All Issue

2025 Vol.34, Issue 1 Preview Page

Research Paper

The Impact of Visual Representation in Stated Preference Method

진술선호방법에서 시각적 자료 활용의 효과

전호철*

Hocheol Jeon*

*충남대학교 경제학과 조교수, 단독저자(e-mail: hcjeon@cnu.ac.kr)
*Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Chungnam National University, Sole author (e-mail: hcjeon@cnu.ac.kr)
31 March 2025. pp. 27-54
PDF Citation
Abstract
This paper analyzes the impact of representing visual alternatives on survey respondents’ choices and preferences in valuing non-market goods. The survey was divided into two groups for the ecological river restoration project: a text-only group and a virtual photo and text group. The estimation results show that respondents express stronger preferences for environmental attributes when they are presented with virtual images and text. In particular, the estimated willingness to pay for water quality, biodiversity, and recreational uses was significantly higher than in the text-only group. These results suggest that traditional text-only stated preference methods may lead to an underestimation of willingness to pay. We also explored the potential application of generative AI in creating visual representations. This paper demonstrates that providing visual aids can mitigate the limitations of the stated preference approach and enhance the reliability of data used to estimate the value of environmental goods.
Keywords
Stated preference method
Visual representation
Willingness-to-Pay (WTP)
Generative AI
본 연구는 비시장재화의 가치평가에 널리 활용되는 진술선호접근방법에서 시각적 자료의 활용이 설문 응답자의 선택 및 선호에 미치는 영향을 분석하였다. 생태하천 복원 사업을 대상으로 하여, 텍스트만 제공된 그룹과 가상 사진 및 텍스트가 함께 제공된 그룹으로 나누어 설문을 진행하였다. 추정 결과, 가상 사진과 텍스트가 함께 설문에서는 응답자들이 친환경적 속성에 대해 더 높은 선호를 나타내었다. 특히 수질, 생물종다양성, 친수기능에 대한 지불의사액이 텍스트만 제공된 그룹에 비해 크게 추정되었다. 이러한 결과는 기존의 텍스트만을 이용하는 방식에서 지불의사액이 과소 혹은 과대 추정될 수 있음을 시사한다. 또한, 시각적 자료 생성에 있어 급격하게 발전하고 있는 생성형 AI의 활용 가능성을 검토하였다. 본 연구는 시각적 자료 제공이 진술선호접근법의 한계를 보완하고, 보다 신뢰성 있는 데이터를 수집하여 환경재화의 가치를 추정하는 데 기여할 수 있음을 보여준다.
키워드
진술선호접근법
시각적 표현
지불의사액
생성형 AI
References
  1. 강희찬‧조용성‧박호정 , “선택실험법(CE)을 이용한 서울시민의 생물다양성에 대한 비시장적 가치 추정”, 「환경정책」, 제23권 제2호, 2015, pp. 21~56.
  2. 김현노‧안소은‧지선우‧김유선, “고랭지의 환경친화적 농지이용 전환에 대한 경제성 평가”, 한국환경정책‧평가연구원, 2018.
  3. 엄영숙‧김상기, “CVM을 적용한 경인고속도로 일반화 및 선형공원 조성사업의 편익 측정”, 「자원‧환경경제연구」, 제32권 제4호, 2023, pp. 239~266.
  4. 임슬예‧유승훈, “생태하천 복원사업의 경제적 편익 분석: 남양천 및 유구천을 중심으로”, 「지역연구」, 제31권 제4호, 2015, pp. 25~45.
  5. 전호철‧이홍림, “삶의 만족도 지표를 활용한 미세먼지의 사회적 비용 추정 연구”, 한국환경정책‧평가연구원, 2019.
  6. Blass, A., S. Lach, and C. Manski, “Using Elicited Choice Probabilities to Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences for Electricity Reliability,” International Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2010, pp. 421~440.10.1111/j.1468-2354.2010.00586.x
  7. Chaikaew, P., A. W. Hodges, and S. Grunwald, “Estimating the Value of Ecosystem Services in a Mixed-use Watershed: A Choice Experiment Approach,” Ecosystem Services, Vol. 23(June 2016), 2017, pp. 228~237.10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.015
  8. Chernev, A., U. Böckenholt, and J. Goodman, “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2015, pp. 333~358.10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002
  9. Currie, S., and B. Choma, “Sociopolitical Ideology and the Morality of Green Behaviour,” Environmental Politics, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2018, pp. 247~266.10.1080/09644016.2017.1413727
  10. Dai, D., R. Brouwer, and K. Lei, “Measuring the Economic Value of Urban River Restoration,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 190(August), 2021, 107186.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107186
  11. Delong, K. L., K. G. Syrengelas, C. Grebitus, and R. M. Nayga, “Visual versus Text Attribute Representation in Choice Experiments,” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, Vol. 94(May), 2021, 101729.10.1016/j.socec.2021.101729
  12. Egan, K. J., J. A. Herriges, C. L. Kling, and J. A. Downing, “Valuing Water Quality as a Function of Water Quality Measures,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2009, pp. 106~123.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01182.x
  13. Fang, D., R. M. Jr. Nayga, G. H. West, C. Bazzani, W. Yang, B. C. Lok, C. E. Levy, and H. A. Snell, “On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 103, No. 1, 2020, pp. 142~161.10.1111/ajae.12118
  14. Freeman III, A. M., J. A. Herriges, and C. L. Kling, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods(Third). Resources for the Future, 2014.10.4324/9781315780917
  15. Frey, B. S., S. Luechinger, and A. Stutzer, “The Life Satisfaction Approach to Environmental Valuation,” Annual Review of Resource Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, pp. 139~160.10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.103926
