IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i2p309-d128657.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Vanstockem

    (Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven—University of Leuven, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Liesbet Vranken

    (Division of Bioeconomics, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven—University of Leuven, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Brent Bleys

    (Department of General Economics, Ghent University, BE-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Ben Somers

    (Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven—University of Leuven, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Martin Hermy

    (Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven—University of Leuven, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium)

Abstract

Extensive green roofs are a promising type of urban green that can play an important role in climate proofing and ultimately in the sustainability of our cities. Despite their increasingly widespread application and the growing scientific interest in extensive green roofs, their aesthetics have received limited scientific attention. Furthermore, several functional issues occur, as weedy species can colonize the roof, and extreme roof conditions can lead to gaps in the vegetation. Apart from altering the function of a green roof, we also expect these issues to influence the perception of extensive green roofs, possibly affecting their acceptance and application. We therefore assessed the preferences of a self-selected convenience sample of 155 Flemish respondents for visual aspects using a discrete choice experiment. This approach, combined with current knowledge on the psychological aspects of green roof visuals, allowed us to quantify extensive green roof preferences. Our results indicate that vegetation gaps and weedy species, together with a diverse vegetation have a considerable impact on green roof perception. Gaps were the single most important attribute, indicated by a relative importance of ca. 53%, with cost coming in at a close second at ca. 46%. Overall, this study explores the applicability of a stated preference technique to assess an often overlooked aspect of extensive green roofs. It thereby provides a foundation for further research aimed at generating practical recommendations for green roof construction and maintenance.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:309-:d:128657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/309/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/2/309/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    5. 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, December.
    6. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, December.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    11. Nurmi, Väinö & Votsis, Athanasios & Perrels, Adriaan & Lehvävirta, Susanna, 2016. "Green Roof Cost-Benefit Analysis: Special Emphasis on Scenic Benefits," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 488-522, October.
    12. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    13. 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.
    14. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    15. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    16. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    18. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Ju-Hee Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Net-Zero Energy Apartment in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    2. Hyo-Jin Kim & Sung-Min Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2019. "Economic Value of Improving Natural Gas Supply Reliability for Residential Consumers in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, January.
    3. Fruth, Erik & Kvistad, Michele & Marshall, Joe & Pfeifer, Lena & Rau, Luisa & Sagebiel, Julian & Soto, Daniel & Tarpey, John & Weir, Jessica & Winiarski, Bradyn, 2019. "Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Hyo-Jin Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Do People Place More Value on Natural Gas Than Coal for Power Generation to Abate Particulate Matter Emissions? Evidence from South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, May.
    5. Doo-Chun Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Valuing Improved Power Supply Reliability for Manufacturing Firms in South Korea: Results from a Choice Experiment Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Po-Ching Wang & Chi-Ying Yu, 2018. "Aesthetic Experience as an Essential Factor to Trigger Positive Environmental Consciousness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Sri Yuliani & Gagoek Hardiman & Erni Setyowati, 2020. "Green-Roof: The Role of Community in the Substitution of Green-Space toward Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, February.
    8. A. Haven Kiers & Billy Krimmel & Caroline Larsen-Bircher & Kate Hayes & Ash Zemenick & Julia Michaels, 2022. "Different Jargon, Same Goals: Collaborations between Landscape Architects and Ecologists to Maximize Biodiversity in Urban Lawn Conversions," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Ga-Eun Kim & Hye-Jeong Lee & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Substituting Coal with Natural Gas-Based Combined Heat and Power in South Korea: A View from Air Pollutants Emissions Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    10. Ju-Hee Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Economic Value of Building a Firefighter Training Academy for Urban Disaster Management in Seoul, South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Joseph Kim & Hyo-Jin Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Value of Marine Biodiesel Technology Development in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Inês Teotónio & Carlos Oliveira Cruz & Cristina Matos Silva & José Morais, 2020. "Investing in Sustainable Built Environments: The Willingness to Pay for Green Roofs and Green Walls," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Mitali Yeshwant Joshi & Jacques Teller, 2021. "Urban Integration of Green Roofs: Current Challenges and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-33, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    6. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    7. 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.
    8. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Sobolewski, Maciej, 2021. "Measuring consumer well-being from using free-of-charge digital services. The case of navigation apps," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    10. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    11. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    13. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    15. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    16. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    17. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    18. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    19. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    20. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:2:p:309-:d:128657. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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