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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
Aizaki, H., Nakatani, T., & Sato, K. (2015). Stated preference methods using R. London-New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A., & Scarpa, R. (2014). Bounding WTP distributions to reflect the “actual” consideration set. Journal of Choice Modelling, 11, 4–15.
Cavanaugh, J. E. (1997). Unifying the derivations for the Akaike and corrected Akaike information criteria. Statistics & Probability Letters, 33(2), 201–208.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Hardesty, S. D. (2008). The growing role of local food markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1289–1295.
Hensher, D., & Greene, W. (2001). The mixed logit model: The state of practice and warnings for the Unwary, 2007(8).
Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation, 30(2), 133–176.
Henser, D. A., Rose, J., & Greene, W. (2005). Applied choice analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis, Cambridge University Press.
Hole, A. R. (2007). A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Economics, 16, 827–840.
Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1595–1603.
Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice design. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(8), 307–317.
Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.
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.
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.
Manski, C. F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8(3), 229–254.
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.
McFadden, D., & Zarembka, P. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, 105–142.
McKinsey & Company. (2011, June). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute, 156.
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.
R Core Team, R. C. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
de Rezende, C. D. (2013). Alternative agri-food networks: Convergences and differences in the evolution of the markets. Agroalimentaria, 19(37), 17–37.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Train, K. (2000). Halton sequences for mixed logit. Working paper. Department of Economics. University of California.
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Berkeley: Cambridge University Press.
Vecchiato, D., & Tempesta, T. (2015). Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy, 88(June), 168–179.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Grilli, G., Tomasi, S., Bisello, A. (2018). Assessing Preferences for Attributes of City Information Points: Results from a Choice Experiment. In: Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Laconte, P., Costa, S. (eds) Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. SSPCR 2017. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75773-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75774-2
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)