Regional-scale non-market benefits of improved lakes and rivers when perceived and monitored ecological status diverge

Figures & data

Figure 1. Vuoksi River Basin District and the ecological classification of its freshwater water bodies (n = 1,530). The border between southern and northern Vuoksi is shown on the map with a bold black line.

Figure 2. Sample description used on the questionnaire.

Figure 3. Willingness to pay questions.

Table 1. Sample, zero-protest responses, and population characteristics.

Variables	Sample	Zero-protest	River basin district^a
N	242	91	507,913
Age distribution
18–39 years	17.4%	13.2%	29.4%
40–59 years	38.4%	33.0%	21.8%
≥60 years	44.2%	53.8%	48.8%
Gender distribution (women)	49.6%	33.0%	51.0%
Household size (head count)	1.8	1.9
Households with children <18 years old	21.1%	12.1%
Monthly individual income (€)	3,170	3,145	3,264

Note: ^aStatistics Finland, last accessed 11 October 2021.

Figure 4. The monitored ecological status classification (an ex-post GIS analysis, darker bars) and the perceived water quality (from the survey results, lighter bars) of the respondents’ focal body of water (n = 200).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Variable descriptions		Mean (Stand. Dev.)	Expected effect on WTP
INCOME	Ten classes (1= EUR 800, …10= EUR 8,300 per month)	4.06 (2.59)	+
SOUTHERN	Lives in southern Vuoksi (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.30 (0.46)	?
USE OF WATERS	Number of different water uses 0–10	5.04 (2.28)	+
DETE	Has observed changes in the waters of the region for the worse over the last ten years; (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.40 (0.49)	+
HUMUS	Opinion that humus, peat, darkness, or colour affect the current state of focal water body (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.07 (0.26)	?
EUTRO	Opinion that eutrophication (e.g. algal blooms) affects the current state of focal water body (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.15 (0.36)	?
DIST	Distance between the respondent’s residence and focal water body: 0–30 m (1); 50–200 m (2); 300 m–1 km (3); 1.5–23 km (4); 25–700 km (5)	3.11 (1.26)	−
SCENARIO	Degree of accepting the statement ‘The Vuoksi Water Management Foundation was plausible’: no (1); partly (2); totally (3)	2.35 (0.66)	+
QUALITY	Opinion on the current status of focal body of water: bad (0); poor (1); moderate (2); good (3); excellent (4)	2.18 (0.96)	−
STATUS	Ecological status of focal body of water: moderate (1); good (2); high (3) (ex-post GIS analysis)	2.11 (0.70)	−
DIVERG	For the focal water body, difference between perceived water quality and monitored ecological status (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.62 (0.49)	?
ASIS	Ecological status of surface waters in Vuoksi (shown in a map) is as I thought (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.39 (0.49)	?

Table 3. Probit model for predicted probability of divergence between perceived and classified status.

Variable		Coefficient	z	Sig.
		(Std. Error)	statistic
Constant		−0.544 (0.420)	−1.30	0.195
DETE	Has observed changes in water bodies for the worse over the last ten years; dummy (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.828 (0.228)***	3.63	0.000
SOUTHERN	Lives in southern Vuoksi (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.555 (0.232)**	2.39	0.017
HUMUS	Opinion that humus, peat, darkness, or colour affects the current state of focal water body; dummy (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.839 (0.494)*	1.70	0.089
WTP	Willingness to make a positive payment (yes = 1, no = 0)	−0.140 (0.213)	−0.66	0.510
DIST	Distance between the respondent’s residence and focal water body: 0–30 m (1); 50–200 m (2); 300 m–1 km (3); 1.5–23 km (4); 25–700 km (5)	0.012 (0.086)	0.13	0.893
EUTRO	Opinion that eutrophication (e.g. algal blooms) affects the current state of focal water body; dummy (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.676 (0.353)*	1.92	0.055
USE OF WATERS	Number of different surface water related activities 0–10	0.097 (0.052)*	1.87	0.062
ASIS	Ecological status of surface waters in Vuoksi (shown in a map) is as I thought the situation was (yes = 1, no = 0)	−0.353 (0.208)*	−1.70	0.089
N		200
Chi squared [8 d.f.]		47,108***		0.000
Restricted log likelihood		−131,248
McFadden Pseudo R-squared		0.179

Note: The dependent variable is 1 for a difference (of one or two status class sizes), and 0 for no difference between perceived and classified status.

*** p < 0.001; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.

Figure 5. Left: Classified distribution of mean WTP (2014) in southern and northern Vuoksi (n = 73 and n = 165; N = 238); Right: Non-parametric estimates for mean WTP values, standard deviation, and standard errors.

Table 4. Ordered probit model on the level (0–3) of mean WTP for improved ecological status in Vuoksi (marginal effects).

Variable descriptions		Coefficient	z	p
		(Standard Error)	statistics
Constant		−3.574 0.580)***	−6.21	0.000
INCOME	Ten classes: EUR 800 to over EUR 8,300	0.119 (0.034)***	3.51	0.000
SCENARIO	Degree of accepting the statement “The Vuoksi Water Management Foundation was plausible”: no (0); partly (1); totally (2)	0.840 (0.141)***	5.96	0.000
USE OF WATERS	Number of different surface water related activities 0–10	0.111 (0.045)**	2.48	0.031
DETE	Has observed changes in the surface waters of Vuoksi for the worse over the last ten years dummy (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.532 (0.187)***	2.84	0.005
SOUTHERN	Lives in southern Vuoksi (yes = 1, no = 0)	0.233 (0.190)	1.23	0.220
DIST	Distance between the respondent’s residence and focal water body: 0–30 m (1); 50–200 m (2); 300 m–1 km (3); 1.5–23 km (4); 25–700 km (5)	−0.075 (0.070)	−1.08	0.280
DIVERG	For the focal water body, difference between perceived water quality and monitored ecological status (yes = 1, no = 0)	−0.350 (0.210)*	−1.67	0.096
STATUS	Ecological status of focal water body: moderate (1); good (2); high (3) (ex-post GIS analysis)	0.311 (0.126)**	2.46	0.014
	N	200
	Chi squared [8 d.f.]	87.912***
	−2 Log Likelihood	−190.999
	McFadden Pseudo R-squared	0.187

Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1.