Social Indicators Research

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 85–110 | Cite as

The uses, validity, and reliability of perceived environmental quality indicators

  • Eric L. Hyman


Perceived environmental quality indicators (PEQIs) rely on direct analysis of public preferences regarding the state of their environment. PEQIs can be useful policy inputs because they broaden the base of values considered and can increase the accountability of government. PEQIs are more relevant in the areas of aesthetics, environmental amenities, and recreation than in cases where there are major ecological or human health consequences.

A large variety of PEQI techniques may be chosen within the general categories of descriptive assessments, preferential judgments, and evaluative appraisals.

PEQIs must be carefully designed and implemented to minimize their inherent problems of validity, reliability, and susceptibility to instrumental, informational, hypothetical, and strategic bias. The article surveys some of the key problems of PEQIs in this regard.


Health Consequence Environmental Quality Quality Indicator General Category Direct Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Althoff, P. and Grieg, W. H.: 1974, ‘Environmental pollution control policy making: An analysis of elite Perceptions’, Environment and Behavior 6, pp. 259–288.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, Richard N. L. and Waits, M.: 1978, Environmental Values in Public Decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  3. Appleyard, Donald, Craik, K. H., Klapp, M., and Kreimer, A.: 1973, The Berkeley Environmental Simulation Laboratory: Its Use in Environmental Impact Assessment. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.Google Scholar
  4. Arbuthnot, J.: 1977, ‘The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental knowledge and behavior’, Environment and Behavior 9 pp. 217–232.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, M.: 1971, ‘Beach pollution in the Toronto region’, In Perceptions and Attitudes in Resources Management, edited by W.Sewell and IanBurton, Ottawa: Information Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, Raymond: 1967, ‘Consumer behavior as risk taking’, In Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, edited by Donald, Cox. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, David: 1975, Landscape Aesthetics and Environmental Planning. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Regional Science Research Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, Richard and Heberlein, T.A.: 1979, ‘Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased?’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, pp. 926–930.Google Scholar
  9. Blank, Frederick; Brookshire, D.; Crocker, T.; D'Arge, R.; Horst, R. L.Jr; and Rowe, R.: 1977, ‘Valuation of aesthetic preferences: A case study of the economic value of visibility’, Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Resource and Environmental Economics Laboratory.Google Scholar
  10. Bohm, Peter: 1972, ‘Estimating the demand for public goods; an experiment’, European Economic Review 3, pp. 111–130.Google Scholar
  11. Brookshire, David, Ives, B., and Schulze, W.: 1976, ‘The valuation of aesthetic preferences’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3, pp. 325–346.Google Scholar
  12. Brush, Robert and Shafer, Edward: 1975, ‘Application of a landscape preference model to land management’, In Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, edited by Ervin, Zube, R.Brush, and J.Fabos. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, Angus; Converse, P.; and Rodgers, W.: 1976 The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  14. Cicchetti, Charles, and Smith, V. K.: 1973, ‘Congestion quality deterioration and optimal Use: Wilderness recreation in the Spanish Peaks area’ Social Science Research 2, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
  15. Clary, Bruce B.: 1978, ‘Measuring public values in environmental assessment’, Carolina Planning 4, pp. 30–37.Google Scholar
  16. Constantini, E., and Hanf, K. B.: 1972, ‘Environmental concern and Lake Tahoe: A study of elite perceptions, backgrounds and attitudes’, Environment and Behavior 4, pp. 209–241.Google Scholar
  17. Coughlin, Robert E., and Goldstein, K. A.: 1970, The Extent of Agreement among Observers on Environmental Allocation. Discussion Paper No 27. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Regional Science Research Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Coughlin, Robert E.; Hammer, T. R.; Dickert, T. G.; and Sheldon, S.: 1972 Perception and Use of Streams in Suburban Areas: Effects of Water Quality and of Distance from Residence to Stream. Discussion Paper No. 53. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Regional Science Research Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Craik, Kenneth H.: 1968, ‘The comprehension of the everyday physical environment’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34, pp. 29–36.Google Scholar
  20. Craik, Kenneth H.: 1972, ‘Appraising the objectivity of landscape dimensions’, In Natural Environment, edited by JohnKrutilla. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Craik, Kenneth H.: 1975, ‘Individual variations in landscape assessment’, in Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, by Ervin H. Zube, R. Brush and J. Fabos, Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  22. David, Elizabeth L.: 1971, ‘Public perceptions of water quality’, Water Resources Research 7, pp. 454–457.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, Adam C.; Anderson, J.; and Gough, R. I.: 1975, Alternative Information and Interaction Approaches to Public Participation in Water Resources Decision Making. Report No. 106. Raleigh: University of North Carolina, Water Resources Research Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Golant, Stephen and Burton, I.: 1976, ‘A semantic differential experiment in the interpretation and grouping of environmental hazards’, in Environmental Knowing: Theory, Research, Methods, edited by GaryMoore and R. G.Golledge. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchingson and Ross.Google Scholar
  25. Gollub, J. O. S.: 1976, Identifying and Evaluating Aesthetic Elements of the Landscape: An Aesthetic Quality Assessment Model Based on an Examination of Research in Psychology, Aesthetics, Life-Span Environmental Behavior and Landscape Assessment. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  26. Gough, H. G., and Heilbrun, A. B.Jr.: 1965, The Adjective Checklist Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gramlich, F. W.: 1977, ‘The demand for clean water: The case of the Charles River’, National Tax Journal 30 (June 1977): 183–194.Google Scholar
