IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v48y2021i7p1755-1769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning participants’ preferential differences under immersive virtual reality and conventional representations: An experiment of street renewal

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Zhu

    (Tongji University, China)

  • Shaoyu Guo

    (Shanghai Lingang Economy Development (Group) Ltd Co., China)

  • Jinhua Zhao

Abstract

Immersive virtual reality is a promising technology for planning participation. The paper contributes to the literature by comparing the latest virtual reality technology using head-mounted display with conventional graphic representation (pictures of rendered three-dimensional environments in this case) in terms of the effects on the participants’ preferences for the plans and their underlying decision mechanisms. Using a stated choice experiment based on a real-world project of street renewal, we collected choice data from 48 university students from non-design majors. We found significant quantitative but limited qualitative differences between the aggregate preferences under virtual reality and conventional graphic representation, and some generally unappealing features under conventional graphic representation were more favored under virtual reality. Results of the discrete choice modeling showed the individual decision mechanisms became more homogeneous under virtual reality. Virtual reality had stronger impacts on the female participants than the male participants. The females had more aggregate preference reversals, larger preference differences, and stronger changes in the decision mechanism. But the mechanisms of the two genders converged under virtual reality. The findings can be used to design better participatory processes with virtual reality and conventional graphic representation properly applied according to their capabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Zhu & Shaoyu Guo & Jinhua Zhao, 2021. "Planning participants’ preferential differences under immersive virtual reality and conventional representations: An experiment of street renewal," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(7), pages 1755-1769, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:7:p:1755-1769
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808320942776
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808320942776
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808320942776?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 193-208.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbara Buljat, 2022. "Immersive Technologies Affecting Psychological Factors that Lead to Voluntary Pro-Environmental Behavior: A Transdisciplinary Survey," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Eppink, Florian V. & Hanley, Nick & Tucker, Steven, 2019. "How Best to Present Complex Ecosystem Information in Stated Preference Studies?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 20-25.
    3. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    4. Susana Oliveira & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Choice experiments to elicit the users’ preferences for coastal erosion management: the case of Praia da Amorosa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9749-9765, July.
    5. Klaus Glenk & Robert J. Johnston & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Julian Sagebiel, 2020. "Spatial Dimensions of Stated Preference Valuation in Environmental and Resource Economics: Methods, Trends and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 215-242, February.
    6. Barbara Buljat, 2022. "Environmental policy and immersive technologies," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 41-47, July.
    7. Di Fang & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Grant H. West & Claudia Bazzani & Wei Yang & Benjamin C. Lok & Charles E. Levy & Heather A. Snell, 2021. "On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 142-161, January.
    8. Mol, Jantsje M., 2019. "Goggles in the lab: Economic experiments in immersive virtual environments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 155-164.
    9. Parsons, George & Yan, Lingxiao, 2021. "Anchoring on visual cues in a stated preference survey: The case of siting offshore wind power projects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    10. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    11. Doll, Claire A. & Burton, Michael P. & Pannell, David J. & Rollins, Curtis L., 2023. "Are greenspaces too green? Landscape preferences and water use in urban parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    14. DeLong, Karen L. & Syrengelas, Konstantinos G. & Grebitus, Carola & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    15. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    16. Mokas, Ilias & Lizin, Sebastien & Brijs, Tom & Witters, Nele & Malina, Robert, 2021. "Can immersive virtual reality increase respondents’ certainty in discrete choice experiments? A comparison with traditional presentation formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Genius Murwirapachena & Johane Dikgang, 2022. "The effects of presentation formats in choice experiments," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(3), pages 421-445, July.
    18. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    20. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:48:y:2021:i:7:p:1755-1769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.