Validating Citizens’ Preferences for Restoring Urban Riverscape: Discrete Choice Experiment versus Analytical Hierarchy Process
Publication: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 147, Issue 7
Abstract
The discrete choice experiment (DCE) has been widely employed to examine public preferences for changes in environmental/social welfare brought about by various policy and development proposals so as to solicit social efforts and engage civic communities to collaboratively produce sustainable societies. If DCE estimates are to inform relevant policies and decisions, it is crucial that valid responses be collected via DCE surveys. This paper examines the convergent validity of individual-level preferences for restoring an urban riverscape in Guangzhou (south China) by comparing the consistency of respondents’ stated purchasing preferences (utility) derived from the DCE approach and their theoretical stated preferences (importance) obtained from the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Our econometric analysis of a data set, which is composed of 462 responses from an online questionnaire survey, reveals that DCE and AHP could generate similar utility-importance rankings at the group level, yet distinct discrepancies exist at the individual level. A novel finite mixture model is then recruited to explore the association of individual respondents’ utility estimate (derived from DCE) and importance weight (derived from AHP) for every attribute pertaining to the proposed river restoration, which identifies three subgroups (components) of respondents exhibiting different patterns of convergence/nonconvergence and preference heterogeneity. The AHP importance weights for respondents belonging to Component 1 (20%) and Component 2 (42%) have a statistically significant explanatory power for DCE utility estimates, suggesting that the majority of respondents provided valid responses. The respondents of Component 3 (38%) manifest a statistically insignificant relationship, showing invalid responses. Censoring this group of respondents from DCE modeling could deflate the estimates of average willingness to pay for restoring the urban riverscape and change the degree of preference heterogeneity. This pioneer individual-level validity examination of DCE sheds new light on how to combine AHP with DCE in order to derive reliable information to support decision-making.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
Some (or all) data, models, or code generated or used during the study are available from the corresponding author by request. The survey data cannot be shared for confidentiality reasons. The questionnaire, program codes, and models can be provided upon request.
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful for the General Research Fund from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (17252416) and the Hui Oi Chow Trust Fund of the University of Hong Kong (201602172002). The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers as well as the editor for their helpful comments and suggestions.
References
Åberg, E. U., and S. Tapsell. 2013. “Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation.” Landscape Urban Plann. 113 (May): 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009.
Bell, A. R., P. S. Ward, M. Ashfaq, and S. Davies. 2020. “Valuation and aspirations for drip irrigation in Punjab, Pakistan.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 146 (6): 04020035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001181.
Birol, E., and J. Bennett. 2010. Choice experiments in developing countries: Implementation, challenges and policy implications. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Bishop, R. C., and K. J. Boyle. 2019. “Reliability and validity in nonmarket valuation.” Environ. Resour. Econ. 72 (2): 559–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0215-7.
Boyle, K. J., and S. Özdemir. 2009. “Convergent validity of attribute-based, choice questions in stated-preference studies.” Environ. Resour. Econ. 42 (2): 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9233-9.
Bozdogan, H. 1987. “Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions.” Psychometrika 52 (3): 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294361.
Campbell, D., M. Boeri, E. Doherty, and W. G. Hutchinson. 2015. “Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments.” J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 119 (Nov): 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.08.018.
Černauskas, V., F. Angeli, A. K. Jaiswal, and M. Pavlova. 2018. “Underlying determinants of health provider choice in urban slums: Results from a discrete choice experiment in Ahmedabad, India.” BMC Health Serv. Res. 18 (1): 473. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3264-x.
Chen, W. Y., and F. H. T. Cho. 2019. “Environmental information disclosure and societal preferences for urban river restoration: Latent class modelling of a discrete-choice experiment.” J. Cleaner Prod. 231 (Sep): 1294–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.307.
