IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v158y2019icp20-25.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Eppink, Florian V.
  • Hanley, Nick
  • Tucker, Steven

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:158:y:2019:i:c:p:20-25
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918303653
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.020?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. Schonlau Matthias & Peters Ellen, 2012. "Comprehension of Graphs and Tables Depend on the Task: Empirical Evidence from Two Web-Based Studies," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-35, August.
    4. Nele Lienhoop & Marc Völker, 2016. "Preference Refinement in Deliberative Choice Experiments for Ecosystem Service Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(3), pages 555-577.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. LaRiviere, Jacob & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick & Aanesen, Margrethe & Falk-Petersen, Jannike & Tinch, Dugald, 2014. "The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 376-389.
    12. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V. & Greenhalgh, Suzie, 2017. "Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-139.
    13. LaRiviere, Jacob & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nick & Aanesen, Margrethe & Falk-Peterson, Jannike & Tinch, Dugald, 2014. "Effects of Experience, Knowledge and Signals on Willingness to Pay for a Public Good," SIRE Discussion Papers 2014-008, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    14. Posner, Stephen & Getz, Christy & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 30-37.
    15. 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.
    16. Fiore, Stephen M. & Harrison, Glenn W. & Hughes, Charles E. & Rutstrm, E. Elisabet, 2009. "Virtual experiments and environmental policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 65-86, January.
    17. Louviere, Jordan J, 2001. "What If Consumer Experiments Impact Variances as Well as Means? Response Variability as a Behavioral Phenomenon," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 506-511, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qianfeng Luo & Pengfei Liu & Zhi Li, 2023. "The influence of African swine fever information on consumers’ preference of pork attributes and pork purchase," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(1), pages 49-68, March.
    2. Matthews, Yvonne, 2023. "A hybrid and hierarchical stated preference study of freshwater restoration in Aotearoa New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    3. Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2020. "A Meta‐analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Cultural Services from Grasslands in Europe," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 357-383, June.

    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. Enni Roukamo & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & A. Juutinen & R. Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-16, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    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 & 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.
    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. 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.
    9. Haotian Cheng & Dayton M. Lambert & Karen L. DeLong & Kimberly L. Jensen, 2022. "Inattention, availability bias, and attribute premium estimation for a biobased product," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 274-288, March.
    10. repec:sss:wpaper:201404 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Brent, Daniel A. & Ward, Michael B., 2018. "Energy efficiency and financial literacy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 181-216.
    14. 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.
    15. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    16. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    17. 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.
    18. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    19. Rocha, Luiz Eduardo Vasconcelos & Santos, Gilnei Costa & Bastos, Patricia de Melo Abrita, 2006. "Evolução Da Distribuição Da Renda E Da Pobreza Das Famílias Ocupadas E Residentes No Meio Rural Do Estado De Minas Gerais, De 1981 A 2003," 44th Congress, July 23-27, 2006, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 148649, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).
    20. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    21. Leite, Sheila Cristina Ferreira & De Figueiredo, Margarida Garcia, 2006. "Fluxos De Algodão Em Pluma Para Exportação No Estado Da Bahia: Uma Aplicação De Programação Linear," 44th Congress, July 23-27, 2006, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 149116, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).

    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:eee:ecolec:v:158:y:2019:i:c:p:20-25. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.