  16. Hanemann, W. M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, No. 3, 1984, pp. 332~341.10.2307/1240800
  17. Herriges, J. A., S. Bhattacharjee, and C. L. Kling, Capturing Preferences Under Incomplete Scenarios Using Elicited Choice Probabilities, Working Paper No. 11003, Iowa State University, 2011.
  18. Hynes, S., W. Chen, K. Vondolia, C. Armstrong, and E. O’Connor, “Valuing the Ecosystem Service Benefits from Kelp Forest Restoration: A Choice Experiment from Norway,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 179(August 2020), 2021, 106833.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106833
  19. Jeon, H., and J. A. Herriges, “Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach,” Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 68, No. 4, 2017, pp. 1053~1086.10.1007/s10640-016-0060-0
  20. Johnston, R. J., K. J. Boyle, W. (Vic). Adamowicz, J. Bennett, R. Brouwer, T. A. Cameron, W. M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, M. Ryan, R. Scarpa, R. Tourangeau, and C. A. Vossler, “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies,” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2017, pp. 319~405.10.1086/691697
  21. Loomis, J. B., “Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2014, pp. 34~46.
  22. Manning, R. E., and W. A. Freimund, “Use of Visual Research Methods to Measure Standards of Quality for Parks and Outdoor Recreation,” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2004, pp. 557~579.10.1080/00222216.2004.11950036
  23. Manski, C., “Analysis of Choice Expectations in Incomplete Scenarios,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 19, 1999, pp. 49~66.10.1023/A:1007806822876
  24. Matthews, Y., R. Scarpa, and D. Marsh, “Using Virtual Environments to Improve the Realism of Choice Experiments: A Case Study About Coastal Erosion Management,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 81, 2017, pp. 193~208.10.1016/j.jeem.2016.08.001
  25. McFadden, D., Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice, In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications(pp. 198~272). MIT Press, 1981.
  26. Mokas, I., S. Lizin, T. Brijs, N. Witters, and R. Malina, “Can Immersive Virtual Reality Increase Respondents’ Certainty in Discrete Choice Experiments? A Comparison with Traditional Presentation Formats,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 109(October 2020), 2021, 102509.10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102509
  27. Obeng, E. A., and F. X. Aguilar, “Willingness-to-pay for Restoration of Water Quality Services Across Geo-political Boundaries,” Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 3, 2021, 100037.10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100037
  28. Patterson, Z., J. M. Darbani, A. Rezaei, J. Zacharias, and A. Yazdizadeh, “Comparing Text-only and Virtual Reality Discrete Choice Experiments of Neighbourhood Choice,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 157, 2017, pp. 63~74.10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.024
  29. Revelt, D., and K. Train, “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 80, No. 4, 1998, pp. 647~657.10.1162/003465398557735
  30. Rid, W., W. Haider, A. Ryffel, and A. B. Beardmore, “Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 146(July 2016), 2018, pp. 203~217.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.019
  31. Shr, Y. H. (Jimmy), R. Ready, B. Orland, and S. Echols, “How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 156(February 2018), 2019, pp. 375~386.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.015
  32. Train, K., Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  33. Train, K. E., and M. Weeks, Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-pay Space, In R. Scarpa & A. Alberini (Eds.), Application of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics(pp. 1~16). Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.10.1007/1-4020-3684-1_1
  34. Unterberger, C., and R. Olschewski, “Determining the Insurance Value of Ecosystems: A Discrete Choice Study on Natural Hazard Protection by Forests,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 180 (April 2020), 2021, 106866.10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106866
Information
  • Publisher :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Publisher(Ko) :자원 · 환경경제연구
  • Journal Title :자원·환경경제연구
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Environmental and Resource Economics Review
  • Volume : 34
  • No :1
  • Pages :27-54
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2025.34.1.27
Journal Informaiton 자원·환경경제연구 자원·환경경제연구
E-Book
Manuscript Submission
한국환경경제학회
Manuscript Submission
한국자원경제학회
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close