Chen, W. Y., J. Hua, I. Liekens, and S. Broekx. 2018. “Preference heterogeneity and scale heterogeneity in urban river restoration: A comparative study between Brussels and Guangzhou using discrete choice experiments.” Landscape Urban Plann. 173 (May): 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.010.
Chen, W. Y., and X. Li. 2017. “Cumulative impacts of polluted urban streams on property values: A 3-D spatial hedonic model at the micro-neighborhood level.” Landscape Urban Plann. 162 (Jun): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.012.
Chen, W. Y., I. Liekens, and S. Broekx. 2017. “Identifying societal preferences for river restoration in a densely populated urban environment: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in central Brussels.” Environ. Manage. 60 (2): 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0885-5.
Chen, X., H. Zhu, and Z. Yuan. 2020. “Contested memory amidst rapid urban transition: The cultural politics of urban regeneration in Guangzhou, China.” Cities 102 (Jul): 102755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102755.
Cho, F. 2018. “ahpsurvey: Analytic hierarchy process for survey data.” Accessed May 30, 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/package=ahpsurvey.
Colombo, S., A. Angus, J. Morris, D. J. Parsons, M. Brawn, K. Stacey, and N. Hanley. 2009. “A comparison of citizen and ‘expert’ preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice.” Ecol. Econ. 68 (11): 2834–2841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.001.
Danner, M., V. Vennedey, M. Hiligsmann, S. Fauser, C. Gross, and S. Stock. 2017. “Comparing analytic hierarchy process and discrete-choice experiment to elicit patient preferences for treatment characteristics in age-related macular degeneration.” Value Health 20 (8): 1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.022.
Davis, K. J., M. Burton, and M. E. Kragt. 2019. “Scale heterogeneity and its implications for discrete choice analysis.” Land Econ. 95 (3): 353–368. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.95.3.353.
Day, B., I. J. Bateman, R. T. Carson, D. Dupont, J. J. Louviere, S. Morimoto, R. Scarpa, and P. Wang. 2012. “Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies.” J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 63 (1): 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001.
Deason, J. P., G. E. Dickey, J. C. Kinnell, and L. A. Shabman. 2010. “Integrated planning framework for urban river rehabilitation.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 136 (6): 686–696. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000076.
Doherty, E., G. Murphy, S. Hynes, and C. Buckley. 2014. “Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment.” Ecosyst. Serv. 7 (Mar): 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.003.
Fiebig, D. G., M. P. Keane, J. Louviere, and N. Wasi. 2010. “The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity.” Marketing Sci. 29 (3): 393–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0508.
Gaißer, S., and F. Schmid. 2010. “On testing equality of pairwise rank correlations in a multivariate random vector.” J. Multivar. Anal. 101 (10): 2598–2615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2010.07.008.
Greene, W. H., and D. A. Hensher. 2003. “A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit.” Transp. Res. Part B 37 (8): 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2.
Greene, W. H., D. A. Hensher, and J. M. Rose. 2005. “Using classical simulation-based estimators to estimate individual WTP values.” In Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, edited by R. Scarpa and A. Alberini, 17–33. Berlin: Springer.
Grün, B., and F. Leisch. 2008. “FlexMix version 2: Finite mixtures with concomitant variables and varying and constant parameters.” J. Stat. Software 28 (4): 1–35.
Hanley, N. D. 1989. “Valuing non-market goods using contingent valuation.” J. Econ. Surv. 3 (3): 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.1989.tb00069.x.
Hensher, D. A. 2010a. “Attribute processing, heuristics and preference construction in choice analysis.” In Choice modelling: The state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice, edited by S. Hess and A. Daly, 35–70. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Hensher, D. A. 2010b. “Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay.” Transp. Res. Part B 44 (6): 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.012.
Hensher, D. A., and W. H. Greene. 2003. “The mixed logit model: The state of practice.” Transportation 30 (2): 133–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022558715350.
