IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v156y2019icp375-386.html

How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy)
  • Ready, Richard
  • Orland, Brian
  • Echols, Stuart

Abstract

This article provides new evidence on how images influence survey responses, using a split-sample choice experiment. Our results suggest that, when respondents are presented with both images and text, they exhibit stronger preferences for attributes with high visual salience than when presented with either images or text alone. Furthermore, respondents are less likely to ignore individual attributes when both images and text are provided. However, the provision of images makes responses more random, i.e., respondents' preferences for attributes are less consistent across choice questions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:156:y:2019:i:c:p:375-386
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918301009
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.015?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    6. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Danny Campbell & Vikki O’Neill & Sebastian Caussade, 2013. "It’s not that I don’t care, I just don’t care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 583-607, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Schäffler, Alexis & Swilling, Mark, 2013. "Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 246-257.
    9. 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.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    11. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    12. Hensher, David & Louviere, Jordan & Swait, Joffre, 1998. "Combining sources of preference data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 197-221, November.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Revelt, David & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households' Choice of Electricity Supplier," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1900p96t, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    18. Torres-Sibille, Ana del Carmen & Cloquell-Ballester, Vicente-Agustín & Cloquell-Ballester, Víctor-Andrés & Artacho Ramírez, Miguel Ángel, 2009. "Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a subjective approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 986-999, June.
    19. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    20. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    21. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    22. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    23. David Hensher & Matthew Beck & John Rose, 2011. "Accounting for Preference and Scale Heterogeneity in Establishing Whether it Matters Who is Interviewed to Reveal Household Automobile Purchase Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 1-22, May.
    24. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    25. Hess, Stephane & Hensher, David A., 2010. "Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 781-790, July.
    26. 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.
    27. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2015. "The Effects of Experience on Preferences: Theory and Empirics for Environmental Public Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 333-351.
    28. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    29. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    30. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    31. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    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.
    33. 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.
    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. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, "undated". "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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Enni Ruokamo & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Artti Juutinen & Rauli Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Working Papers 2016-30, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa & Jordan Louviere, 2015. "Addressing Preference Heterogeneity, Multiple Scales and Attribute Attendance with a Correlated Finite Mixing Model of Tap Water Choice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 637-656, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Julie Riise & Arne Risa Hole & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2014. "GPs' shifting agencies in choice of treatment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 750-761, March.
    8. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    9. 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.
    10. Colombo, Sergio & Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "What are the consequences of ignoring attributes in choice experiments? Implications for ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 25-35.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    14. 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.
    15. Vij, Akshay & Krueger, Rico, 2017. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 76-101.
    16. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    17. Cati Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2014-07, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    18. David Hensher & Andrew Collins & William Greene, 2013. "Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: a warning on potential confounding," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1003-1020, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:156:y:2019:i:c:p:375-386. 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.