expected on the Education coefficient, indicating that as education level increases, so does the

tendency to answer positively to the WTP question. (0 = Less than college education, 1 =

College Education)

 Politic: Political affiliation was included because it is has been shown to have an impact

on WTP estimates. Politically conservative individuals tend to have more anti-environmental

leanings when compared to more liberal individuals (Dietz et al 19998). A positive sign on the

coefficient is expected, meaning respondents who consider themselves more liberal are more

likely to vote for the program. (0= Conservative, 1= Liberal)

 Importance: The Importance variable was added because how individuals answer

attitudinal questions have shown to have an impact on WTP for environmental goods (Loomis,

2000a). A negative sign is expected, meaning the less important the respondent believes the issue

of "protecting Ichetucknee Springs from nitrate pollution" is, the less likely they will vote for the

program. (0= Important, 1= Not Important)

 Visitation: The Visitation variable was included because there is a positive relationship

between frequency with which the participant uses or interacts with the resource that is being

valued and their WTP. A positive sign is expected in this case, which would indicate that the

more often a participant visits Ichetucknee Springs the more likely they are to vote for the

program. (0 = None, 1-2 visits per year, 1 = 3 or more visits per year)

 The results of the logistic regression are summarized in Table 7.