural Resources Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, October, pp. 239 249.

Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys  The Total Design Method, ( New York, John Wiley & Sons). R 4 Dohrenwend, B. P. 1966. " Social Status and Psychological Disorder: An Issue of Substance and an Issue of Method," American Sociological Review, vol. 31, February, pp. 14 34.

Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. " Environmental Concern: A Bibliography of Empirical Studies and Brief Appraisal of the Literature," ( Monticello, Illinois, Vance Bibliographies).

Dunlap, Thomas R., 1981. DDT: Scientists, Citizens and Public Policy ( Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press).

Dutta, M. 1975. Econometric Method ( Cincinnati, Ohio, South Western Publishing Co.).

Eastman, Clyde, Alan Randall, and Peggy L. Hoffer, 1974, " How Much To Abate Pollution," Public Opinion Quarterly, pp. 575 584.

1978. " A Socioeconomic Analysis of Environmental Concern: Case of the Four Corners Electric Power Complex," Bulletin 626 Agricultural Experiment Station.

Edwards, A. 1957. The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research, ( New York, Dryden).

Federal Energy Administration, 1977. " The Surveys of Public Attitudes and Response to Federal Energy Policy," ( data prepared by Opinion Research Corporation; available from Inter University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan).

Feenberg, Daniel and Edwin S. Mills. 1980. Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement ( New York, Academic Press).

Fischer, David W. 1974. " Willingness to Pay as a Behavioural Criterion for Environmental Decision Making," Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 3, pp. 29 41.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of Interior. n. d. " 1975 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife  Associated Recreation," ( Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Interior).

Free, Lloyd A. and Hadley Cantril. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans  A Study of Public Opinion, ( New Brunswick, N. J., Rutgers University Press). R 5 Freeman, A. Myrick. 1979a. " The Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Estimates," ( report prepared for Council on Environmental Quality), December.

1979b. The Benefits of Environmental Improvement  Theory and Practice ( Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future).

Freund, John E. and Ronald E. Walpole. 1980. Mathetmatical Statistics ( Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall).

Fuller, Carol H. 1974. " Weighting to Adjust for Survey Nonresponse," Public Opinion Quarterly vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 239 246.

Glejser, H. 1969. " A New Test for Heteroskedasticity," Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 64, pp. 316 323.

Goldberger, Arthur S. 1964. Econometric Theory ( New York, John Wiley & Sons).

Goldfeld, S. M. and R. E. Quant, 1972. " Nonlinear Methods in Econometrics," in D. W. Jorgenson and J. Waelbroeck, eds. Contributions to Economic Analysis vol. 77, ( Amsterdam, North Holland).

and 1965. " Some Tests for Homoskedasticity," Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 60, pp. 539 47.

Gramlich, Frederick W. 1977. " The Demand for Clean Water: The Case of the Charles River," National Tax Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, June, pp. 183 194.

Greenley, Douglas A., Richard G. Walsh, and Robert A. Young. 1980. " Option Value: Empirical Evidence from a Case Study of Recreation and Water Quality," Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.

Harris, Louis and Associates. 1969. " A Study of the Attitudes of the American Public Toward Improvement of the Natural Environment," ( prepared for the National Wildlife Federation).

Haveman, Robert, 1975. " Discussion of Dennis Tihansky's Paper, ' A Survey Empirical Benefit Studies,"' in Henry M. Peskin and Eugene P. Seskin, eds. Cost Benefit Analysis and Water Pollution Policy ( Washington, D. C., The Urban Institute), pp. 166 167.

Hay, Michael J. and Kenneth McConnell, 1979. " An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation," Land Economics vol. 55, November, pp. 460 471. R 6 Henderson, James M. and Richard E. Quant. 1971. Microeconomic Theory: A Mathematical Approach, ( New York, McGraw Hill).

Henry, Claude, 1974. " Option Values in the Economics of Irreplaceable Assets," The Review of Economic Studies Symposium, pp. 89 104.

Hicks, J. R. 1956. A Revision of Demand Theory ( Oxford, Clarendon Press).

1943. " The Four Consumer Surpluses," Review of Economic Studies, vol. 11, pp. 31 41.

1941. " The Rehabilitation of Consumer's Surplus," Review of Economics Studies vol. 8.

1939. " Foundations of Welfare Economics, " Economic Journal, vol. 43.

Hogg, Robert V. and Allen T. Craig. 1978. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics ( New York, MacMillan Publishing Co.).

Holt, D., T. M. F. Smith and P. D. Winter, 1980. " Regression Analysis of Data from Complex Surveys," J. R. Statist. Soc. A 143, part 4, pp. 474 487.

Jackman, M. R. 1973. " Education and Prejudice or Education and Responseset American Sociological Review, vol. 38, June, pp. 327 339.

Johnston, J. 1972. Econometric Methods, ( New York, McGraw Hill).

Katona, George, 1980. Essays on Behavioral Economics, ( Ann Arbor, Michigan, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan).

Kelly, S. and T. W. Mirer, 1974. " The Simple Act of Voting," American Political Science Review, vol. 68, pp. 572 91.

Kmenta, Jan. 1971. Elements of Econometrics ( New York, MacMillan).

Knetsch, Jack L. and Robert K. Davis. 1966. " Comparisons of Methods for Recreation Evaluation," in Allen V. Kneese and Stephen C. Smith, eds, Water Research ( Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 125 142,

Krutilla, John V. 1967. " Conservation Reconsidered," The American Economic Review, vol. 57, pp. 787 786.

and Anthony C. Fisher, 1975. The Economics of Natural Environments: Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources, ( Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future). R 7 Kurz, Mordecai. 1974. " Experimental Approach to the Determination of the Determination of the Demand for Public Goods," Journal of Public Economics, vol. 3, pp. 329 348.

Ladd, Everett C. and G. Donald Ferree, 1981. " Were the Pollsters Really Wrong?" Public Opinion, vol. 3 no. 6, December/ January, pp. 13 20.

Maddala, G. S. 1977. Econometrics ( New York, McGraw Hill).

Maler, Karl Goran. 1974. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry ( Baltimore, Johns Hopksins University Press for Resources for the Future).

Malinvaud, E. 1980. Statistical Methods of Econometrics ( Amsterdam, North Holland).

Mishan, E. S. 1976a. Cost Benefit Analysis, 2nd edition ( New York, Praeger).

1976b. " The Use of Compensating and Equivalence Variations in Cost Benefit Analysis," Economica, vol. 43, pp. 185 97.

1971. Cost Benefit Analysis, 1st edition ( New York, Praeger).

1960. " A Survey of Welfare Economics, 1939 1959," Economic Journal, vol. 70, June.

1947. " Realism and Relevance in Consumer's Surplus," Review of Economics Studies, vol. 15.

Mitchell, Robert Cameron. 1980. " Polling on Nuclear Power: A Critique of the Polls After Three Mile Island," in Albert H. Cantril, ed. Polling on the Issues ( Washington, D. C., Seven Locks Press).

