IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v27y2025i1d10.1007_s10018-024-00405-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do different visual presentation formats encourage different choice behaviors? discrete choice experiment on urban park landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Kei Kabaya

    (Chuo University)

  • Kayo Tajima

    (Rikkyo University)

  • Daisuke Ichinose

    (Rikkyo University)

  • Michiko Asano

    (The University of Tokyo)

Abstract

A visual presentation has attracted researchers’ interests as an alternative for textual description in presenting choice profiles in discrete choice experiments. The purpose of this study is to compare two different visual presentation formats, namely, the one showing an integrated landscape picture that includes several attributes in it and the other presenting several images each representing a single attribute separately in a tabular format, in addition to textual information. We employed a hypothetical urban park landscapes in Tokyo as a case study, adopted a split sample approach and utilized a generalized multinomial logit model for parameter estimations. Consequently, we found that the visual presentation encouraged more systematic choices compared to the textual information and the landscape image enabled more homogeneous choice randomness within the group in relation to the separated attribute images. The landscape picture also elicited more confident choices of respondents and generated narrower confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay estimates for the park attributes. These results suggest that the landscape image was superior to the other two formats from the researcher’s perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Kei Kabaya & Kayo Tajima & Daisuke Ichinose & Michiko Asano, 2025. "Do different visual presentation formats encourage different choice behaviors? discrete choice experiment on urban park landscapes," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(1), pages 23-41, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:27:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-024-00405-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10018-024-00405-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10018-024-00405-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10018-024-00405-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Claudia Townsend & Barbara E. Kahn, 2014. "The "Visual Preference Heuristic": The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(5), pages 993-1015.
    3. Rex Labao & Herminia Francisco & Dieldre Harder & Florence Santos, 2008. "Do Colored Photographs Affect Willingness to Pay Responses for Endangered Species Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 251-264, June.
    4. Frontuto, Vito & Corsi, Alessandro & Novelli, Silvia & Gullino, Paola & Larcher, Federica, 2020. "The visual impact of agricultural sheds on rural landscapes: The willingness to pay for mitigation solutions and treatment effects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Rambonilaza, Tina, 2005. "Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiments method?," MPRA Paper 9225, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised May 2007.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    10. Nick Hanley & Christopher Boyce & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Steve Tucker & Charles Noussair & Michael Townsend, 2017. "Sad or Happy? The Effects of Emotions on Stated Preferences for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 821-846, December.
    11. Simone Mueller & Larry Lockshin & Jordan Louviere, 2010. "What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 335-350, December.
    12. Tobias Börger, 2016. "Are Fast Responses More Random? Testing the Effect of Response Time on Scale in an Online Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 389-413, October.
    13. Isaac Ankamah-Yeboah & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Søren Bøye Olsen & Max Nielsen & Rasmus Nielsen, 2019. "The Impact of Animal Welfare and Environmental Information on the Choice of Organic Fish: An Empirical Investigation of German Trout Consumers," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(3), pages 247-266.
    14. David A. Hensher & William H. Greene, 2011. "Valuation of Travel Time Savings in WTP and Preference Space in the Presence of Taste and Scale Heterogeneity," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 45(3), pages 505-525, September.
    15. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    16. Michela Faccioli & Laure Kuhfuss & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2019. "Stated Preferences for Conservation Policies Under Uncertainty: Insights on the Effect of Individuals’ Risk Attitudes in the Environmental Domain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 627-659, June.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    20. Uggeldahl, Kennet & Jacobsen, Catrine & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2016. "Choice certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments: Will eye tracking provide useful measures?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 35-48.
    21. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    22. 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.
    23. Seojeong Oh & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2023. "Valuing Ecosystem Services and Downstream Water Quality Improvement in the U.S. Corn Belt," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 823-872, August.
    24. Bateman, Ian J. & Cole, Matthew & Cooper, Philip & Georgiou, Stavros & Hadley, David & Poe, Gregory L., 2004. "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 71-93, January.
    25. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    26. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    27. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    28. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    29. 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).
    30. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    31. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    32. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    33. Maria Salvo & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Giovanni Signorello, 2022. "Using discrete choice experiments to explore how bioecological attributes of sites drive birders’ preferences and willingness to travel," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 119-146, April.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Tobias Börger & Joseph Cook, 2016. "Giving respondents “time to think” reduces response randomness in repeated discrete choice tasks," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-13, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    4. 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).
    5. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    6. 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.
    7. Boxebeld, Sander, 2024. "Ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: A systematic literature review across domains," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2017. "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. 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).
    14. 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).
    15. Mariel, Petr & Artabe, Alaitz, 2020. "Interpreting correlated random parameters in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    16. 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).
    17. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152198, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. 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).
    19. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    20. Taro Ohdoko & Satoru Komatsu, 2023. "Integrating a Pareto-Distributed Scale into the Mixed Logit Model: A Mathematical Concept," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.

    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:spr:envpol:v:27:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-024-00405-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.