IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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


  • Rid, Wolfgang
  • Haider, Wolfgang
  • Ryffel, Andrea
  • Beardmore, Ben


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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:146:y:2018:i:c:p:203-217
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.019

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lew, Daniel K. & Wallmo, Kristy, 2017. "Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 87-97.
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    3. Pengpeng Jiao & Tuo Sun & Jin Guo & Yangwei Li, 2015. "Joint Residence-Workplace Location Choice Model Based on Household Decision Behavior," Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-8, March.
    4. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    5. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    8. Dietrich Earnhart, 2001. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods to Value Environmental Amenities at Residential Locations," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 12-29.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    11. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    12. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    13. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    14. Richard Laing & Anne-Marie Davies & David Miller & Anna Conniff & Stephen Scott & Jane Morrice, 2009. "The Application of Visual Environmental Economics in the Study of Public Preference and Urban Greenspace," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(2), pages 355-375, April.
    15. Craig Bullock & Mark Scott & Menelaos Gkartzios, 2011. "Rural residential preferences for house design and location: insights from a discrete choice experiment applied to Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 685-706.
    16. H Timmermans & A Borgers & J van Dijk & H Oppewal, 1992. "Residential Choice Behaviour of Dual Earner Households: A Decompositional Joint Choice Model," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 24(4), pages 517-533, April.
    17. Jan Rouwendal & Erik Meijer, 2001. "Preferences for Housing, Jobs, and Commuting: A Mixed Logit Analysis," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 475-505, August.
    18. Paula Iglesias & Margarita Greene & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2013. "On the perception of safety in low income neighbourhoods: using digital images in a stated choice experiment," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.),Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 193-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    20. Hoehn, John P. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2010. "Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-23, December.
    21. Jan Dijkstra & Jos van Leeuwen & Harry Timmermans, 2003. "Evaluating Design Alternatives Using Conjoint Experiments in Virtual Reality," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 30(3), pages 357-367, June.
    22. H Timmermans & L van Noortwijk, 1995. "Context Dependencies in Housing Choice Behavior," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 27(2), pages 181-192, February.
    23. Sergio Colombo & Klaus Glenk & Beatriz Rocamora-Montiel, 2016. "Analysis of choice inconsistencies in on-line choice experiments: impact on welfare measures," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 43(2), pages 271-302.
    24. Balbontin, C. & Ortúzar, J. de D. & Swait, J.D., 2015. "A joint best–worst scaling and stated choice model considering observed and unobserved heterogeneity: An application to residential location choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-14.
    25. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    26. Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
    27. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    28. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    29. Matthews, Yvonne & Scarpa, Riccardo & Marsh, Dan, 2017. "Stability of Willingness-to-Pay for Coastal Management: A Choice Experiment Across Three Time Periods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 64-73.
    30. Glen Bramley & Sinéad Power, 2009. "Urban Form and Social Sustainability: The Role of Density and Housing Type," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(1), pages 30-48, February.
    31. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "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," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    32. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Shuping Huang & Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch & Weicong Fu & Jinda Qi & Ziru Chen & Zhipeng Zhu & Jianwen Dong, 2018. "Does Adding Local Tree Elements into Dwellings Enhance Individuals’ Homesickness? Scenario-Visualisation for Developing Sustainable Rural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Rossetti, Tomás & Hurtubia, Ricardo, 2020. "An assessment of the ecological validity of immersive videos in stated preference surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    4. 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.


    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:146:y:2018:i:c:p:203-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.