¹ For an excellent account, see Hays, S. P., Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge, Mass., 1959).Google Scholar

² See Reisch, A. L., Conservation under Franklin D. Roosevelt (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1952).Google Scholar

³ See Herfindahl, O. C., ‘What is Conservation’ (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, reprint no. 30, 1961).Google Scholar

⁴ G. P. Marsh, Man and Nature: or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. The original edition was published by Charles Scribner, New York, in 1864, but a later edition, edited by David Lowenthal, published by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., in 1965 is now available.

⁵ Powell, J. W., Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States (Washington, 1878).Google Scholar

⁶ Muir, J. W., Our National Parks (Boston, Mass., 1901).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ See McConnell, G., ‘The Conservation Movement, Past and Present’, in Burton, I. and Kates, R. W. (eds.), Readings in Resource Conservation and Management (Chicago, 1965), pp. 189–201.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., p. 192.

⁹ Pinchot, G. W., The Fight for Conservation (New York, 1910), p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Swain, D. C., Federal Conservation Policy, 1921–1933 (Berkeley, 1963).Google Scholar

¹¹ For an analysis of the development of the river basin planning concept in the United States, see White, G. F., ‘A Perspective on River Basin Development’, in Law and Contemporary Problems, 22 (1957), 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Friedmann, J., ‘The Concept of a Planning Region: The Evolution of an Idea in the United States’, Land Economics, 32 (1956), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ President Hoover's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social Trends in the United States (New York, 1933).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The battle centred around whether upstream land management and small retention structures (undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service) should take precedence over large downstream dams (built by the Corps of Engineers) for the control of floods. For a fuller discussion, see Leopold, L. B. and Maddox, T., The Flood Control Controversy: Big Dams, Little Dams and Land Management (New York, 1954).Google Scholar

¹⁵ This issue was most bitterly fought in the case of the Missouri River, for which, in 1944, a compromise joint agency plan was formulated. See Hart, H. C., The Dark Missouri (Madison, Wis., 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁶ The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established a land management policy for intermontane lands, but did not settle which agency should be most responsible. The result was considerable confusion and conflicting agency programmes. See Calef, W. C., Private Grazing and Public Lands: Studies of the Local Management of the Taylor Grazing Act (Chicago, 1960).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Udall, S., The Quiet Crisis (New York, 1963).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Carson, R. L., The Silent Spring (Boston, Mass., 1962).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a review of the field of ecology and its relationship to environmental studies, see Lacey, M. J., ‘Man, Nature and the Ecological Perspective’, American Studies, 8 (1970), 1–3, 13–27.Google Scholar

²⁰ Marsh, G. P., op. cit. (see note 4 above).Google Scholar

²¹ Muir, J. W., op. cit. (see note 6 above).Google Scholar

²² Leopold, A., A Sand Country Almanac (London and New York, 1949).Google Scholar

²³ See Ayres, R. U. and Kneese, A. V., ‘Production, Consumption and Externalities’, American Economic Review, 59 (1969), 282–97.Google Scholar

²⁴ For a good discussion, see Boulding, K. E., ‘The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth’, in Jarrett, H. (ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy (Baltimore, Md., 1966), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

²⁵ For Further details, see an article by Commoner, Barry, ‘Technology and Environment’, in The Progressive, 34 (04 1970).Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ See Kneese, A. V., ‘Economics and the Quality of the Environment: Some Empirical Observations’ (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, reprint no. 71, 1968).Google Scholar

²⁸ For a good discussion, see the articles appearing in Jarrett, H. (ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy (Baltimore, Md., 1966).Google Scholar

²⁹ This model is presented in ch. 15 of a book by Maass, A. A., Hufschmidt, M. M., Dorfman, R. and Fair, G. M., Design of Water Resource Systems (Cambridge, Mass., 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Wengert, N., Natural Resources and the Political Struggle (New York, 1955).Google Scholar

³¹ Kasperson, R. E., ‘Political Behaviour and the Decision Making Process in the Allocation of Water Resources between Recreational and Municipal Use’, Natural Resources Journal, 9 (1969), 176–211.Google Scholar

³² This model is obviously a very simplified account of a complex situation, and its purpose is largely illustrative and not analytical. All sorts of variations might be found in any particular situation. For example, the agency may initiate action by ‘tipping off’ a special interest group. Frequently too the special interest groups (including the advocate conservationist groups) disagree within themselves as to the proper course of action, thereby emitting very ‘noisy’ signals to the politician, who may be uncertain as to the best course of action.

³³ Club, Sierra, Ecotactics, The Sierra Club Handbook for Environmental Activists (New York, 1970).Google Scholar

³⁴ Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, Community Action for Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C., 1970).Google Scholar