  28. Guttman, Louis: 1950, ‘The basis for scalogram analysis’, In Measurement and Prediction by S. A. Stouffer, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harrison, John and Sarre, Phillip: 1976, ‘Personal construct theory, the repertory grid and environmental cognition’, In Environmental Knowing, edited by GaryMoore and R. G.Golledge. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  30. Hoinville, Gerald: 1975, Multi-Dimensional Tradeoffs: An Appraisal of the Priority Evaluation Approach. London: Social and Community Planning Research.Google Scholar
  31. Hufschmidt Maynard and Hyman Eric (eds.): Valuation of Natural Resource and Environmental Quality Aspects of Development (Tycooly Press, Wicklow, Ireland), (Bowker and Unipub.).Google Scholar
  32. Hyman, Eric: 1980, ‘The second generation of environmental impact assessment: A review of five recent titles’, Journal of the American Planning Association 47, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  33. Hyman, Eric and Bruce, Stiftel: 1981, ‘Synthesis: Toward the development of a new methodology for environmental impact assessment’, in: Improving the Relevance and Utility of Scientific and Technical Information in Environmental Impact Statements, ed. by Gordon, Enk and Paul, Perreaut (Information Resources Press, Washington D.C.).Google Scholar
  34. Hyman, Eric, Stiftel, Bruce, Cotant, Christopher, and Nichols, Robert: 1980, The Theory and Practice of Environmental Quality Analysis: Water Resources Management, Land Suitability Analysis, Economics, and Aesthetics, An Annotated Bibliography, Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians, pp. 1–89 + xii.Google Scholar
  35. Kaplan, Stephen and Kaplan, Rachel: 1978, Humanscape (Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Ma).Google Scholar
  36. Kelly, G. A.: 1970, ‘A brief introduction to personal construct theory’, in Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory, edited by D.Bannister. London: Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. Koenig, Daniel: 1975, ‘Additional Research on Environmental Activism’ Environment and Behavior 7, pp. 472–485.Google Scholar
  38. Laurent, A.: 1972, ‘Effects of question length on reporting behavior in the survey interview’, American Statistical Association Journal 67, pp. 298–305.Google Scholar
  39. Leff, Herbert L.; Gordon, L. R.; and Ferguson, J. G.: 1974, ‘Cognitive set and environmental awareness’, Environment and Behavior 6, pp. 395–447.Google Scholar
  40. LowiTheodore: 1969, The End of Liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  41. McKinney, Michael and MacRae, D.Jr.: 1978, Survey Assessments of Consensus Demand for Publicly Supplied Goods: Recreation Facilities. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Institute for Research in Social Science.Google Scholar
  42. Meyer, Philip: 1976, A Comparison of Direct Questionnaire Methods for Obtaining Dollar Values for Public Recreation and Preservation. Vancouver: Environment Canada.Google Scholar
  43. Michelson, William: 1966, ‘An empirical analysis of urban environmental preferences. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 32, pp. 355–360.Google Scholar
  44. Mitchell, Robert C.: 1978, ‘The public speaks again: A new environmental survey’, Resources 60, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  45. Nichols, Robert and Hyman, Eric: 1980, Review and Evaluation of Fifteen Environmental Assessment Methodologies (Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, Occasional Paper Series).Google Scholar
  46. Nowlis, B.: 1965, ‘Research with the mood checklist’, in Affect, Cognition and Personality, edited by S. S.Tomlins and C. E.Isard. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Oppenhem, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, London: Heinemann, 1966.Google Scholar
  48. Ott, Wayne R.: 1978, Water Quality Indices: A Survey of Indices Used in the United States. Report No. EPA-600/4-78-005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Monitoring and Technical Support, Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  49. Pendse, Dilip and Wyckoff, J. B.: 1976, ‘Measurement of environmental trade-offs and public policy: A case study’, Water Resources Bulletin 12, pp. 919–930.Google Scholar
  50. Peterson, George L., and Neumann, E. S.: 1969, ‘Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment’, Journal of Leisure Research 1, pp. 219–237.Google Scholar
  51. Pitt, David, and Anderson, T.: 1975, ‘Perception and prediction of scenic values of the northeast’. In Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, edited by Ervin, H. Zube, R.Brush and J.Fabos. Stroudsberg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  52. Scherer, U., and Coughlin, R. E.: 1971, The influence of water quality in the evaluation of stream sites. Discussion Paper No. 27. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Regional Science Research Institute.Google Scholar
  53. Schultze, William and d'Arge, R.: 1977, ‘On the valuation of recreation benefits’, Unpublished draft. Laramie: University of Wyoming, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  54. Shafer, Elwood L.Jr., and Burke, H. D.: 1965, ‘Preferences for outdoor recreation facilities in four state parks’, Journal of Forestry 63, pp. 512–518.Google Scholar
  55. Sonnenfeld, Joseph: 1966, ‘Variable values in space landscape: An inquiry into the nature of environmental necessity’, Journal of Social Issues 5, pp. 71–82.Google Scholar
  56. Spindler, J. Andrew: 1975, The Accuracy of Consumer Survey in Describing Markets for Hypothetical Goods. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  57. Sproule-Jones, Mark: 1978, ‘The social appropriateness of water quality management for the Lower Fraser River’, Canadian Public Administration 21, pp.Google Scholar
  58. Thayer, Mark and Schultze, W.: 1977, ‘Valuing environmental quality: A contingent-substitution and expenditure approach’, Unpublished draft. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. 1977.Google Scholar
  59. Tognacci, Louis, Wergel, R., Wideen, M., and Vernon, D.: 1972, ‘Environmental quality: How universal is public concern?’ Environment and Behavior 4, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
  60. Zube, Ervin H., Pitt, David, and Anderson, Thomas: 1975, ‘Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast’, in Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, edited by Ervin H.Zube, R.Brush and J.Fabos. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Co 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric L. Hyman
    • 1
  1. 1.East-West CenterEnvironment and Policy InstituteHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations