IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v31y2019icp35-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context-aware stated preferences with smartphone-based travel surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Danaf, Mazen
  • Atasoy, Bilge
  • de Azevedo, Carlos Lima
  • Ding-Mastera, Jing
  • Abou-Zeid, Maya
  • Cox, Nathaniel
  • Zhao, Fang
  • Ben-Akiva, Moshe

Abstract

Stated preferences surveys are most commonly used to provide behavioral insights on hypothetical travel scenarios such as new transportation services or attribute ranges beyond those observed in existing conditions. When designing SP surveys, considerable care is needed to balance the statistical objectives with the realism of the experiment. This paper presents an innovative method for smartphone-based stated preferences (SP) surveys leveraging state-of-the-art smartphone-based survey platforms and their revealed preferences sensing capabilities. A random experimental design generates context-aware SP profiles using user specific socioeconomic characteristics and past travel data along with relevant web data for scenario generation. The generated choice tasks are automatically validated to reduce the number of dominant or inferior alternatives in real-time, then validated using Monte-Carlo simulations offline. In this paper we focus our attention on mode choice and design an experiment that considers a wide range of possible existing mode alternatives along with a new alternative on-demand mobility service that does not exist in real life. This experiment is then used to collect SP data or a sample of 224 respondents in the Greater Boston Area. A discrete mode choice model is estimated to illustrate the benefit of the proposed method in capturing current context-specific preferences in response to the new scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • Danaf, Mazen & Atasoy, Bilge & de Azevedo, Carlos Lima & Ding-Mastera, Jing & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Cox, Nathaniel & Zhao, Fang & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2019. "Context-aware stated preferences with smartphone-based travel surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 35-50.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:31:y:2019:i:c:p:35-50
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2019.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534518300381
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2019.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David A. Hensher, 2008. "Joint Estimation of Process and Outcome in Choice Experiments and Implications for Willingness to Pay," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 42(2), pages 297-322, May.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    4. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    5. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2009. "Efficient stated choice experiments for estimating nested logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-35, January.
    6. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    7. Jie Yu & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2009. "Efficient Conjoint Choice Designs in the Presence of Respondent Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 122-135, 01-02.
    8. Becker, Felix & Danaf, Mazen & Song, Xiang & Atasoy, Bilge & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2018. "Bayesian estimator for Logit Mixtures with inter- and intra-consumer heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 117(PA), pages 1-17.
    9. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    10. Choudhury, Charisma F. & Yang, Lang & de Abreu e Silva, João & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 2018. "Modelling preferences for smart modes and services: A case study in Lisbon," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 15-31.
    11. Caitlin D. Cottrill & Sybil Derrible, 2015. "Leveraging Big Data for the Development of Transport Sustainability Indicators," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 45-64, January.
    12. Correia, Gonçalo & Viegas, José Manuel, 2011. "Carpooling and carpool clubs: Clarifying concepts and assessing value enhancement possibilities through a Stated Preference web survey in Lisbon, Portugal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 81-90, February.
    13. Train, Kenneth & Wilson, Wesley W., 2008. "Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 191-203, March.
    14. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth, 2019. "Foundations of Stated Preference Elicitation: Consumer Behavior and Choice-based Conjoint Analysis," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 10(1-2), pages 1-144, January.
    15. Sethuraman, Raj & Kerin, Roger A. & Cron, William L., 2005. "A field study comparing online and offline data collection methods for identifying product attribute preferences using conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(5), pages 602-610, May.
    16. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    17. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2017. "Detecting dominance in stated choice data and accounting for dominance-based scale differences in logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-104.
    18. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    19. Roselinde Kessels & Peter Goos & Bradley Jones & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "Rejoinder: the usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 197-203, May.
    20. Zsolt Sándor & Michel Wedel, 2002. "Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 455-475, February.
    21. David A. Hensher, 2004. "Identifying the Influence of Stated Choice Design Dimensionality on Willingness to Pay for Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(3), pages 425-446, September.
    22. Swait, Joffre & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 1987. "Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete model: Mode choice in São Paulo, Brazil," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 103-115, April.
    23. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    24. Roselinde Kessels & Bradley Jones & Peter Goos & Martina Vandebroek, 2011. "The usefulness of Bayesian optimal designs for discrete choice experiments," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 173-188, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geoff Tomaino & Jasper Teow & Ziv Carmon & Leonard Lee & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Charlene Chen & Wai Yan Leong & Shanjun Li & Nan Yang & Jinhua Zhao, 2020. "Mobility as a service (MaaS): the importance of transportation psychology," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 419-428, December.
    2. Daniel Oviedo & Isabel Granada & Daniel Perez-Jaramillo, 2020. "Ridesourcing and Travel Demand: Potential Effects of Transportation Network Companies in Bogotá," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Zgheib, Najib & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Kaysi, Isam, 2020. "Modeling demand for ridesourcing as feeder for high capacity mass transit systems with an application to the planned Beirut BRT," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 70-91.
    4. Mashrur, Sk.Md. & Wang, Kaili & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2022. "Will COVID-19 be the end for the public transit? Investigating the impacts of public health crisis on transit mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 352-378.
    5. Maya Safira & Makoto Chikaraishi, 2023. "The impact of online food delivery service on eating-out behavior: a case of Multi-Service Transport Platforms (MSTPs) in Indonesia," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 2253-2271, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Palhazi Cuervo, Daniel & Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Sörensen, Kenneth, 2016. "An integrated algorithm for the optimal design of stated choice experiments with partial profiles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 648-669.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    3. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    4. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    5. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    8. Kessels, Roselinde, 2016. "Homogeneous versus heterogeneous designs for stated choice experiments: Ain't homogeneous designs all bad?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 2-9.
    9. Joan L. Walker & Yanqiao Wang & Mikkel Thorhauge & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2018. "D-efficient or deficient? A robustness analysis of stated choice experimental designs," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 215-238, March.
    10. Sanko, Nobuhiro & Yamamoto, Toshiyuki, 2013. "Estimation efficiency of RP/SP models considering SP design and error structures," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 60-73.
    11. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    12. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    13. Black, Michael A. & Woodward, Richard T. & Morgan, Cristine & Bagnall, Dianna & Kiella, Erin & Cisneros, Marissa & McIntosh, William Alex, 2020. "An empirical estimate of value of manageable soil quality," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304430, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 1021-1041, September.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    18. Crabbe, M. & Vandebroek, M., 2012. "Improving the efficiency of individualized designs for the mixed logit choice model by including covariates," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 2059-2072.
    19. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    20. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2010. "Comparing different sampling schemes for approximating the integrals involved in the efficient design of stated choice experiments," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1268-1289, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:31:y:2019:i:c:p:35-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.