Abstract
Effective and accurate assessment of welfare of wetlands and understanding public stated choices could provide valuable information for wetland manager. However, the traditional non-market value evaluation method, choice experiment, is based on a single choice paradigm and ignore the complexity of individual choice behavior. Therefore, this study introduces the random regret minimization (RRM) decision rule except for random utility maximization (RUM), analyzes the performance between utility- and regret-based discrete choice model by the multinomial logit and random parameter models, and further constructs a hybrid utility-regret model to explore how the public make trade-off between wetland improvement attributes including wetland acreage, biodiversity, water condition and natural landscape. The results show that the hybrid utility-regret model has the best fitting, which indicates that respondents adopt different decision rules by characteristics of attributes. Especially, considering only regret aversion or utility optimality misestimates the public’s willingness to pay and public preference for wetland improvement attributes. Thus, to accurately assess the non-market value of wetland, the combination of regret minimization and utility maximization should be considered. Wetland acreage is of the greatest concern to the respondents under the hybrid utility-regret model, which is different from the results of other models where water condition is preferred. This study not only contributes to provide valuable implication for wetland managers to formulate more accurate and effective treatment measures, but also to provide theoretical insights for the development of environment-related policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code Availability
The code used in the research are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Belgiawan PF, Dubernet I, Schmid B, Axhausen K (2019) Context-dependent models (CRRM, MuRRM, PRRM, RAM) versus a context-free model (MNL) in transportation studies: a comprehensive comparisons for Swiss and German SP and RP data sets. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 15(2):1487–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2019.1612968
Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research 30(5):961–981
Ben-Akiva M, Swait J (1986) The Akaike likelihood ratio index. Transportation Science 20(2):133–136. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.20.2.133
Bierlaire M (2020) A short introduction to PandasBiogeme. Technical report TRANSP-OR 200605
Biondi B, Van der Lans IA, Mazzocchi M, Fischer ARH, Van Trijp HCM, Camanzi L (2019) Modelling consumer choice through the random regret minimization model: An application in the food domain. Food Quality and Preference 73:97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.12.008
Boeri M, Longo A (2017) The importance of regret minimization in the choice for renewable energy programmes: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. Energy Economics 63:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.03.005
Boeri M, Masiero L (2013) Regret minimisation and utility maximisation in a freight transport context. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 10(6):548–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2013.809818
Boeri M, Scarpa R, Chorus CG (2014) Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 61:121–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.003
Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics 47(1):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2002.09.003
Chorus CG (2010) A new model of random regret minimization. Eur J transp Infrastruct Res 10(2):181–196
Chorus C (2012a) Random regret minimization: An overview of model properties and empirical evidence. Transport Reviews 32(1):75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.609947
Chorus CG (2012b) Random regret-based discrete choice modeling: a tutorial. The Netherlands
Chorus CG, Arentze TA, Timmermans HJP (2008) A random regret-minimization model of travel choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 42(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.05.004
Chorus CG, Koetse MJ, Hoen A (2013a) Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model. Energy Policy 61:901–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064
Chorus CG, Rose JM, Hensher DA (2013b) Regret minimization or utility maximization: It depends on the attribute. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40(1):154–169. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38092
Costanza R, Anderson SJ, Sutton P, Mulder K, Mulder O, Kubiszewski I, Wang X, Liu X, Pérez-Maqueo O, Luisa Martinez M, Jarvis D, Dee G (2021) The global value of coastal wetlands for storm protection. Glob Environ Change 70:102328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102328
De Marchi E, Cavaliere A, Bacenetti J, Milani F, Pigliafreddo S, Banterle A (2019) Can consumer food choices contribute to reduce environmental impact? The case of cisgenic apples. Science of the Total Environment 681:155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.119
Hu S, Niu Z, Chen Y, Li L, Zhang H (2017) Global wetlands: Potential distribution, wetland loss, and status. Science of the Total Environment 586:319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.001
Hynes S, Chen W, Vondolia K, Armstrong C, O’Connor E (2021) Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway. Ecol Econ 179:106833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106833
Iraganaboina NC, Bhowmik T, Yasmin S, Eluru N, Abdel-Aty MA (2021) Evaluating the influence of information provision (when and how) on route choice preferences of road users in Greater Orlando: Application of a regret minimization approach. Transportation Research Part c: Emerging Technologies 122:102923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102923
Khan SU, Hayat S, Xia X, Liu G, Zhao M (2020) Improvisation of indigenous environmental benefit transfer and valuation for cleaner environment: Choice experiment across northwest China. J Clean Prod 274:123176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123176
Kim H-J, Kim J-H, Yoo S-H (2019) Social acceptance of offshore wind energy development in South Korea: Results from a choice experiment survey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 113:109253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109253