Mulligan, Patricia J. 1978. " Willingness to Pay for Decreased Risk From Nuclear Plant Accidents," ( Working Paper # 43, Center for the Study of Environmental Policy, Pennsylvania State University).

Park, R. E. 1966. " Estimation with Heteroskedastic Error Terms." Econometrica, vol. 34, no. 4, October, p. 888.

Phillips, D. L. and K. J. Clancy, 1970. " Response Bias in Field Studies of Mental Illness," American Sociological Review, vol. 35, June, pp. 503 515.

and 1972. " Some Effects of Social Desirability in Survey Studies," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 77, March, pp. 921 940. R 8 Prais, S. J. and H. S. Houthakker, 1955. The Analysis of Family Budgets ( New York, Cambridge University Press).

Rao, C, Radhakrishna, 1973. Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications ( New York, John Wiley & Sons).

Randall, Alan and John R. Stoll. 1980. " Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space," American Economic Review, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 449 455.

Berry Ives and Clyde Eastman. 1974. " Bidding Games for Valuation of Aesthetic Environmental Improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 1, pp. 132 149.

Orlen Grunewald, Angefos Pagoulatos, Richard Ausness, and Sue Johnson, 1978. " Estimating Environmental Damages from Surface Mining of Coal in Appalachia: A Case Study," ( Washington, D. C., U. S. E. P. A.).

and 1978. " Reclaiming Coal Surface Mines in Central Appalachia: A Case Study of the Benefits and Costs." Land Economics, vol. 54, no. 4, November, pp. 472 489.

Rosenbaum, Walter A. 1977. " Slaying Beautiful Hypotheses with Ugly Facts: EPA and the Limits of Public Participation," Journal of Voluntary Action Research, vol. 6, nos. 3 4 ( Summer Fall), pp. 161 174.

Rowe, Robert, Ralph C. d'Arge, and David S. Brookshire, 1979. " An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility," ( available from Department of Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie).

1979. " Environmental Preferences and Effluent Charges," Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning," 2nd vol. forthcoming. and Samuelson, Paul. 1955. " Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure," Revue of Economics and Statistics, vol. 37, pp. 350 356.

1954. " The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure," The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 36, pp. 387 89.

1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis ( New York, Atheneum, 1974).

Schulze, William D., Ralph C. d'Arge, and David Brookshire, 1980, " Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments," ( prepared for U. S. E. P. A.) ( available from Department of Economics, University of Wyoming, Laramie). R 9 Schuman, Howard and Michael P. Johnson. 1976. " Attitudes and Behavior," in Alex Inkeles, et al., eds. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 2, ( Palo Alto, Ca., Annual Reviews, Inc.)

Silverburg, Eugene, 1978. The Structure of Economics: A Mathematical Analysis ( New York, McGraw Hill).

Smith, V. L. 1977, " The Principle of Unanimity and Voluntary Consent in Social Choice," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 85, no. 6, December. pp. 1125 1139.

Steeh, Charlotte G., 1981. " Trends in Nonresponse Rates, 1952 1979," Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 45, pp. 40 57.

Stouffer, S. A., et al., 1949. The American Soldier: Combat and Its Aftermath vol. 2, ( Princeton, N. J., Princeton University Press).

Sudman, Seymour, 1976. Applied Sampling ( New York, Academic Press).

Thayer, Mark A. forthcoming. " Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

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), pp. 127 172.

U. S. Congress. 1977. " The Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( P. L. 92 500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 in 95th Congress, Serial $ 95 12 ( Washington, D. C., U. S. GPO).

Viladus, Joseph. 1974. " Poll Finds Americans Concerned About Environment," National Journal Reports, vol. 6, pp. 634 635.

1973. " The American People and Their Environment," vol. 1 ( Washington, D. C., U. S. E. P. A.).

Walsh, Richard A., D. A. Greenley, R. A. Young, J. R. McKean, and A. A. Prato. 1978. " Option Values, Preservation Values and Recreational Benefits of Improved Water Quality: A Case Study of the South Platte River Basin, Colorado," ( U. S. E. P. A.) ( available from NTIS). R 10 Weisbrod, Burton A. 1964. " Collective Consumption Services of Individual Consumption Goods," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 78, no. 3, August, pp. 471 477,

Williams, William H. 1978. A Sampler on Sampling, ( New York, John Wiley and Sons).

Willig, Robert D. 1976. " Consumer's Surplus Without Apology," American Economic Review, vol. 66, no. 4, September, pp. 587 597.

Wyckoff, J. B. 1971. " Measuring Intangible Benefits  Some Needed Research," Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 7, no. 1, February, pp. 11 16. Appendix I THE RFF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT A I 1 STUDY # 684 NOTE: INSERT THIS FORM AFTER PAGE 14 OF WHITE " X" Now Let's think about all of the nation's QUESTIONNAIRES ONLY AND ASK FOLLOWING Q. 79. rivers , lakes and streams. Some of them are quite clean and others are more or less 80. This last group of questions is about the quality of water polluted. Looking at this Ladder, would in the nation's lakes and streams. Conqress passed strict you say that all but a tiny fraction of the water pollution control laws in 1972 and 1977. As a re nation's rivers, lakes and streams are at sult many communities have to build and run new modern least at level D in the quality of their sewage treatment plants and many industries have to install water today or not? water pollution control equipment.

Here is a picture of a ladder that shows various levels of the quality of water. ( HAND RESPONDENT WATER QUALITY LADDER CARD) Please keep in mind that we are not talking about the drinking water in your home. Nor are we talking about the ocean. We are talking only freshwater lakes, rivers and streams that people look at and in which they go boating, fishing and swimming.

The top of top ladder stands for the best possible quality of water, that is, the purest spring water. The bottom stands for the worst possible quality of water. Unlike the other ladders we have used in this survey, on this ladder we have marked different levels of the quality of water. For example.... ( POINT TO EACH LEVEL: E, D, C AND SO ON, AS YOU READ STATEMENTS BELOW)

Level E ( POINTING) is so polluted that it has oil, raw sewage and other things in it, has no plant or animal life and smells bad Level B shows where the water is clean enough so that people can swim in it safely And at level A, the quality of the water is so good that it would be possible to drink it directly from a lake or scream if you wanted to Water at level D is okay for boating but not for fishing or swimming Level C shows where rivers, lakes and streams are clean enough so that game fish like bass can live in them All but a fraction at level D.. . 1 Not at level D.................. 2 Not sure........................ 3 81. As you know it takes money to clean up our nation's lakes and rivers. Taking that into account, and thinking of overall water quality where all but a tiny fraction of an nation's lakes and rivers are at a particul level, which level of overall water quality do you think the nation should plan to reach within the next five years or so level E, D, C, B or A?

