We would like to know how much you and your household value water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in an ecological system surrounding a major non-oceanic body of water, such as a lake, bay or river. This system provides a number of benefits, such as recreation, tourism, commercial fishing, food production and wildlife habitat. Many people also like to know the rivers and sounds will be protected for future generations. Would it be worth each year to you and your household to make sure water pollution does not get worse and wildlife habitat remains in the ecosystem?

Yes No don't know/no answer

Amounts are: $10, $15, $20, $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, $80, $90, and $100

We already pay for government programs to protect this environment through federal, state, and local taxes. However, government will need more money if the water quality and fish and wildlife habitat in the system are to be protected. This money would pay for state and local programs to control pollution, monitor water quality, protect habitat, and educate people. The goal would be to make sure water pollution does not get worse and habitat remains the same. Would you and your household be willing to pay the amount listed above each year in higher taxes, for these programs, if you knew the money would be used to protect the system?

Yes No don't know/no answer

John C. Whitehead, Glenn C. Blomquist, Thomas J. Hoban and William B. Clifford "Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Contingent Values: A comparison of On-Site Users, Off-Site Users and Non-users" Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Volume 29 pages 238-251 (1995)