How Best to Present Complex Ecosystem Information in Stated Preference Studies?

This study examines the most effective way to present complex information in the context of ecosystem service-based assessments of landscape-level decision-making, using choice consistency as a way of measuring what is “most effective”. The experiment compares a verbal presentation of information with a variety of visualisations of the same information in a discrete choice experiment about a catchment management plan in New Zealand. The analysis uses a scale heterogeneity model to identify inter-subject differences in choice consistency, measured as the relative weight of the deterministic and random components of utility. The results indicate that choice consistency is reduced when information is presented visually rather than verbally. Radar graphs reduce choice consistency more than histograms or colour maps. The time required to complete the choice tasks also increased when information was not verbal, suggesting that cognitive processing of verbal and visual information occurs quite differently.

[1]  S. Greenhalgh,et al.  Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making , 2017 .

[2]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management , 2017 .

[3]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon , 2001 .

[4]  Denzil G. Fiebig,et al.  The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity , 2010, Mark. Sci..

[5]  Tobias Börger,et al.  Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment , 2015, Environmental and Resource Economics.

[6]  B. Kahn,et al.  The "visual preference heuristic": The influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload , 2014 .

[7]  Schonlau Matthias,et al.  Comprehension of Graphs and Tables Depend on the Task: Empirical Evidence from Two Web-Based Studies , 2012 .

[8]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model , 2014, Environmental and Resource Economics.

[9]  N. Lienhoop,et al.  Preference Refinement in Deliberative Choice Experiments for Ecosystem Service Valuation , 2016, Land Economics.

[10]  Janine A van Til,et al.  Words or graphics to present a Discrete Choice Experiment: Does it matter? , 2015, Patient education and counseling.

[11]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models , 2010 .

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

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

[14]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Flexibility in data interpretation: effects of representational format , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[15]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

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

[17]  John M. Rose,et al.  Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? , 2012 .

[18]  Nick Hanley,et al.  The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good , 2014 .

[19]  Charles E. Hughes,et al.  Virtual Experiments and Environmental Policy , 2009 .

[20]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers , 2016 .