IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7357-d840003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the Influence of the Visual Attributes of Kaplan’s Preference Matrix in the Assessment of Urban Parks: A Discrete Choice Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Marjan Shayestefar

    (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Golestan University, Gorgan 4918888369, Iran)

  • Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar

    (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Golestan University, Gorgan 4918888369, Iran)

  • Clarine van Oel

    (Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5043, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Patrik Grahn

    (Department of People and Society, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 190, 234 56 Alnarp, Sweden)

Abstract

A significant majority of the literature on natural environments and urban green spaces justifies the preferences that people have for natural environments using four predictors defined by Kaplan’s preference matrix theory, namely coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery. However, there are no studies implicitly focusing on the visual attributes assigned to each of these four predictors. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the influence of nine visual attributes derived from the four predictors of Kaplan’s matrix on people’s preferences in the context of urban parks. A discrete choice experiment was used to obtain responses from a sample of 396 students of Golestan University. Students randomly evaluated their preferences towards a set of potential scenarios with urban park images. The results of a random parameter logit analysis showed that all of the attributes of complexity (variety of elements, number of colors, and organization of elements) and one attribute each of coherence (uniformity), mystery (visual access), and legibility (distinctive elements) affect students’ choices for urban parks, while one attribute each of mystery (physical access) and legibility (wayfinding) did not affect the choices. Furthermore, the results indicated a preference for heterogeneity of the attributes. The findings of this study can provide instructions for designing parks.

Suggested Citation

  • Marjan Shayestefar & Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar & Clarine van Oel & Patrik Grahn, 2022. "Exploring the Influence of the Visual Attributes of Kaplan’s Preference Matrix in the Assessment of Urban Parks: A Discrete Choice Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7357-:d:840003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7357/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7357/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnaud Bigoin-Gagnan & S. Lacoste-Badie, 2018. "Symmetry influences packaging aesthetic evaluation and purchase intention," Post-Print halshs-02531994, HAL.
    2. Andrew J. Newman, 2007. "Uncovering Dimensionality in the Servicescape: Towards Legibility," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 15-28, January.
    3. Daniel L. McFadden, 1976. "Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 363-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Sanaz Memari & Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar & Patrik Grahn, 2021. "Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Green Areas: An Experimental Study on Stress Recovery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Arnaud Bigoin-Gagnan & Sophie Lacoste-Badie, 2018. "Symmetry influences packaging aesthetic evaluation and purchase intention," Post-Print halshs-01940835, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Youngeun Kang & Eujin Julia Kim, 2019. "Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Jacinto Garrido Velarde & María Jesús Montero Parejo & Julio Hernández Blanco & Lorenzo García Moruno, 2019. "Using Native Vegetation Screens to Lessen the Visual Impact of Rural Buildings in the Sierras de Béjar and Francia Biosphere Reserve: Case Studies and Public Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    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. Mohammad Paydar & Asal Kamani Fard & Verónica Gárate Navarrete, 2023. "Design Characteristics, Visual Qualities, and Walking Behavior in an Urban Park Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Xiaoyang Zhu & Shang-Chia Chiou, 2022. "A Study on the Sustainable Development of Historic District Landscapes Based on Place Attachment among Tourists: A Case Study of Taiping Old Street, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-25, September.
    3. Jun Li & Melasutra Md. Dali & Nikmatul Adha Nordin, 2023. "Connectedness among Urban Parks from the Users’ Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    4. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    5. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    6. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    7. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    10. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    11. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Forbes-Brown, Shelicia & Mcheels, Eric & Hobbs, Jill, 2015. "Signalling Origin: Consumer Willngness to Pay for Dairy Products with the "100% Canadian Milk" Label," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211636, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    19. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Peter Zweifel & Harry Telser & Stephan Vaterlaus, 2006. "Consumer Resistance Against Regulation: The Case of Health Care," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 319-332, May.

    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:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7357-:d:840003. 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.