Economic benefits of improvements in visibility: Acid rain provisions of the 1990 clean air act amendments

Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 395-402

  Chestnut, Lauraine G ^a   Dennis, Robin L ^b  

^a Hagler Bailly Services   (United States)

^b U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACID RAIN; AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; GAS EMISSIONS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PARKS; SULFUR DIOXIDE; VISIBILITY;

CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS; UNITED STATES;

AIR POLLUTION;

EID: 0031084218     PISSN: 10473289     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.1997.10464437     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Chestnut, L.G.; Rowe, R.D. Economic Valuation of Changes in Visibility: A State of the Science Assessment for NAPAP, Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology Report 27; Brown, G.M. Jr., Callaway, J.M., Eds.; National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program: Washington, DC, October 1990.
2. Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, John Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, 1989.
3. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method; Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S., Schulze, W.D., Eds.; Rowman and Allanheld: Totowa, NJ, 1986.
4. Fischhoff, B.; Furby, L. “Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility,” J. Risk and Uncertainty 1988, 1, 147-184.
5. McClelland, G.; Schulze, W.; Waldman, D. et al. Valuing Eastern Visibility: A Field Test of the Contingent Valuation (Draft), Cooperative Agreement #CR-815183-01-3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1991.
6. Tolley, G.A.; Randall, A.; Blomquist, G. et al. Establishing and Valuing the Effects of Improved Visibility in Eastern United States, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1986.
7. Rae, D. Benefits of Improving Visual Air Quality in Cincinnati: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey, Project 1742, Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, May 1983.
8. Irwin, J.; Schenk, D.; McClelland, G. “Urban visibility values: Some experiments in the use of the contingent valuation method,” in Visibility and Fine Particles; C.V. Mathai, Ed.; Transactions of the Air and Waste Management Association Specialty Conference on Visibility and Fine Particles, Air and Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, 1990.
9. Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C.; Ruud, P.A. “Valuing air quality improvements: simulating a hedonic pricing equation in the context of a contingent valuation scenario,” in Visibility and Fine Particles; C.V. Mathai, Ed.; Transactions of the Air and Waste Management Association Specialty Conference on Visibility and Fine Particles, Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA 1990.
10. Brookshire, D.; d’Arge, R.; Schulze, W.; Thayer, M. Methods Development for Assessing Air Pollution Control Benefits. Volume 2: Experiments in Valuing Nonmarket Goods. A Case Study of Alternative Benefit Measures of Air Pollution Control in the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California, EPA-600/6-79-0016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, February, 1979.
11. Chestnut, L.G.; Rowe, R.D. Preservation Values for Visibility Protection at the National Parks, Cooperative Agreement #CR-813-686, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle, NC, 1990.
12. Schulze, W.D.; Brookshire, D.S.; Waltham, E.G.; et al. “The benefits of preserving visibility in the national parklands of the Southwest,” Natural Resources Journal 1983, 23, 149-173.
13. ICF Resources, Inc., Economic Analysis of the Title IV Requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Acid Rain Division, 1994.
14. Dennis, R.L.; McHenry, J.N.; Barchet, W.R.; et al. “Correcting RADM’s sulfate underprediction: Discovery and correction of model errors and testing the corrections through comparisons against field data,” Atmos. Environ. 1993, 27A:975-997.
15. Husar, R. User’s Guide: Visibility Module which Converts Aerosol Concentration to Visibility Parameters: An Empirical Relationship for Calculating Visibility Distance from Particle Concentrations Calculated by Regional Models. Internal Report.
16. Sisler, J.F.; Huffman, D.; Latimer, D.A., et al. Spatial and Temporal Patterns and the Chemical Composition of the Haze in the United States: An Analysis of Data from the IMPROVE Network, 1988-1991, ISSN No. 0737-5352-26, 1993.
17. Loehman, E.; Boldt, D.; Chaikin, K. Measuring the Benefits of Air Quality Improvements in the San Francisco Bay Area. Part I: Study Design and Property Value Study. Draft Final Report, SRI International: Menlo Park, CA, September 1980.
18. Trijonis, J.C.; Thayer, M.; Murdoch, J.; Hagemann, R. Air Quality Benefits Analysis for Los Angeles and San Francisco Based on Housing Values and Visibility, California Air Resources Board: Sacramento, CA, 1984.