Hensher, D. A., J. M. Rose, and M. J. Beck. 2012. “Are there specific design elements of choice experiments and types of people that influence choice response certainty?” J. Choice Modell. 5 (1): 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70049-6.
Hess, S. 2010. “Conditional parameter estimates from Mixed Logit models: Distributional assumptions and a free software tool.” J. Choice Modell. 3 (2): 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70039-3.
Hole, A. R. 2007. “Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood.” Stata J. 7 (3): 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700306.
Hoyos, D. 2010. “The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments.” Ecol. Econ. 69 (8): 1595–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011.
Hua, J., and W. Y. Chen. 2019. “Prioritizing urban rivers’ ecosystem services: An importance-performance analysis.” Cities 94 (Nov): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.014.
Johnston, R. J., et al. 2017. “Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies.” J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4 (2): 319–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/691697.
Kahn, J. R., W. F. Vásquez, and C. E. de Rezende. 2017. “Choice modeling of system-wide or large scale environmental change in a developing country context: Lessons from the Paraíba do Sul River.” Sci. Total Environ. 598 (Nov): 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.059.
Kallas, Z., F. Lambarraa, and J. M. Gil. 2011. “A stated preference analysis comparing the analytical hierarchy process versus choice experiments.” Food Qual. Preference 22 (2): 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.09.010.
Keane, M., and N. Wasi. 2013. “Comparing alternative models of heterogeneity in consumer choice behavior.” J. Appl. Econ. 28 (6): 1018–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2304.
Lancaster, K. 1966. “A new approach to consumer theory.” J. Polit. Econ. 74 (2): 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1086/259131.
León, G., and E. Miguel. 2017. “Risky transportation choices and the value of a statistical life.” Appl. Econ. 9 (1): 202–228. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160140.
Logar, I., R. Brouwer, and A. Paillex. 2019. “Do the societal benefits of river restoration outweigh their costs? A cost-benefit analysis.” J. Environ. Manage. 232 (Feb): 1075–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.098.
Louviere, J., R. J. Meyer, D. S. Bunch, R. Carson, B. Dellaert, W. M. Hanemann, D. Hensher, and J. Irwin. 1999. “Combining sources of preference data for modelling complex decision processes.” Marketing Lett. 10 (3): 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008050215270.
Martin-Ortega, J., and J. Berbel. 2010. “Using multi-criteria analysis to explore non-market monetary values of water quality changes in the context of the water framework directive.” Sci. Total Environ. 408 (19): 3990–3997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.048.
Matthews, Y., R. Scarpa, and D. Marsh. 2017. “Using virtual environments to improve the realism of choice experiments: A case study about coastal erosion management.” J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 81 (Jan): 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.08.001.
Mattmann, M., I. Logar, and R. Brouwer. 2019. “Choice certainty, consistency, and monotonicity in discrete choice experiments.” J. Environ. Econ. Policy 8 (2): 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1515118.
McFadden, D. 1974. “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior.” In Frontiers in econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka, 105–142. New York: Academic Press.
McFadden, D., and K. Train. 2000. “Mixed MNL models for discrete response.” J. Appl. Econ. 15 (5): 447–470.
Menapace, L., and R. Raffaelli. 2020. “Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments.” J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 176 (Aug): 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.04.020.
Meyerhoff, J., and K. Glenk. 2015. “Learning how to choose-effects of instructional choice sets in discrete choice experiments.” Resour. Energy Econ. 41: 122–142.
Moran, D., A. McVittie, D. J. Allcroft, and D. A. Elston. 2007. “Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: A comparison of methods.” Ecol. Econ. 63 (1): 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.018.
Oviedo, J. L., A. Caparrós, I. Ruiz-Gauna, and P. Campos. 2016. “Testing convergent validity in choice experiments: Application to public recreation in Spanish stone pine and cork oak forests.” J. Forest Econ. 25 (Dec): 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2016.08.003.
