@article{Price:199202,
      recid = {199202},
      author = {Price, Colin},
      title = {Valuing Lanscapes with trees: Subjectivity versus  objectivity, holistic versus components-based approaches},
      journal = {Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial  Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics},
      address = {2010-05},
      number = {1332-2016-103770},
      pages = {21},
      year = {2010},
      abstract = {Recent interest by environmental economists in landscape  valuation has
reopened a debate from the 1960s and 1970s  concerning subjective
(holistic) and objective  (components-based) approaches to landscape
assessment and  their relative strengths and weaknesses.  Contingent
valuation seeks the required holistic value, but  limits benefit transfer;
besides, there are unresolved  strategic and hypothetical biases. Hedonic
pricing and  choice experiments, by their components orientation,  partly
resolve these problems. Field exercises have shown  that subjective
valuations are as consistent and explicable  as objective ones. Componentsbased
approaches covertly  require subjective judgement, and fail to account
for  crucial interactions of components in determining landscape  quality. A
combination of holistic and subjective  assessment of landscape quality with
objective measurement  of willingness to pay for quality is the best means  to
assess the effect of trees on landscape value.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/199202},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.199202},
}