A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D .................. 4 E .................. 5 Depends ( vol.)..... 6 Other ( vol.) . . . . . . . 7 Not sure........... 8 IF $ 25,000 AND ABOVE OR NOT SURE/ REFUSED USE CARD A IV IF $ 15,000 TO $ 24,999 USE CARD A III NAIRE. THEN LOOK BELOW TO SEE WHICH SCALE CARD RESPONDENT USES IN QUESTIONS 82  84.

IF LESS THAN $ 9,999 USE CARD A I INTERVIEWER: CHECK INCOME IN Q. 79 ON PAGE 14 OF MAIN QUESTION

IF $ 10,000 TO $ 14,999 USE CARD A II ( OVER) A I 2 82. Improving the quality of the nation's water is just one of many things we all have to pay for as tax payers and and as consumers. That is, the costs of things like improving water quality are paid partly by government out of what we pay in taxes and partly by companies out of what we pay for the things they sell us. 83. As I mentioned earlier, almost all of the rivers This scale card shows about how much people in your general income category paid in 1979 in taxes and higher prices for things like national defense, roads and highways, public schools and the space program. ( HAND RESPONDENT APPROPRIATE SCALE CARD A I, A II, A III , OR A IV; LET RESPONDENT KEEP WATER QUALITY LADDER CARD)

You will see different amounts of money listed with words like " hiqhways" and " public education" appear ing by the amount of money average size households paid for each one last year. " Highways" here refers to & he construction and maintenance of all the nation's highways and roads. * Public education" refers to all pubic elementary and secondary schools but does not include the costs of public universities. ( SKIP I want to ask you some questions about what amounts of money, if any, you would be willing to pay for varying levels of overall water quality in the nation's lakes, rivers and streams. Please keep in mind that the money would go for sewage treatment plants in communities through various kinds of taxes ( such as withholding taxes, sales taxes and sewage fees) and for pollution control equipment the govern ment would require industries to install, thus raising the prices of what they make.

At the present time the average quality of water in the nation's lakes, rivers and streams is at about level D on the ladder. ( POINT TO LEVEL D ON WATER QUALITY LADDER CARD) If no more money were spent at all tomorrow on water quality, the overall quality of the nation's lakes and rivers would fall back to about level E. ( POINT TO LEVEL E) People have different ideas about how important the quality of lakes, rivers and streams is to them personally. Thinking about your household's annual income and the fact that money spent for one think can't be spent for another, how much do you think it is worth to you to keep the water quality in the nation from slipping from level D Sack to level E? That is, which amount on this scale card, or any amount in between, is the most you would be willing to pay in taxes and higher prices each year to keep the nation's overall water quality at level D where virtually all of it is at least clean enough for boating? If it is not worth anything to you, please do hot hesitate to say so. Write in amount: $

Depends ( vol.)...................... OOX Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OOY Not worth anything ,.................. 001 85. Finally, in terms of your being able to decide exactly how much you, yourself, would be willing to pay as a taxpayer and consumer for better water quality, would you say in the last few questions we gave you more than enough informa tion, about enough information, not quite enough, or not enough information at all?

More than enough 1 Not quite enough 3 About enough.... 2 Not enough at all 4 Don't know . . . . . . . . 5 and lakes in the United States are at least at level D in water quality. What do you think it is worth to you not only to keep them from be coming more polluted but also to raise their overall quality to level C? What is, including the amount you just gave me, which amount on the scale card is the most you would be willing to pay in taxes and higher prices each year to raise the overall level of water quality from level D to level C where virtually all of it would at least be clean enough for fish like bass to live in?

Write in amount: $

Depends ( vol.).................... OOX ( ASK 84)

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OOY Not worth anything . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 001 TO 85)

84. What about getting virtually all of the nation's lakes and rivers up to level B on the ladder? Including the amounts of money you have already given me, which amount on the scale card is the most you would be willing to pay in taxes and higher prices each year to make almost all the nation's lakes, rivers and streams clean enough so that people could swim in them?

Write in amount: $ Name Address NOW, RETURN TO PAGE 14 OF MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMPLETE FACTUAL SECTION. Depends ( vol.).................... OOX ( ASK 83)

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OOY Not worth anything . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 001 ( SKIP to 85) A I 3 STUDY # 684 D NOTE: INSERT THIS FORM AFTER PAGE 14 OF YELLOW " Y" QUESTIONNAIRES ONLY AND ASK FOLLOWING Q. 79.

80. This last group of questions is about the quality of water in the nation's lakes and streams. Congress passed strict water pollution control Laws in 1972 and 1977. As a re sult many communities have to build and run new modern sewage treatment plants and many industries have to install water pollution control equipment.

Here is a picture of a ladder that shows various levels of the quality of water ( HAND RESPONDENT WATER QUALITY LADDER CARD) Please keep in mind that we are not talking about the drinking water in your home. Nor are we talking about the ocean. We are talking only about freshwater lakes, rivers and streams that people look at and in which they go boating, fishing and swimming.

The top of the ladder stands for the best possible quality of water, that is, the purest spring water. The bottom stands for the worst possible quality of water. Unlike the other ladders have used in this survey, on this ladder we have marked different levels of the quality of water. For example.. . ( POINT TO EACH LEVEL: E, D, C, AND SO ON, AS YOU READ STATEMENTS BELOW)

LEVEL E ( POINTING) is so polluted that it has oil, raw sewage and other things in it, has no plant or animal life and smells bad Water at level D is okay for boating but not for fishing or swimming Level C shows where rivers, lakes and streams are clear enough so that game fish like bass can live in them Level B shows where the water is clean enough so that people can swim in it safely And at level A, the quality of the water is so good that it would be possible to drink it directly from a lake or stream if you wanted to Now let's think about all of the nation's rivers, lakes and streams. Some of them are quite clean and others are more or less polluted. Looking at this ladder, would you say that all but a tiny fraction of the nation's rivers, lakes and streams are at least at level D in the quality of their water today or not?

All but a fraction at Level D.. 1 Not at level D................. 2 Not sure.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 81. As you know it takes money to clean up our nation's lakes and rivers. Taking that into account, and thinking of overall water quality where all but a tiny fraction of the nation's lakes and rivers are at a particular level, which level of overall water quality do you think the nation should plan to reach within the next five years or so level E, D, C, B or A?

A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Depends ( vol.) ...... 6 Other ( vol.) ........ 7 Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 INTERVIEWER: CHECK INCOME IN Q. 79 ON PAGE 14 OF MAIN QUESTION

NAIRE. THEN LOOK BELOW TO SEE WHICH SCALE CARD RESPONDENT USES IN QUESTIONS 82  84.

IF LESS THAN $ 9,999 USE CARD D I IF $ 10,000 TO $ 14,999 USE CARD D II IF $ 15,000 TO $ 24,999 USE CARD D III IF $ 25,000 AND ABOVE OR NOT SURE/ REFUSED USE CARD D IV ( OVER) A I 4 82. Improving the quality of the nation's water is just one of many things we all have to pay for as tax payers and as consumers. That is, the costs of things Like improving water quality are paid partly by government out of what we pay in taxes and partly by companies out of what we pay for the things they sell us.

This scale card shows about how much people in your general income category paid in 1979 in taxes and higher prices for things like national defense, roads and highways, public schools and the space program. ( HAND RESPONDENT APPROPRIATE SCALE CARD D I, D II, D III OR D IV; LET RESPONDENT KEEP WATER QUALITY LADDER CARD)

You will see different amounts of money listed with words like " highways" and " public education" appearing by the amount of money average sire house holds paid for each one last year. " Highways" here refers to the construction and maintenance of all the nation's highways and roads. " Public education" refers to all public elementary and secondary schools but does not include the costs of public universities.

I want to ask you some questions about what amounts of money, if any, you would be willing to pay for varying levels of overall water quality in the nation's lakes, rivers and streams. Please keep in mind that the money would go for sewage treatment plants in communities through various kinds of taxes ( such as withholding taxes , sales taxes and sewage fees) and for pollution control equipment the govern ment would require industries to install, thus raising the prices of what they make.

You will also see on the scale card the amount of money the average household in your general income category paid last year in taxes and higher prices to improve the water quality of the nation's lakes and rivers. This share of the nation's expenditures to fight water pollution has meant that so far the average quality of these bodies of water has been raised from level E to level D on the ladder. ( POINT TO LEVELS E, AND D ON WATER QUALITY LADDER CARD) If this amount of money continues to be spent each year, the quality of the water will be raised up to level C ( POINT TO LEVEL C) in the next few years that is, where virtually all of it would be at least clean enough for fishing First, as far as you are concerned, are you willing to pay this amount each year to raise water quality to level C or not?

. Yes, willing........... 1 Depends ( vol.)......... 2

No, not willing . . . . . . . . 3 F ( ASK 83)

( SKIP TO 84)

83. What about getting the nation's lakes and rivers up to level B on the ladder? Including the amount of money indicated on the card to get water quality up to level C, how much are you willing to pay in taxes and higher prices each year to raise the water quality to level B that is where virtually all the nation's lakes, rivers and streams are at least clean enough to swim in safely?

Write in amount: $

Depends ( vol) .................. COX Not sure.....; .................. 00Y Not worth anything ............. 001 I ( SKIP TO NAME AND ADDRESS RECORDING BELOW)

84. What about the amount of money to keep the quality of water at level D? How much do you think you would be willing to pay each year in taxes and higher prices, if anything, to keep the nation's overall water quality from slipping below level D to level E where it once was? If it is not worth anything to you, please do not hesitate to say so.

Write in amount: $

Depends ( vol.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OOX Not sure........................ OOY Not worth anything.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 001 . I I I Name: i 1 ! Address: I I I NOW, RETURN TO PAGE 14 OF MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMPLETE FACTUAL SECTION.

Not sure 4 A I 7 A I 8 A I 9 A II 1 Appendix II THE 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 has 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 index of publicly perceived quality ( Bouwes and Schneider, 1979) or to link subjective indices of public perception. and expert perception ( Dornbusch, 1975). A II 2 We chose 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 extablish, ex ante, an admittedly tenuous link between scientifcally 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/ 1),

turbidity ( JTU) and pH. 1 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 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). A II 3 Table 1. Consensus Water Quality Characteristics of Five Water Quality Classes Water Quality Classification Measurable Water Quality Characteristics Petal Dissolved 5 day Turbidity Ph Coliforms Oxygen BOD (#/ 100 ml) hell) al ( mg/ 1) ( JTU)

Acceptable for drinking without treatment 0 7.0 ( 90) 0 5 7.25 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 Percent saturation at 85Ol' in parentheses A II 4 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:

WQI =

where the quality of the qi=

parameter, a number from 0 to 100 obtained from the transformation functions for water quality measures in McClelland ( 1974).

the weight assigned to the parameter. The original weights ( wi) reported in McClelland ( 1971)

cover nine quality measures and Our adjusted weights cover a smaller number of measures which also The resultant ladder appears in Figure 1. A II 5 For example, the index value for the " Acceptable for Rough Fishing"

classification was developed as shown below: Weighted Scale Value Scaled Value ( q i) Weight Value Characteristic Fecal Coliform 1000/ 100m1 20 0.242 1.985 Dissolved Oxygen Max 5 Day BOD Turbidity Notes:

Percent saturation at 85 ° F. 3 mg/ 1 50 JTU 7.25 44 0.274 2.820 74 0.161 2.000 38 0.129 1.599 93 0.194 2.049 Similar calculations for the remaining four classes yield the water quality ladder shown in Figure 1. A II 6 A II 7 SOURCES APHA, AWWA, and FSIWA. 1955. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water, Sewage, and Industrial Wastes ( 10th ed., NY: American Public Health Association, Inc.)

Binkley, Clark S. and W. Michael Hanemann. 1978. The Recreation Benefits of Water Quality Improvement: Analysis of Day Trips in an Urban Setting ( Washington, D. C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Booth, 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., Robert Schneider. 1979. " Procedures in Estimating Benefits of Water Quality Change," American Journal of Agricultural Economics. vol. , no.

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. 1968. A Study of Dissolved Oxygen in the Potomac Estuary ( Baltimore, Md,: Johns Hopkins University Press for RFF)

Dorfman, Robert, Henry D. Jacoby, and Harold A. Thomas, Jr., eds. 1972. Models for Managing Regional Water Quality ( Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press)

Economics Research Associates. 1979. " Cost Impact of Marine Pollution on Recreation Travel Patterns," ( Corvallis, Ore.: U. S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory) 68 01 3197 NTIS PB 290655 Katz, Max. 1969. Appendix F in Robert Nathan Associates, " Mine Draining Pollution and Recreation in Appalachia." ( Washington, D. C.: Robert Nathan Associates)

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 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). A II 8 National Planning Association. 1975. Water Related Recreation Benefits Resulting from P. L. 92 500 ( Washington, D. C,; Prepared for Natl. Comm. on Water Quality National Technical Advisory Committee. 1968. Water Quality Criteria: A Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior ( Washington, D. C.: Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.)

North Carolina Environmental Management Commission. North Carolina Adminsitrative Code ( Raleigh, N. C.: Environmental Management Commission  current through March 1977)

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, Ala.: Water Resoruces Research Institue)

Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc. 1969. " Mine Drainage Pollution and Recreation in Appalachia." ( Washington, D. C.: Robert Nathan Assocs.)

Thomann, Robert V. 1971. System Analysis and Water Quality Management ( N. Y.: Environmental Research and Applications, Inc.)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water ( Washington, D. C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)

U. S. Geological Survey. 1978. " Water Quality Indices for Specific Water Uses." ( U. S. Geological Survey Circular 770) A III 1 Appendix III DERIVATION OF PUBLIC GOODS EXPENDITURES The estimated public goods expenditures used in this study to " anchor" the amounts displayed on the payment cards are shown in Table I below:

Table 1: Public Goods Expenditure Estimates for Versions A, B, C, D by Income Class Income Category I. Less than $ 10,000 II. $ 10 15,000 III. $ 15,25,000 IV. $ 25 Public Good ( Average Expenditure per Household)

Defense $ 322 ( 402)

676 ( 845)

1337 ( 1671)

3013 ( 3766) Education $ 204 ( 255)

446 ( 557)

882 ( 1103)

1988 ( 2485) Highways Water Police & Roads Pollution & Fire Space $ 98 ( 123)

192 ( 240)

312 ( 390)

626 ( 782) $ 61 $ 33 s 13 ( 16)

125 70 27 ( 34)

245 139 53 ( 66)

562 313 120 ( 150)

These amounts were used to anchor the payment card amounts as follows:

1. Version A used four public goods ( Defense, Education, Highways, and Space Program).

2. Version B used five public goods ( Defense, Education, Highways, Police and Fire Protection, and Space).

3. Version C used the four public goods listed for A. The public goods expenditures used in Version C were 25% higher than those used in Version A. These amounts are shown in parenthesis.

4. Version D used the four public goods and amounts as in Version X plus the amounts shown from Water Pollution. A III 2 Methodology Since we desired to take account of public goods expenditures that were the result of both direct taxes and indirect taxes ( usually reflected in higher prices) we used a formula that took into account both direct and indirect taxation. Using the federal tax structure as our base, 43% of taxes come from income taxes ( direct) while 57% come from other taxes and charges. Internal Revenue Service figures are also available on the average amount of income tax paid by income category. Aggregating the IRS categories by the weight of the percent of the population in that category, we obtained for the federal budget. the average federal income tax paid by our four income classes. 1 The following formula was used to determine total household expenditures Average Federal Total Federal Income Tax Paid ( 43%) + Indirect Taxes ( 57%) = Household Expenditures or Average Federal Income Tax Paid = Total Federal 43% Household Expenditures It is now possible to solve the equation for total federal household expenditures since average federal income tax paid is known and .43 is a constant representing the ratio of income tax to total federal revenues.

1 An exception to this procedure was made in the case of the $ 0 5,000 income categories. These categories are not included in our calculations for the under $ 10,000 income class because they pay almost no income taxes and would have distorted our estimate of the non income expenditures on public goods for the under $ 10,000 income class. Hence, our estimates of average federal income tax paid by those in the under $ 10,000 category are biased upward. A III 3 From the 1980 United States Budget, defense spending accounts for 24%

of total federal expenditures. To calculate a household's ( in a given income category) expenditures for defense the following formula was used:

24% x ( Total Household Federal Expenditures) = Household Defense Expenditure Expenditures for other public goods were calculated using defense spending as a base. 2 ( HED) x = HEPGX where HED = Household Expenditure on Defense TEPGX = Total Expenditures on Public Good X TFDE = Total Federal Defense Expenditures HEPGX = Household Expenditures on Public Good X For a household in income level I ( under $ 10,000 annual income), expenditures on highways and roads were calculated as follows:

$ 322 x where HED = $ 322 TEPGX =$ 33,700,000,000 HEPGX = $ 98 Public Good X = Highways and roads Estimation Problems The estimates of the public goods expenditures by income category are only intended to be rough " ball park" figures. They are plagued by a number 2 The estimates of expenditures on highways and roads included the folowing correction factor to take account of the regressive nature of gasoline taxes which are largely responsible for financing this public good. For income category I ( under $ 10,000) the estimated household expenditure on highways and roads was multiplied by 120%. For income categories II, III, and IV, the correction factor was + 10, and  20, respectively. A III 4 of problems some of which are not easily tractable. Since we are attempting to obtain estimates of willingness to pay for water quality at the time of the interview, it is desirable to use as current as possible estimates of expenditures on other public goods. This desire presents three alternatives:

( 1) using the latest year for which estimates were available for all public goods used which in our case would have been 1976, ( 2) make the heroic assumption of determining the rate at which expenditures on each public good changed since the last good estimate available, ( 3) use the latest year available for each public good. We have chosen the third alternative, as the drawbacks of non comparable years appeared better than old numbers in the case of ( 1) and the expansion and contraction of several public goods such as water pollution control, defense, and highways out of sinc with any of the standard indexes precluded easy use of ( 2).

Discrepancies in definitions also pose estimation problems in the case of the Census Bureau's household definition and IRS's definition of non business income tax returns. In our case, there are 77 million households and 87 million individual and joint income tax returns. We chose to consider households and IRS tax returns and equivalent for the purpose of computing average federal income tax paid.

The most heroic assumption we made was that the other 57% of the federal budget is collected in the same proportion as income tax. These indirect taxes are largely consumption taxes; hence this assumption is probably not warranted. If the public goods expenditures on the payment card showed itself to be sensitive to the exact amount given, then a major effort would be required to achieve more accurate estimates of these expenditures. A III 5 Version A and Version C of this survey were explicitly designed to test this sensitivity.

With the exception of the purely federal expenditures of defense and space, our implicit assumption of uniform national expenditures by income category is questionable although highways and roads and water pollution control expenditures violate this assumption to a lesser degree than do police and fire or public education expenditures. ( I. e., a resident of New York City pays much more for police protection than does someone in rural Iowa). Further, the respondent, if he or she is familiar with public goods expenditures is most likely to be familiar with expenditures on these two highly local public goods. If our estimates are significantly different from the respondent's perceptions of what they are, the survey may lose credibility in the eyes of the respondent. The extent of this problem, if any, was not explored. A III 6 Sources A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F. Tax figures  1976 IRS preliminary estimates Total federal income, defense expenditures, space expenditures  Budget of the United States, 1980.

Education figures  HEW preliminary estimates for primary and secondary education expenditures during the 1978 79 school year.

Highways and roads  American Highway and Transportation Builder's Association for 1978.

Water Pollution  CEQ estimates for total expenditures on water pollution control ( December 1978).

Police and Fire  Facts and Figures on Government Finance ( Tax Foundation, Inc., 1979). Appendix IV FINAL RESULTS OF THE RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE National Environmental Survey for the President's Council on Environmental Quality These results are based on a probability sample of 1576 persons, age 18 and over living in the continental United States excluding Alaska.

Initially 1286 persons were interviewed in person between January 26 and February 9, 1980. An additional sample of 280 persons were interviewed in person later in March to bring the sample size up to 1576.

All the data reported here have been weighted using standard procedures to compensate for minor variations between the final sample and the actual distribution of basic population characteristics.

In order to include as many questions as possible in the instrument,

the sample was split into two equivalent samples. Most questions were asked of the entire sample but some were asked only of the X or the Y half.

These questions are identified on the questionnaire. The sample size for the X version is 840 and that of the Y sample is 736.

Robert Cameron Mitchell Senior Fellow A IV 2 STUDY NO. 684 ( 1002) JANUARY 1980 COUNTY PLACE BLK. # 5 1 OMB Clearance Number: 116F 79025 Time Started Time Finished Total Minutes 6/ 7 Hello, I'm from ROPER AND CANTRIL and we're conducting a study all over the country for the United States Government getting people's views about some of the problems the nation faces. Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. All information will be held in the strictest confidence and will be used only to produce overall statistical reports. We would very much value your cooperation.

