IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i11p1950-d960404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Park Design Informed by Stated Preference Choice: Integrating User Perspectives into the Development of an Off-Road Vehicle Park in Michigan

Author

Listed:
  • Dan McCole

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Tatiana A. Iretskaia

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Elizabeth E. Perry

    (Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Rd., East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

  • Jungho Suh

    (Department of Management, School of Business, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

  • John Noyes

    (Oakland County Parks and Recreation, Waterford, MI 48328, USA)

Abstract

At a time when many public park and recreational programs are required by local governments to be financially self-sustaining, it is critical for planners to design a new development with the end-user in mind. Feasibility studies often either do not examine user preferences or use Likert-type surveys to investigate features in isolation without evaluating trade-offs from financial and finite space limitations. This study used stated preference choice method (SPCM) to inform the initial design of an off-road vehicle (ORV) park. The park was developed near Detroit, Michigan, a metropolitan area with many registered ORVs, but few places to legally use them. The SPCM examined trade-offs among desired features and helped planners ensure publicly funded investments resulted in a successful park. Researchers mailed a survey with choice sets to 3935 registered ORV users and 2083 completed surveys were retuned (53%). Additional survey items also allowed researchers to create preference models for specific segments of users (i.e., serious ORV enthusiasts/casual users; residents/visitors; or users of different ORV types). The findings informed the design of the park by revealing preferences for segments, allowing planners to design the park for specific markets. The park’s initial success suggests a study in the design stage of development offers utility, though park managers have noticed unanticipated user segments that influence preferences for park features. The findings based on segments also suggest planners should be cautious when designing to an average user. Implications of this study are helpful to planners of any capital-intensive land-use project, especially in the public sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan McCole & Tatiana A. Iretskaia & Elizabeth E. Perry & Jungho Suh & John Noyes, 2022. "Park Design Informed by Stated Preference Choice: Integrating User Perspectives into the Development of an Off-Road Vehicle Park in Michigan," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:1950-:d:960404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/1950/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/1950/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Powell, K.E. & Martin, L.M. & Chowdhury, P.P., 2003. "Places to Walk: Convenience and Regular Physical Activity," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1519-1521.
    2. Samuelsson, Karl & Barthel, Stephan & Colding, Johan & Macassa, Gloria & Giusti, Matteo, 2020. "Urban nature as a source of resilience during social distancing amidst the coronavirus pandemic," OSF Preprints 3wx5a, Center for Open Science.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    5. Blamey, Russell K. & Gordon, Jenny & Chapman, Ross, 1999. "Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 43(3), pages 1-21, September.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    7. Brockhouse, John W. & Wadsworth, James J., 2010. "VITAL STEPS: A Cooperative Feasibility Study Guide," Service Reports (SR) 280703, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.
    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. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Joan Mogas & Pere Riera & Raul Brey, 2009. "Combining Contingent Valuation and Choice Experiments. A Forestry Application in Spain," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 535-551, August.
    5. Nduka, Eleanya, 2021. "How to get rural households out of energy poverty in Nigeria: A contingent valuation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    6. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    7. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    8. Alemu Mekonnen & Zenebe Gebreegziabher & Abebe D. Beyene & Fitsum Hagos, 2019. "Valuation of Access to Irrigation Water in Rural Ethiopia: Application of Choice Experiment and Contingent Valuation Methods," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 1-26, September.
    9. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    10. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Ondřej Vojáček & Iva Pecáková, 2010. "Comparison of Discrete Choice Models for Economic Environmental Research," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(1), pages 35-53.
    12. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    13. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Campos, Pablo, 2009. "The influence of home-site factors on residents' willingness to pay: An application for power generation from scrubland in Galicia, Spain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 4055-4065, October.
    14. Otieno, D., 2018. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Attributes of Goat Meat in Kenya," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277156, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. 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.
    16. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    17. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    18. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    19. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    20. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:1950-:d:960404. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.