some of the highest electricity costs in the country are those which are moving toward
deregulation, including New Hampshire. Simulations by Palmer and Burtraw (1996) confirm
that increased power generation in the Midwest and MidAtlantic states will contribute to
increased loading of certain pollutants over the northeast. These results are consistent with
prevailing weather patterns which tend to sweep pollutants toward and over New England
(NERA, 2001) , leading to the region’s dubious moniker of “the tailpipe of the United States.”
With these increased emissions will come decreased visibility, the subject matter for this study.
Most previous studies of the value of visibility in wilderness (or remote) areas have used
the contingent valuation method (CVM). One of the first studies was conducted by Rowe, et al.
(1980) who found that non-residents were willing to pay about $4 per day to preserve visual
range in southwestern Colorado. Schulze et. al. (1983) reported that residents of Los Angeles,
Denver, Albuquerque and Chicago were willing to pay $3.75 to $5.14 per month to preserve
visibility in the Grand Canyon. Crocker and Shogren (1991) estimated that residents were
willing to pay about $3.00 per day to preserve visibility in the Cascades of Washington State.
And, Chestnut and Rowe (1990) found that respondents were willing to pay $4.35 per month to
avoid a change in average levels of visibility in the Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Shenandoah
National Parks.1
With respect to wilderness areas in the northeast, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC)
administered a survey in the summer of 1996 to ascertain visitor’s perceptions of visibility in the
White Mountain National Forest. This survey was administered to individuals at three sites: The
Pinkham Notch visitors’ center at the base of Mt. Washington, the Cardigan lodge at the base of
1Many of these studies were modeled after research and ideas developed or presented at a
1982 conference on visual values (Rowe and Chestnut, 1983).