Subjective vs. objective measures in the valuation of water quality

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 130, Issue , 2013, Pages 288-296

  Artell, Janne ^a   Ahtiainen, Heini ^a   Pouta, Eija ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Perceptions; Valuation; Water quality

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; PERCEPTION; VALUATION; WATER QUALITY;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; DEPENDENT VARIABLE; LAKE; RIVER; SEA; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER QUALITY;

PERCEPTIONS; VALUATION; WATER QUALITY;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; FINLAND; PUBLIC OPINION; WATER QUALITY;

EID: 84884935637     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adamovicz W., Swait J., Boxall P., Louviere J., Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models in environmental valuation. J.Environ. Econ. Manag. 1997, 32:65-84.
2. Baranzini A., Schaerer C., Thalmann P. Using measured instead of perceived noise in hedonic models. Transport. Res. Part D 2010, 15:473-482.
3. Barton D.N., Navrud S., Lande N., Bugge Mills A. Assessing Economic Benefits of Good Ecological Status in Lakes under the EU Water Framework Directive 2009, NIVA Report 5732-2009.
4. Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 54(1-4):201-211.
5. Bockstael N., McConnell K. Environmental and Resource Valuation with Revealed Preferences: a Theoretical Guide to Empirical Models 2007, 374. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
6. Bonaiuto M., Aiello A., Perugini M., Bonnes M., Ercolani A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J.Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19:331-352.
7. Boyle K., Poor P., Taylor L. Estimating the demand for protecting freshwater lakes from eutrophication. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 1999, 81(5):1118-1122.
8. Brody S.D., Hihgield W., Alston L. Does location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36(2):229-250.
9. Burton R.J.F. Seeing through the "good farmer's" eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of "productivist" behaviour. Sociol. Ruralis. 2004, 44:195-215.
10. Danielson L., Hoban T.J., Van Houtven G., Whitehead J.C. Measuring the benefits of local public goods: environmental quality in Gaston Country, North Carolina. Appl. Econ. 1995, 27:1253-1260.
11. Domínguez-Torreiro M., Soliño M. Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas. Ecolog. Econ. 2011, 70:2523-2531.
12. European Commission Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Euro. Commun 2000, L 327, 1-73.
13. Faulkner H., Green A., Pellaumail K., Weaver T. Residents' perceptions of water quality improvements following remediation work in the Pymme's Brook catchment, north London, UK. J.Environ. Manag. 2001, 62(3):239-254.
14. Finnish Environment Institute Järviwiki 2012, Finnish Environment Institute, URL:, (accessed 10.04.12.). http://www.jarviwiki.fi/wiki/Main_page.
15. Finnish Environment Institute The General Usability Classification of Surface Waters 2010, Finnish Environment Institute, URL:, (accessed 10.04.12.). http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=366176%26lan=fi%26clan=en.
16. Flynn J., Slovic P., Mertz C.K. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk. Anal. 1994, 14:1101-1108.
17. Gouveija C., Fonseca A., Câmara A., Ferreira F. Promoting the use of environmental data collected by concerned citizens through information and communication technologies. J.Environ. Manag. 2004, 71:135-154.
18. Jeon Y., Herriges J.A., Kling C.L., Downing J. The Role of Water Quality Perceptions in Modeling Lake Recreation Demand 2005, Iowa State University, Department of Economics, Working Paper 05032.
19. Kaltenborn B., Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preference. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2002, 59:1-11.
20. Kataria M., Bateman I., Christensen T., Dubgaard A., Hasler B., Hime S., Ladenburg J., Levin G., Martinsen L., Nissen C. Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments - a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 94:25-33.
21. Kosenius A.-K. Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecolog. Econ. 2010, 69:528-538.
22. Kweon B.S., Ellis C.D., Lee S.W., Roger G.O. Large-scale environmental knowledge. Investigating the relationship between self-reported and objectively measured physical environments. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38(1):72-91.
23. Lepesteur M., Wegner A., Moore S.A., McComb A. Importance of public information and perception for managing recreational activities in the Peel-Harvey estuary, Western Australia. J.Environ. Manag. 2008, 87(3):389-395.
24. Marsh D., Mkawa L., Scarpa R. Do respondents' perceptions of the status quo matter in non-market valuation with choice experiments? An application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams. Sustainability 2011, 3:1593-1615.
25. Múgica M., de Lucio J.V. The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Donãna National Park, Spain. J.Environ. Manag. 1996, 47:229-239.
26. National Land Survey of Finland Official Purchase Price Register. National Land Survey of Finland 2012, URL:, (accessed 10.04.12.). http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/real-property-25.
27. Nicholson E., Ryan J., Hodgkin D. Community data - where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 45(11):193-200.
28. Nieminen M. Kesämökkibarometri 2009 2010, 12. Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Alueellisia julkaisuja (Regional Publications), (in Finnish).
29. Poor P.J., Boyle K.J., Taylor L.O., Bouchard R. Objective versus subjective measures of water clarity in hedonic property value models. Land Econ. 2001, 77(4):482-493.
30. Rao A.R., Monroe K.B. The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers' perceptions of product quality: an integrative review. J.Market. Res. 1989, 26(3):351-357.
31. Savan B., Morgan A.J., Gore C. Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of the universities: the case of citizens' environment watch. Environ. Manag. 2003, 31(5):561-568.
32. Shih T.-H., Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Meth. 2008, 20(3):249-271.
33. Sievänen T., Pouta E., Neuvonen M. Recreational home users - potential clients for countryside tourism?. Scand. J. Hospital. Tour. 2007, 7(3):223-242.
34. Steinwender A., Gundacker C., Wittmann K.J. Objective versus subjective assessments of environmental quality of standing and running waters in a large city. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2008, 84:116-126.
35. STATA Suest - Seemingly Unrelated Estimation. STATA Base Reference Manual 2007, vol. 3. Stata Press Publication, StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, Q-Z, Release 10.
36. Völckner F., Hofmann J. The price-perceived quality relationship: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Market. Lett. 2007, 18(3):181-196.
37. Whitehead J. Improving willingness to pay estimates for quality improvements through joint estimation with quality perceptions. South. Econ. J. 2006, 73(1):100-111.
38. Zeithaml V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J.Market. 1988, 52(3):2-22.