Owuor, M. A., R. Mulwa, P. Otieno, J. Icely, and A. Newton. 2019. “Valuing mangrove biodiversity and ecosystem services: A deliberative choice experiment in Mida Creek, Kenya.” Ecosyst. Serv. 40 (Dec): 101040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101040.
Pascoe, S., A. Doshi, M. Kovac, and A. Austin. 2019. “Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combing multi-criteria methods with choice experiments.” Ecosyst. Serv. 38 (Aug): 100951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100951.
Pérez, A., and M. Prieto-Alaiz. 2016. “A note on nonparametric estimation of copula-based multivariate extensions of Spearman’s rho.” Stat. Probab. Lett. 112 (May): 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2016.01.015.
Rakotonarivo, O. S., M. Schaafsma, and N. Hockley. 2016. “A systematic review of the reliability and validity of discrete choice experiments in valuing non-market environmental goods.” J. Environ. Manage. 183 (Dec): 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.032.
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Core Team.
Reichert, P., M. Borsuk, M. Hostmann, S. Schweizer, C. Spörri, K. Tockner, and B. Truffer. 2007. “Concepts of decision support for river rehabilitation.” Environ. Modell. Software 22 (2): 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.07.017.
Saaty, T. L. 1987. “The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used.” Math. Modell. 9 (5): 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8.
Saaty, T. L. 2003. “Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary.” Eur. J. Oper. Res. 145 (1): 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8.
Sarrias, M., and R. Daziano. 2017. “Multinomial logit models with continuous and discrete individual heterogeneity in R: The gmnl package.” J. Stat. Software 79 (2): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v079.i02.
Scarpa, R., S. Notaro, J. Louviere, and R. Raffaelli. 2011. “Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons.” Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93 (3): 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaq174.
Scarpa, R., and J. M. Rose. 2008. “Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why.” Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 52 (3): 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00436.x.
Sen, P. K. 1978. “Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s Tau.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 63 (324): 1379–1389. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1968.10480934.
Silvennoinen, H., J. Alho, A. Kolehmainen, and T. Pukkala. 2001. “Prediction models of landscape preferences at forest stand level.” Landscape Urban Plann. 56 (1–2): 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00163-3.
Stålhammar, S., and E. Pedersen. 2017. “Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value?” Ecosyst. Serv. 26 (Aug): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010.
Tentes, G., and D. Damigos. 2015. “Discrete choice experiment for groundwater valuation: Case of the Asopos River basin, Greece.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 141 (7): 04014089. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000481.
Train, K. 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Train, K. 2016. “Mixed logit with a flexible mixing distribution.” J. Choice Modell. 19: 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.07.004.
Train, K., and M. Weeks. 2005. “Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space.” In Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics, edited by R. Scarpa and A. Alberini, 1–16. Berlin: Springer.
Vass, C. M., S. Wright, M. Burton, and K. Payne. 2018. “Scale heterogeneity in healthcare discrete choice experiments: A primer.” Research 11 (2): 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-017-0282-4.
Veettil, P. C., S. Speelman, A. Frija, J. Buysse, K. Mondelaers, and G. van Huylenbroeck. 2011. “Price sensitivity of farmer preferences for irrigation water-pricing method: Evidence from a choice model analysis in Krishna River Basin, India.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 137 (2): 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000103.
Zahedi, F. 1987. “A utility approach to the analytic hierarchy process.” Math. Modell. 9 (3–5): 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90497-0.
Zingraff-Hamed, A., M. Noack, S. Greulich, K. Schwarzwälder, M. K. Wantzen, and S. Pauleit. 2018. “Model-based evaluation of urban river restoration: Conflicts between sensitive fish species and recreational users.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1747. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061747.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
Volume 147 • Issue 7 • July 2021
Copyright
© 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 14, 2020
Accepted: Jan 28, 2021
Published online: Apr 21, 2021
Published in print: Jul 1, 2021
Discussion open until: Sep 21, 2021
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.