1. First, I would like to ask you which three national problems you would like to see the government devote most of its attention to in the next year or two? ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD)

a. Reducing racial discrimination .................

b. Reducing the amount of crime ...................

c. Beautifying America ............................

d. Conquering " killer" diseases ...................

e. Reducing pollution of air and water ............

f. Helping people in poor areas ...................

g. Reducing unemployment ..........................

h. Improving highway safety .......................

i. Improving housing and run down neighborhoods ...

j. Improving public education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

None ...........................................

No opinion ..................................... 13%

61 5 41 24 29 48

20 35 1 1 8/

9/

10/

11/

12/

13/

14/

15/

16/

17/

18/

19/

2. There is a lot of talk these days about what the aims country should be for the next ten years. On this card are listed some of the goals which different people would give top priority. ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD Would you please say which one of these you, yourself, consider the most important?

2. 3. Most Next most important important ( Col. 20) ( Col. 21)

a. Maintaining a high rate of economic growth ........................ 27% 27%

b. Making sure that this country has strong defense forces ..........

c. Seeing that people have more say in how things get decided at work and in their communities .....................

d. Protect nature from being spoiled and polluted ...................

None .............................................................. 44 26 19 22 9 21 1 4 No opinion .......................................................

3. And which would be the next most important? ( RECORD ABOVE)

4. If you had to choose, which one of the things on this card would you say is most desirable? ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) 4. 5. Most Second desirable choice ( Col. 22) ( Col. 22)

a. Maintaining order in the nation 16% 28%

b. Giving the people more say in important government decisions c. Fighting rising prices 18 30 d. Protecting freedom of speech 56 22 None 9 17 No opinion 1 3 5. What would be your second choice. ( RECORD ABOVE) Maintaining a stable economy Progress toward a less impersonal, more humane society ..................... 6. 7. Most Next most important important ( Col. 24) ( Col. 25)

55% 24%

8 14 27 37 9 22 1 3 No opinion . . . . . . . . . . .. e................. A IV 3 Page 2 6. Here is another list. ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) In your opinion, which one of these is most important?

The fight against crime.................

Progress toward a society in which ideas can count more than money . . . . . . . . .

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a.

b.

c.

d.

7. Which is next most important? ( RECORD ABOVE)

8. Here is a card that includes all of the goals listed on the three cards you have just looked at. ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) Would you tell me which one of the goals on this card you consider the most desirable of all a. Maintaining a high rate of economic growth . . . . . . . . . .  . . .

b. Making sure that this country has strong defense forces . . .

c. Seeing that people have more say in how things get decided at work and in their communities ...........

d. Protecting nature from being spoiled and polluted . . . . . .

e. Maintaining order in the nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

f. Giving the people more say in important government decisions ......................... 8 9 10 Most Next most Lease desirable desirable important ( Cols. 26, 27) ( Cols. 28, 29) ( Cols. 30, 31)

8% 8% 8%

24 13 5 5 5 8 2 5 9 6  2 6 6 4 25 17 2 2 5

11 14 4 2 2 11 5 15 4 3 3 16 19 1 1 8 g. Fighting rising prices ................,....... . . . . . ....

h. Protecting freedom of speech . . . . . . . . .. ss...............

i. Maintaining a stable economy .. . _.. . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

j. Progress toward a less impersonal, more humane society k. The fight against crime ................................

l. Progress toward a society in which ideas can count more than money .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No opinion .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Which is the next most desirable? ( RECORD ABOVE) A IV 4 a. How worried or concerned are you about the rise in prices and the cost of living ............. 81% 16% 2% 1%  32/ A great A fair Not very Not at No deal amount much all opinion The problems of the poor? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b.

c. Cleaning up our waterways and reducing water pollution? ..........................

d.

e. OMITTED Reducing the amount of unnecessary noise in this community 44 42 11 2 1 33/

39 44 13 3 1 34/

No col. 35 11 20 34 34 1 36/

73 18 5 2 1 37/

36 40 16 7 1 38/

42 27 16 13 1 39/

No col. 40 f . Shortages of oil, gasoline, coal, natural gas, electricity, or other fuels? ..................

g. Reducing air pollution? ............................

h. The purity of the drinking water in your community? ...........................

i. OMITTED Question asked for RFF in separate Roper survey, March 1980: 9. Now, I'd like to find out how worried or concerned you are about a number of problems I'm going to mention: a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or not at all. If you aren't really concerned about some of these matters, don't hesitate to say so. First, ( ask about each item)

A great A fair Not very Not at No deal amount much all opinion a. How worried or concerned are you bout the rise in prices and the cost of 2%  living? 86% 11% 1%

b. The presence of toxic chemicals such as pest icides or PCBs in the 46 32 16 4 2 environment?

c. Cleaning up our waterways and reducing water 54 33 10 2 1 pollution?

d. The disposal of industrial chemical wastes that are 64 26 7 2 1 hazardous? TREND ON CONCERN ABOUT INFLATION, ENERGY SHORTAGES,

WATER AND AIR POLLUTION, 1972 1980 Q. 11 Now I'd like to find out how worried or concerned you are about a number of prob lems I am going to mention: a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or not at all.

If you aren't really concerned about some of these matters, don't hesitate to say so.

Rise in prices and the cost of living.

N composite score Shortages of oil, gasoline, coal, natural gas, electricity and other fuels.

composite score June 1972 April 1974 May 1976 Roper Rff 1980 March 83% 73% 79% 86%

12 21 17 11 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1802 1865 1071 1286 c. 1500 90 93 57 24 72 13 18 5 5 1 3 1 78 61 51 57 38 34 29 35 32 45 33 7 10 13 10 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 84 79 82 60 46 55 36 28 36 32 39 9 12 8 17 1 3 3 7 2 3 2 1 83 76 80 Cleaning up our waterways and reducing water polluting.

composite score Reducing air pollultion.

composite score Data for 1972 1976 are from the " State of the Nation" studies done by the Potomac Institute. Only four of the items used in question 11 of the CEQ questionnaire were repeated from the Potomac Institute questionnaires. The composite index is adopted from the Potomac Institute studies. It is calculated by dropping the ' don't knows'

and multiplying the number saying ' great deal' by 100, those saying ' fair amount' by 67, ' not very much' by 33 and ' not all' by 0. 12. Here is a picture of a ladder.( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) Let's suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible natural environmental situation for our country; that is, all aspects of the environment air water,

forests, wildlife, waste disposal, noise and the lake. Suppose the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible environmental situation for the United State. Please show me on which step of the ladder you think the environment in the United States is at the present time. ( RECORD NUMBER CHOSEN BELOW)

mean 5.24 42/

Don't know 4%

13. On which step would you say it was about five years ago?

5.32 42/

Don't know 6%

14. Just as your best guess, if things go pretty much as they are now, where do you think the environment in the U. S. will be on the ladder, let us say, about five years from now?

