Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives

Participatory planning approaches are said to improve agreement on sustainable housing development objectives among stakeholders. The choice experiment method (CE) offers much potential for an in-depth and rigorous participatory planning approach, e.g. having individuals choose their most preferred option from a range of (planning) alternatives. Here we tested for differences in preferences for housing development alternatives resulting from the different forms of presentation of identical choice set information (treatments) – in particular, digitally generated film sequences presented to respondents as compared with the presentation in the format of a series of still images, as an internet survey among German home buyers. The findings suggest that a more sophisticated form of choice set presentation, 3D film sequences, was outperformed by a more basic form of visualisation technique, the choice set information presented as 3D still-images. Also, we tested for the effect of the degree of ‘expertise’ of respondents and found that a more sophisticated form of choice set presentation (3D film sequences) led to a better comprehension of the choice set task only among ‘expert respondents’, i.e. respondents who in the past had made a housing investment decision or were presently making an actual house buying decision.

[1]  Eric Molin,et al.  The impact of including images in a conjoint measurement task: evidence from two small-scale studies , 2009 .

[2]  Ali Rezaei,et al.  Comparing text-only and virtual reality discrete choice experiments of neighbourhood choice , 2017 .

[3]  Joan L. Walker.  Mixed Logit (or Logit Kernel) Model: Dispelling Misconceptions of Identification , 2002 .

[4]  Wolfgang Rid,et al.  Analysing sustainability certification systems in the German housing sector from a theory of social institutions , 2017 .

[5]  F. J. Varela,et al.  Stated Preferences in Modelling Accessibility , 2000 .

[6]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Correlation and scale in mixed logit models , 2017 .

[7]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters , 2010 .

[9]  Andrea Ryffel,et al.  Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations , 2014 .

[10]  C. Bhat.  Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model , 2001 .

[11]  Joffre Swait,et al.  A joint best–worst scaling and stated choice model considering observed and unobserved heterogeneity: An application to residential location choice , 2015 .

[12]  J. Louviere,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[13]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[14]  Ming Zhang,et al.  Travel Choice with No Alternative , 2006 .

[15]  Tim Townshend,et al.  Why Aren’t We Building More Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods In The Uk? , 2007 .

[16]  G. Bramley,et al.  Urban Form and Social Sustainability: The Role of Density and Housing Type , 2009 .

[17]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[18]  W. Haider,et al.  Visual Aesthetic Quality of Northern Ontario's Forested Shorelines , 2002, Environmental management.

[19]  Phoebe Koundouri,et al.  Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece , 2006 .

[20]  D. McFadden.  The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[21]  J. Polak,et al.  Non-trading, lexicographic and inconsistent behaviour in stated choice data , 2010 .

[22]  B. Roe,et al.  Consumer Preference for Neotraditional Neighborhood Characteristics , 2004 .

[23]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Preferences for housing, jobs, and commuting : A mixed logit analysis , 2001 .

[24]  Javier Amós Barrios García,et al.  Housing and Urban Location Decisions in Spain: An Econometric Analysis with Unobserved Heterogeneity , 2007 .

[25]  J. Ortúzar.  Estimating individual preferences with flexible discrete-choice-models. , 2010 .

[26]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change , 2009 .

[27]  K. Glenk,et al.  Analysis of choice inconsistencies in on-line choice experiments: impact on welfare measures , 2016 .

[28]  W. Haider,et al.  Accounting for Varying Setting Preferences Among Moose Hunters , 2005 .

[29]  Margarita Greene,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Social Housing Attributes: A Case Study from Chile , 2002 .

[30]  David Miller,et al.  The Application of Visual Environmental Economics in the Study of Public Preference and Urban Greenspace , 2009 .

[31]  S. Mccool,et al.  Indicators of Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities at the Interface of Science and Policy , 2004, Environmental management.

[32]  Kheir Al-Kodmany,et al.  Visualization Tools and Methods for Participatory Planning and Design , 2001 .

[33]  Paula Iragüen,et al.  Willingness-to-pay for reducing fatal accident risk in urban areas: an Internet-based Web page stated preference survey. , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[34]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[35]  Dana Marie Bauer,et al.  Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use , 2002, Land Economics.

[36]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Estimation of travel demand models from multiple data sources , 1990 .

[37]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Examining Demand for Urban River Rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from a Spatially Explicit Discrete Choice Experiment , 2013 .

[38]  J. Ortúzar,et al.  On the perception of safety in low income neighbourhoods: using digital images in a stated choice experiment , 2011 .

[39]  Dietrich Earnhart,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations , 2001, Land Economics.

[40]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Context Dependencies in Housing Choice Behavior , 1995 .

[41]  J. Ladenburg,et al.  Using an ex-ante entreaty to reduce protest zero bias in stated preference surveys: A health economic case , 2009 .

[42]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[43]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Combining sources of preference data , 1998 .

[44]  C. Bullock,et al.  Rural residential preferences for house design and location: insights from a discrete choice experiment applied to Ireland , 2011 .

[45]  Harry Timmermans,et al.  Evaluating Design Alternatives Using Conjoint Experiments in Virtual Reality , 2003 .

[46]  W. Greene,et al.  Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments , 2012 .

[47]  U. Wissen Hayek,et al.  Evaluating a visual-acoustic simulation for wind park assessment , 2016 .

[48]  D. Marsh,et al.  Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods , 2017 .

[49]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[50]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Envisioning Future Landscapes in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas of Scotland , 1997 .

[51]  David Hoyos,et al.  The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments , 2010 .

[52]  W. Haider.  The aesthetics of white pine and red pine forests , 1994 .

[53]  D. Wittink,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey , 1982 .

[54]  P. Boxall,et al.  Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach , 2002 .

[55]  Robert Kohn,et al.  Dissecting the Random Component of Utility , 2002 .

[56]  Michiel C.J. Bliemer,et al.  Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs , 2009 .

[57]  K. Wallmo,et al.  Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments , 2017 .

[58]  A. Daly,et al.  Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data , 1994 .

[59]  Guo Jin,et al.  Joint Residence-Workplace Location Choice Model Based on Household Decision Behavior , 2015 .

[60]  Wolfgang Rid,et al.  Stated Preferences for Sustainable Housing Development in Germany—A Latent Class Analysis , 2011 .

[61]  John M. Rose,et al.  Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer , 2005 .

[62]  H. Oppewal,et al.  Residential Choice Behaviour of Dual Earner Households: A Decompositional Joint Choice Model , 1992 .

[63]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[64]  Wah Walther Roelen,et al.  Conjoint analysis and virtual reality : exploring the possibilities , 1999 .

[65]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods , 1998 .

[66]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  The Effect of Attribute Variation on Consumer Choice Consistency , 1999 .

[67]  Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al.  Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity , 2009, Land Economics.

[68]  Warnfried Dettling.  Perspektiven für Deutschland , 1994 .

[69]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence , 2005 .

[70]  András Simonovits,et al.  Optimal Design of Pension Rule with Flexible Retirement: The Two-Type Case , 2006 .