Advertisement

Assessing Preferences for Attributes of City Information Points: Results from a Choice Experiment

  • Gianluca Grilli
  • Silvia Tomasi
  • Adriano Bisello
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

A choice experiment has been carried out to assess the preferred attributes of information points (called totems) to be installed in the city of Bolzano. Totems allow the acquisition, exchange and query of data in real time, as well as provide other services such as electricity or water supply. These infrastructures could be useful for both inhabitants and tourists in need of parking spaces, information about events or charging stations for vehicles. To design them in a cost-effective way, it is important to understand potential users’ preferences. For this reason, field surveys using stated preferences are important sources of information to tailor these totem effectively. In order to facilitate the interpretation of results for policy making, estimations are carried out in willingness-to-pay space and by means of a random parameters logit model. Results indicate that the preferred attributes are the presence of Wi-Fi “hot spots”, charging stations for electric cars and bikes and real-time information about available car parks.

Keywords

Totem Choice experiment Willingness to pay space Smart city SINFONIA project 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project leading to these results is SINFONIA (http://www.sinfonia-smartcities.eu/), which has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement No. 609019. The European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained in this document, which merely represents the authors’ view. Many thanks to the Municipality of Bolzano for helping us in collecting data and providing useful comments.

References

  1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aizaki, H., Nakatani, T., & Sato, K. (2015). Stated preference methods using R. London-New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  3. Bertot, J., Jaeger, P., & McClure, C. (2008). Citizen-centered e-government services: Benefits, costs, and research needs. In The Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Digital government research conference, 137–142.Google Scholar
  4. Bhat, C. R. (2003). Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and Halton sequences. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(9), 837–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bisello, A., Grilli, G., Balest, J., Stellin, G., & Ciolli, M. (2017). Co-benefits of smart and sustainable energy district projects: An overview on economic assessment methodologies. Green Energy and Technology, 127–164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44899-2_9.Google Scholar
  6. Bisello, A., & Grilli, G. (2016). The benefit of an innovative urban information infrastructure: The choice experiment method applied to the “Totems” of EU project Sinfonia. In AISRE 2016—XXXVII CONFERENZA ITALIANA DI SCIENZE REGIONALI, At Ancona (Italy).Google Scholar
  7. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. S., & Train, K. (2000). Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 34(5), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A., & Scarpa, R. (2014). Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the “actual” consideration set. Journal of Choice Modelling, 11, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cavanaugh, J. E. (1997). Unifying the derivations for the Akaike and corrected Akaike information criteria. Statistics & Probability Letters, 33(2), 201–208.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chau, C. K., Tse, M. S., & Chung, K. Y. (2010). A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Building and Environment, 45(11), 2553–2561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2007). Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 171–189. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2006.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Furuli, K., & Ølnes, S. (2009). Finding the right services for a citizen portal lessons learned from the norwegian mypage portal. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (pp. 282–292).Google Scholar
  13. Giergiczny, M., Valasiuk, S., Czajkowski, M., De Salvo, M., & Signorello, G. (2012). Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with “exploding” implicit prices in mixed logit models. Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodman, S., Lockshin, L., & Cohen, E. (2005). Best-worst scaling: A simple method to determine drinks and wine style preferences. In International Wine Marketing Simposium. Sonoma, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Hardesty, S. D. (2008). The growing role of local food markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1289–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hensher, D., & Greene, W. (2001). The mixed logit model: The state of practice and warnings for the Unwary, 2007(8).Google Scholar
  17. Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30(2), 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henser, D. A., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hole, A. R. (2007). A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics, 16, 827–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1595–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice design. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(8), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ling, C. Y. (2013). Consumers’ purchase intention of green products: An investigation of the drivers and moderating variable. Elixir Marketing Mgmt. 5, 57(A), pp. 14503–14509.Google Scholar
  25. List, J., Sinha, P., & Taylor, M. (2006). Using choice experiments to value non-market goodsand services: Evidence from field experiments. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6(2), 1132–1134.Google Scholar
  26. Manski, C. F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8(3), 229–254.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin, C. J., Taylor, P. G., Upham, P., Ghiasi, G., Bale, C. S. E., James, H., et al. (2014). Energy in low carbon cities and social learning: A process for defining priority research questions with UK stakeholders. Sustainable Cities and Society, 10, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McFadden, D., & Zarembka, P. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, 105–142.Google Scholar
  29. McKinsey & Company. (2011, June). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute, 156.Google Scholar
  30. Mobrezi, H., & Khoshtinat, B. (2016). ScienceDirect investigating the factors affecting female consumers’ willingness toward green purchase based on the model of planned behavior. Procedia Economics and Finance, 36, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team, R. C. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.Google Scholar
  32. de Rezende, C. D. (2013). Alternative agri-food networks: Convergences and differences in the evolution of the markets. Agroalimentaria, 19(37), 17–37.Google Scholar
  33. Riera, P., Signorello, G., Thiene, M., Mahieu, P.-A., Navrud, S., Kaval, P., et al. (2012). Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines. Journal of Forest Economics, 18(4), 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Romero-Lankao, P., Gurney, K. R., Seto, K. C., Chester, M., Duren, R. M., Hughes, S., et al. (2014). A critical knowledge pathway to low-carbon, sustainable futures: Integrated understanding of urbanization, urban areas, and carbon. Earth’s Future, 2(10), 515–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C. J., Hensher, D. A., & Collins, A. T. (2008). Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 42(4), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., & Train, K. (2008). Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(4), 994–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scarpa, A. R., Notaro, S., Louviere, J., & Raffaelli, R. (2010). Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1–28.Google Scholar
  38. Selfa, T., & Qazi, J. (2005). Place, taste, or face-to-face? Understanding producer-consumer networks in “local” food systems in Washington State. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(4), 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Train, K. (2000). Halton sequences for mixed logit. Working paper. Department of Economics. University of California.Google Scholar
  40. Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Berkeley: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vecchiato, D., & Tempesta, T. (2015). Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy, 88(June), 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zubaryeva, A., Thiel, C., Barbone, E., & Mercier, A. (2012). Assessing factors for the identification of potential lead markets for electrified vehicles in Europe: Expert opinion elicitation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(9), 1622–1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianluca Grilli
    • 1
  • Silvia Tomasi
    • 1
  • Adriano Bisello
    • 1
  1. 1.Eurac ResearchBolzano (BZ)Italy

Personalised recommendations