5.08 43/

Don't know 7%

15. Thinking now just about the quality of the air in this area. Suppose the top of the ladder represents the cleanest air possible, and the bottom, the most polluted air possible, Please show me on which step of the ladder you think the air around here is at the present time.

6.58 Don't know 2% 44/

16. On which step would you say it was about five years ago?

6.04 45 Don't know 8%

17. As your best guess, where will it be about five years from now?

6.04 46 Don't know 6%

18. Now, thinking just about the quality of the water in the lakes and streams in this area. Suppose the top of the ladder represents the cleanest water possible and the bottom, the most polluted water possible. Please show me on which step of the ladder you think the water in the lakes and streams around hers is at the present time.

5.64 47 Don't know 9%

19. On which step would you say it was about five years ago?

5.72 48 Don't know 13%

20.. As your best guess, where will it be about five years from now?

5 62 49 MEAN SELF ANCHORED LADDER RANKINGS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, LOCAL WATER QUALITY AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY FOR PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 21. People are affected in different ways by the problems our country faces. For each of the problems I am going to mention, please tell me how much you, yourself, are affected in terms of the kind of life you live and your personal enjoyment of your surroundings. First, the energy shortage: would you say it affects you a great deal, a fair amount, just a little, or not at all? ( ASK ABOUT EACH ITEM BELOW)

A great Fair Just a Not at No deal amount little all opinion a. The energy shortage? 54% 31% 10% 4%

b. Air pollution? 18 33 24 22 1 1 c. Unnecessary noise in your area? 8 15 25 52 d. OMITTED No opinion e. OMITTED 83 11 3 1 2 22. OMITTED A IV 9 23. Now, I'd like to ask you about some specific aspects of the environment. If you aren't sure about some of the things I am going to mention please don't hesitate to say so. First, which one, factories, automobiles, or incinerators, is the major cause of air pollution in this country?

Factories 39%

Automobiles 45 Incinerators Not sure 9 24. Nuclear power plants are built near bodies of water. Do you think that's because the water is used as another source of power, as a disposal place for waste, or is used for cooling purposes?

Another source of power 11%

A disposal place for waste 16 For cooling purposes 52 Not sure 21 25. Do you think cancer can be caused in rats by every chemical, by most chemicals, or only some chemicals if they are fed to rats in a large enough dose?

Every chemical ........... 14% 59/

Most chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Only some chemicals ...... 42 Not sure................. 12 26. From what you have heard or read, do you think we produce enough oil in this country to meet our present 27. energy needs or do we have to import some oil from other countries?

Produce enough oil .............. 29 60/

Have to import some oil ......... 63 Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........

Do you think that it is possible for a nuclear power plant to explode and cause a mushroom shaped cloud like the one at Hiroshima or don't you think that is possible?

Possible....................... 61 Not possible...................

Not sure....................... 52 31 16 A IV 10 3a I'm going to read you a short list of topics and incidents that have been mentioned in the news media over the past year or so. As I mention each, if you what it refers to? ( ASK ABOUT EACH ITEM) happen to have heard or read about it, would you please tell me a. Love Canal, near Niagara Falls, New York: can you tell me what happened there? ( DO NOT READ LIST) CORRECT: abandoned hazardous waste dump; chemical or toxic waste dump; place where chemical wastes have harmed people or made them move; where drums of toxic chemicals have leaked into the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PARTIALLY CORRECT: people moved out of their homes; place where there was a problem with the soil. NO REFERENCE TO CHEMICALS INCORRECT . . . . ........................................................... 4 8 65 Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*..............

b. The accident at Three Mile Island can you tell me what happened there? ( DO NOT LIST) CORRECT: nuclear reactor accident; Harrisburg incident; accident that almost caused a meltdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PARTIALLY CORRECT: Presidential Commission; in Pennsylvania NO REFERENCE TO NUCLEAR POWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INCORRECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.......................

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

c. Synfuels or synthetic fuels: can you tell me what they are? ( DO NOT READ LIST)

CORRECT: gas or oil made from coal or oil shale or tar sands; coal gasification; coal liquidification or coal liquids PARTIALLY CORRECT: President Carter's new billion dollar plan; new source of energy recently proposed by President Carter and debated in Congress 64/

INCORRECT . . . . . ...................................................

Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. Acid rain: can you tell me what this is? ( DO NOT READ LIST)

CORRECT: polluted rain that harms lakes by disturbing the growth of plants, algae and fish; rain that is like vinegar; air pollution in the rain that harms land and water; sulphur dioxide in the air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PARTIALLY CORRECT: references to " rain" that do not include  mention of air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INCORRECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.............................................. 22%

74 3 4 19 37 5 15 42 26 6 9 58 62/

63/

65/

Not sure .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 29. Now I'd like to ask you some questions about air pollution. How serious do you feel air pollution is in this country very serious, somewhat serious or not serious at all?

Very serious ...... Not serious at all 35% 8% 66/ 35 Somewhat serious .. NO opinion . . . . . . . . .  2 30. How about in this area: how serious do you think air pollution is here?

11 Very serious...... Not serious at all. 48 67/

Somewhat serious... 39 No opinion . . . . . 2 31. As you may know, many of the nation's marsh and swamp areas have had water drained out of them so that the land can be used for residential areas, factories or farming. Some people say we should drain more of these areas because land for development is becoming harder to find. Other people say that these marsh and swamp areas should be kept as they are because they help maintain nature's balance by providing breeding areas for fish and feeding places for ducks among other things. Who do you agree with most those who feel these swamp and marsh areas should continue to be drained, or those who feel they should be preserved in their natural state, or don't you have a strong feeling one way or the other?

Continue to drain. 10 No strong feeling .. 11 68/ 8 Preserve in Depends ( vol.) .....

natural state . . . . . . 65 No opinion ........ 6 32. Finding new places to build new industrial and power plants is sometimes difficult these days. I'm going to mention five types of buildings or sites. Assuming that they would be built and operated according to govern ment environmental and safety regulations, you might or might not feel strongly about living close to them. For each type of plant please tell me the closest such a plant could be built from your home before you would want to move to another place or to actively protest, or whether it wouldn't matter to you one way or another how close it was? ( IF DISTANCE GIVEN, GET DISTANCE IN MILES)

a. First, what about a ten story office building? mean = 5.8 miles Less than 1 mile 69/ 70 1 or more miles ( write in number)

Wouldn't matter one way or other.

Don't want it at any distance ( vol.)

No opinion b. A power plant that uses coal for fuel? mean= 20.5 miles Less than 1 mile 71/ 72 1 or more miles ( write in number)

Wouldn't matter one way or other.

Don't want it at any distance ( vol.)

