In this paper the authors describe the design of an experiment based on conjoint measurement that explores the possibility of using the Internet to evaluate design alternatives. These design alternatives are presented as panoramic views, and preferences are measured by asking subjects which alternative they prefer from a choice set of design alternatives. The approach is illustrated by using the design of office spaces as an example.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatsellR RLouviereJ L, 1991, “Experimental analysis of choice”Marketing Letters2(3) 199–214
2.
DijkstraJRoelenW A HTimmermansH J P, 1999, “Conjoint analysis and virtual reality—exploring the possibilities”Design Systems Reports 1991/1 Eindhoven University of Technology; copy available from authors
3.
HaiderWAndersonD ADanielT CLouviereJ JOrlandBWilliamsM, 1998, “Combining calibrated digital imagery and discrete choice experiments: An application to remote tourism in northern Ontario”, in Shaping Tomorrow's North: Proceedings of an International Conference on Northern Tourism and Recreation Eds JohnstonM ETwynamDHaiderW (Centre for Northern Studies, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario) pp 257–278
4.
KlabbersM DOppewalHTimmermansH J P, 1996, “ESCAPE: Engine for stated choice and preference experiments”, presented at “Third Design and Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning Conference”, Spa, Belgium; copy available from the authors
5.
MacFaddenD, 1991, “Advances in computation, statistical methods, and testing of discrete choice models”Marketing Letters2(3) 215–229
6.
OppewalHTimmermansH J P, 1991, “Context effects and decompositional choice modeling”Papers in Regional Science70(2) 113–131
7.
SheferDVoogdH J, 1990Evaluation Methods for Urban and Regional Plans: Essays in Memory of Morris (Moshe) Hill (Pion, London)
8.
ThurstoneL, 1927, “A law of comparative judgment”Psychological Review34273–286
9.
TimmermansH J P, 1984, “Decompositional multiattribute preference models in spatial choice analysis: A review of some recent developments”Progress in Human Geography8189–221
10.
TimmermansH J P, 1993, “Retail environments and spatial shopping behavior”, in Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches Eds GärlingTGolledgeR G (North Holland, Amsterdam) pp 342–377
11.
TimmermansH J Pvan der HeijdenRWesterveldH, 1984, “Decisionmaking between multiattribute choice alternatives: A model of spatial shopping-behaviour using conjoint measurements”Environment and Planning A16377–387
12.
VoogdJ H, 1982Multicriteria Evaluation/or Urban and Regional Planning PhD thesis, Department of Architecture, Building and Planning, Delfsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, Delft
13.
VriensM, 1995Conjoint Analysis in Marketing—Developments in Stimulus Representation and Segmentation Methods PhD thesis, System Organisation and Management, Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, Groningen
14.
WuFWebsterC J, 1998, “Simulation of land development through the integration of cellular automata and multicriteria evaluation”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25103–126
