Almost 5 years ago we began working together on research for the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) to measure the benefits of water quality regulations. EPA had awarded a contract to Research Triangle Inst~ute (RTIl in response to a proposal that Bill wrote on measuring these benefits. After meeting with the EPA project officer, Dr Ann Fisher, the basic outlines of what would become this research were framed. Upon the suggestion of Bob Anderson, then chief of the Benefits Branch at EPA, we selected the Monongahela River as the focal point of a case study that would compare alternative benefit measurement approaches. Exactly how this case study would be done remained vague, but Ann urged that there be a survey and that nonuse benefits be included in the question naire design. Of course, Bill agreed. At the same time, Kerry was independently working on a review article that tied together some of the loose threads in the option value literature. He had also been thinking about how to measure option value, as well as working on ways to generalize the travel cost approach for estimating benefits of site attributes. Glenn Morris at RTI suggested that Bill have lunch with him and Kerry and that they could talk about Bill's research to see if there were any mutual interest. Over the lunch and Bill's ever present dessert in a Chapel Hill restaurant, we found out just how much we have in common.

Almost 5 years ago we began working together on research for the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) to measure the benefits of water quality regulations. EPA had awarded a contract to Research Triangle Inst~ute (RTIl in response to a proposal that Bill wrote on measuring these benefits. After meeting with the EPA project officer, Dr Ann Fisher, the basic outlines of what would become this research were framed. Upon the suggestion of Bob Anderson, then chief of the Benefits Branch at EPA, we selected the Monongahela River as the focal point of a case study that would compare alternative benefit measurement approaches. Exactly how this case study would be done remained vague, but Ann urged that there be a survey and that nonuse benefits be included in the question naire design. Of course, Bill agreed. At the same time, Kerry was independently working on a review article that tied together some of the loose threads in the option value literature. He had also been thinking about how to measure option value, as well as working on ways to generalize the travel cost approach for estimating benefits of site attributes. Glenn Morris at RTI suggested that Bill have lunch with him and Kerry and that they could talk about Bill's research to see if there were any mutual interest. Over the lunch and Bill's ever present dessert in a Chapel Hill restaurant, we found out just how much we have in common.

Measuring the Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement shows the aspects of benefit calculations in the context of water pollution control. The main purpose of this book is to show what kinds of data are needed or valuable in adequate benefit estimates, how to use the data, and how to improvise in their absence. Topics covered include the basic theory of welfare economics and cost-benefit analysis; practical techniques on how to estimate benefits of water pollution abatement; and empirical studies that illustrate the estimation techniques with real data. Environmentalists, economists, project managers, and project engineers will find the text interesting and informative.

Develops a multiple parameter analytical procedure for estimating benefits of water pollution abatement.

Kneese examines issues surrounding benefits assessment, including such tools as bidding games, surveys, property value studies, wage differentials, risk reduction evaluation, and mortality and morbidity cost estimation. He discusses methods for quantitatively estimating benefits derived from the maintenance or improvement of air and water quality. Suitable for undergraduate classroom use. Originally published in 1984