No opinion c. A nuclear power plant mean= 91.0 miles Less than 1 mile 73/ 74 1 or more miles ( write in number) d. A large industrial plant or factory? mean= 13.9 miles Less than 1 mile 75/ 76 1 or more miles ( write in number)

Wouldn't matter one way or other.

Don't want it at any distance ( vol.)

No opinion e. How about a disposal site for hazardous waste chemicals if the government said disposal could be done safely and that the site would be inspected regularly for possible problems? mean= 81.4 miles Less than 1 mile 77/ 78 1 or more miles ( write in number)

Wouldn't matter one way or other.

Don't want it at any distance ( vol.)

No opinion A IV 12 Would you please tell me approximately how far away the following are from your home? mean= 18.8 miles a. The nearest freshwater lake?

Less than 1 mile 6/ 7 1 or more miles ( write in number)

No opinion b. The nearest river large enough for boating? mean= 23.3 miles Less than 1 mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8/ 9 1 or more miles ( write in number)

No opinion . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .

c. The nearest industrial plant or power plant? mean= 7.9 miles Less than 1 mile . . . . . . .  . . ._

1 or more miles ( write in number) 10/ 11 No opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

d. The nearest nuclear power plant that is either operating now or under construction? mean= 90.8 miles Less than 1 mile ................. 12/ 13 4 Depends ( vol.)

holding down costs rather than requiring stricter controls . . . . 34%

OR Pollution control requirements and standards have gone too far; they already cost more than they are worth 13%

Depends vol.) 5%

No opinion 5% 42% 14/ No opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

I am going to read you three points of view regarding pollution control. Please tell me which one best represents your opinion.

READ:

Protecting the environment is so important that requirements and standards cannot be too high, and continuing improvement must be made regardless of cost OR We have made enough progress on cleaning up the environment that we should now concentrate on 42% 15/

17 24 Higher prices ........

Higher taxes .........

Neither ( vol.) ......

Both ( vol.) ..........

Depends ( vol.) .......

No opinion ..........

36. I am going to read you three statements about en vironmental protection and economic growth. Please listen carefully and tell me which statement you agree with the most.

READ:

We can achieve our current goals 16/ of environmental protection and economic growth at the same time 39%

OR We must relax environmental standards in order to achieve economic growth OR 6 We must accept a slower rate of economic growth in order to protect the environment ...................... 27 No opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 No cols. 17 23 A IV 13 certain uses of the chemical. The second is that the government should require clear warning I am going to describe four different kinds of chemicals which studies have shown to cause cancer in some people. I would like you to tell me which one of the approaches listed on this card you think the Federal Government should take for each chemical. ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) The first approach is that the government should ban labels on all products using the chemical but let them continue to be sold. The third approach is that the government should not regulate the chemical at all. ( READ EACH ITEM)

Warning NOT No Ban label regulate opinion a. The first kind of chemical that has been shown to cause cancer is one commonly used to preserve food like bacon. Which one approach should the government take? ( PROBE: That is, chemicals like nitrites) ..................................

b. The second is a chemical used to color food like in some hair dyes ...............................

c. The third is saccharin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

d. the fourth is a chemical used to color food like hot dogs, soft drinks and ice cream. ( PROBE: that is, Red Dye # 2) .. I......................... 33%

31 16 47 37% 5% 5%

60 3 6 66 12

44 4 5 17/

18/

19/

20/

38. Even though human beings may not be directly affected, there are various risks that some chemicals pose to the environment. I am going to describe some of these risks and ask you what action, if any, you think the government should take. ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) ( READ EACH ITEM)

a. First, the disposal of hazardous chemical wastes far out in the ocean where they harm the ocean environment where they are disposed. Do you think the government should prohibit the disposal, in pose controls but not prohibit it, urge corporations to follow certain procedures but not require it, or not take any action at all?

38a. b. c. Disposal chemicals Disposal in ocean in pesticides in rivers ( Col. 21) ( Col. 22) ( Col. 23)

Should prohibit ........................ 57% 36% 70%

Impose controls but not prohibit it .... 29 52 21 Urge corporations to follow certain procedures but not require it .......... 6 6 5 Not take any action at all .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 1 No opinion ........................ 4 4 3 b. What about the use of chemicals such as certain pesticides which increase crop production but which kill wildlife. Again, looking at the card, what action, if any, do you think the government should take? ( RECORD ABOVE)

c. And, the current practice of releasing into rivers certain industrial chemicals which have been shown to harm fish. What action, if any, do you think the government should take? ( RECORD ABOVE) A IV 14 Page 8 39. Each year industry introduces thousands of new chemicals into the marketplace. Some people think that companies should be required to submit information to the government before any of the new chemicals can be used and that the government should require tests of those chemicals which it believes may be dangerous to the public. Other people feel that government screening of all new chemicals would be expensive, might keep potentially useful chemicals off the market and that it is enough for the government to take action after a chemical has been shown to cause a problem. How do you feel should the government ( 1) wait until a chemical already in use has been shown to present a problem before taking action or ( 2) conduct an extensive screening program to try to make sure all chemicals are safe before they are used?

Wait until there is a problem... 8% 14/

Conduct screening programs before chemical is used.. . . . . . . . 85 Depends ( vol.).................. 4 No opinion ..................... 4 40. Here is a list of several ways to get energy. ( HAND RESPONDENT CARD) Looking ahead to the year 2000, and this nation's energy needs, which two or three of these sources of energy do you think we should concentrate on the most?

READ WHILE RESPONDENT LOOKS AT CARD:

This list includes coal; nuclear energy; energy conservation steps such as more and better home insulation and cars that get good mileage; water power from dams or waterfalls; solar energy including energy from the sun and the wind; oil and natural gas; and synfuels which are a new kind of fuel made by industrial plants which convert oil shale into oil or coal to liquid or gas. Which two or three do you think we should concentrate on the most?

40. Concentrate on most ( Col. 25)

Coal.. . . *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%

Nuclear energy . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 33 Energy conservation ....................

Water power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Solar energy . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Oil and natural gas .......... .._..... 28 26 Synfuels . . . . . . .._.................

None

No opinion 2 41. Spend least effort ( Col. 16)

9%

33 3 10 6 9 9 6 15 43. Solar energy is a very broad term that includes many ways of using the sun to produce energy. Here is a list of ways that can be used by individual home owners to produce energy from the sun. ( HAN h. Passive solar desigh such as having houses face towards the south, using walls, floors, ceilings or water containers for heat storage, using skyline for heat We should continue to built more nuclear power plant as ncedec........................................

No more new plants should be planned out we should continue to use the ones already in operation and finish those now under construction. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

We should stop building nuclear plants including those under construction and shut down the existing ones as soon as possible................................ 20 uncertain 9 . . . .........................................

2 So answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

a. Solar panels to heat water for homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b. Solar panels to heat space in homes C . Wood stoves to heat space in homes d. Solar swimming pool, hot tub spa heaters.....................

e. Solar cells to produce electricity.

f. Small windmills to produce electricity.......................

g. Using farm wasted to produce gas for fuel. . . . . .....................