IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5073-d547449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Evaluation of Utility Value Based on User Preferences for Urban Streets: The Case of Seoul, Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Minho Seo

    (Urban Research Division, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, Sejong 30147, Korea)

  • Seiyong Kim

    (Department of Architecture, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

Currently, there is a lack of objective evaluations clarifying characteristics of urban streets from the users’ perspective, particularly regarding the most effective spatial composition. This study investigated the value of spatial components of urban streets preferred by users through a conjoint analysis based on utility value for six streets representing street types in Seoul and evaluated relative preferences for the main characteristics of urban streets in terms of amenity, placeness, and accessibility. The analysis showed that users consider “amenity” as the most important characteristic of urban streets; “green space composition” was rated highest for utility value. The value exchange relationship of utility related to placeness and amenity within a certain threshold level was also confirmed for each of the three characteristics of urban streets. These results show that prioritizing improvements to amenities and green space promotes urban streets policies and projects, and strengthening placeness-related spatial elements is effective once a certain amenity level is secured. This study contributes to the discussion how to minimize differences in planning and user experience for urban streets by objectifying the relationship between user preferences and characteristics of urban streets through utility value.

Suggested Citation

  • Minho Seo & Seiyong Kim, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Utility Value Based on User Preferences for Urban Streets: The Case of Seoul, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5073-:d:547449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5073/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5073/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chad M. Botes & Alberto M. Zanni, 2021. "Trees, ground vegetation, sidewalks, cycleways: users’ preferences and economic values for different elements of an urban street—a case study in Taipei," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 145-171, January.
    2. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    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. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    2. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    3. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    5. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    7. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna & Michalski, Rafał & Kott, Marek & Skowrońska-Szmer, Anna & Kott, Joanna, 2022. "Consumer preferences towards alternative fuel vehicles. Results from the conjoint analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Horna, J. Daniela & Smale, Melinda & von Oppen, Matthias, 2005. "Private Participation In Agricultural Extension In Nigeria And Benin: Determining The Willingness To Pay For Information," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19401, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. John Liechty & Duncan Fong & Eelko Huizingh & Arnaud Bruyn, 2008. "Hierarchical Bayesian conjoint models incorporating measurement uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 141-155, June.
    11. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    12. Kannika Thampanishvong, 2013. "Determinants of Flash Flood Evacuation Choices and Assessment of Preferences for Flash Flood Warning Channels: The Case of Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013034, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
    13. Teichert, Thorsten Andreas, 1997. "Schätzgenauigkeit von Conjoint-Analysen," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 444, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    14. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    15. Poortinga, Wouter & Steg, Linda & Vlek, Charles & Wiersma, Gerwin, 2003. "Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 49-64, February.
    16. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    17. Sell, Sandra & Lopatta, Kerstin & Hundsdoerfer, Jochen, 2010. "Der Einfluss der Besteuerung auf die Rechtsformwahl: Eine Conjoint-Analyse," Discussion Papers 2010/10, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    18. Fraser, Iain & Balcombe, Kelvin & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2021. "Preference stability in discrete choice experiments. Some evidence using eye-tracking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    19. Chan-Halbrendt, Catherine & Yu, Jin & Keung, Helen & Lin, Tun & Ferguson, Carol, 2006. "Guangzhou Buyers Preference for Premium Hawaiian Grown Product Gift Baskets," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15.
    20. Dutta, Goutam & Sankarshan Basu & John, Jose, 2008. "Development of Utility Function for Life Insurance Buyers in the Indian Market," IIMA Working Papers WP2008-12-05, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5073-:d:547449. 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.