Li D, Song Y (2020) Route choice considering hybrid regret and utility modeling under big data context. IEEE Access 8:7817–7828. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2964097
Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty review of economic studies. The Economic Journal 95:802–824
Maldonado JH, Moreno-Sanchez R, Henao-Henao JP, Bruner A (2019) Does exclusion matter in conservation agreements? A case of mangrove users in the Ecuadorian coast using participatory choice experiments. World Dev 123:104619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104619
Mao B, Ao C, Wang J, Sun B, Xu L (2020a) Does regret matter in public choices for air quality improvement policies? A comparison of regret-based and utility-based discrete choice modelling. J Clean Prod 254:120052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120052
Mao BQ, Ao CL, Wang JX, Xu LS (2020b) The importance of loss aversion in public preferences for wetland management policies: Evidence from a choice experiment with reference-dependent discrete choice model. Wetlands 40(3):599–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-019-01195-2
Mao D, Luo L, Wang Z, Wilson MC, Zeng Y, Wu B, Wu J (2018) Conversions between natural wetlands and farmland in China: A multiscale geospatial analysis. Science of the Total Environment 634:550–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.009
Masiero L, Yang Y, Qiu RTR (2019) Understanding hotel location preference of customers: Comparing random utility and random regret decision rules. Tourism Management 73:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.002
McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5):447–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5
Mcfadden DL (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Front Econ 1:105–142
Meyerding SGH, Merz N (2018) Consumer preferences for organic labels in Germany using the example of apples – Combining choice-based conjoint analysis and eye-tracking measurements. Journal of Cleaner Production 181:772–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.235
Notaro S, Lovera E, Paletto A (2022) Consumers’ preferences for bioplastic products: A discrete choice experiment with a focus on purchase drivers. J Clean Prod 330:129870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129870
Nthambi M, Markova-Nenova N, Wätzold F (2021) Quantifying loss of benefits from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya. Ecol Econ 179:106831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106831
Paul P, Berlin C, Maessen M, Valtonen H (2018) A comparison of regret-based and utility-based discrete choice modelling – an empirical illustration with hospital bed choice. Applied Economics 50(40):4295–4305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1444260
Schmidt K (2020) Behavioral effects of guideline-provision on climate-friendly food choices – A psychological perspective. J Clean Prod 277:123284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123284
Song F, Su F, Mi C, Sun D (2021) Analysis of driving forces on wetland ecosystem services value change: A case in Northeast China. Science of the Total Environment 751:141778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141778
Train K, Wilson WW (2008) Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 42(3):191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2007.04.012
Wang G, Jiang M, Wang M, Xue Z (2019) Natural revegetation during restoration of wetlands in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeastern China. Ecological Engineering 132:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.04.001
Wang N, Li J-M, Xu Z-H (2021) Public preference for the ecological restoration of coastal wetlands in Jiaozhou Bay in China based on a choice experiment. Mar Policy 128:104487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104487
Wang X, Yao E, Liu S (2018) Travel Choice Analysis under Metro Emergency Context: Utility? Regret? Or Both? Sustainability 10(11):3852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113852
Wang Z, An S, Wang J, Ding C (2016) Evacuation travel behavior in regret minimization or utility maximization rules? Evidence from emergency context. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 21(1):440–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-016-0081-9
Xiang H, Wang Z, Mao D, Zhang J, Xi Y, Du B, Zhang B (2020) What did China’s National Wetland Conservation Program AchieveObservations of changes in land cover and ecosystem services in the Sanjiang Plain. Journal of Environmental Management 267:110623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110623
Xu T, Ni Q, Yao L-Y, Qiao D, Zhao M-J (2020) Public Preference Analysis and Social Benefits Evaluation of River Basin Ecological Restoration: Application of the Choice Experiments for the Shiyang River, China. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2020:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1345054
Yan F, Zhang S (2019) Ecosystem service decline in response to wetland loss in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Ecological Engineering 130:117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.02.009
Zeelenberg M, Pieters R (2007) A theory of regret regulation. J Consum Psychol 17(1):3–18
Zheng D, Ao C, Mao B, Xu L (2022) Can respondent uncertainty be ignored when exploring heterogeneity in public preferences for air pollution treatment policies? Comparative results from choice experiment analysis. Science of the Total Environment 808:152169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152169
Zhou J, Wu J, Gong Y (2020) Valuing wetland ecosystem services based on benefit transfer: A meta-analysis of China wetland studies. J Clean Prod 276(11):122988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122988
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
In this study, Yulin Long & Biqi Mao: Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, Writing – review & editing. Lishan Xu: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. DeBin Zheng: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Changlin Ao: Resources, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Writing – review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Long, Y., Mao, B., Xu, L. et al. Public Choices and Welfare Estimate under Wetland Improvement Context: Utility Maximization, Regret Minimization or Both?. Wetlands 43, 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01645-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-022-01645-4