IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/netspa/v11y2011i3p419-438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Econometric Effects of Utility Order-Preserving Transformations in Discrete Choice Models

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco Amador
  • Elisabetta Cherchi

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco Amador & Elisabetta Cherchi, 2011. "Econometric Effects of Utility Order-Preserving Transformations in Discrete Choice Models," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 419-438, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:netspa:v:11:y:2011:i:3:p:419-438
    DOI: 10.1007/s11067-010-9134-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11067-010-9134-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11067-010-9134-7?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    2. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    3. Williams, H. C. W. L. & Ortuzar, J. D., 1982. "Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-specification of travel demand models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 167-219, June.
    4. Francisco Amador & Rosa González & Juan Dios Ortúzar, 2008. "On Confounding Preference Heterogeneity and Income Effect in Discrete Choice Models," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 97-108, September.
    5. Daniel L. McFadden, 1976. "Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 363-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Richard Batley, 2008. "On Ordinal Utility, Cardinal Utility and Random Utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 37-63, February.
    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. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), 2014. "Handbook of Choice Modelling," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14820.
    2. Kabbashi M. Suliman, 2013. "Factors Affecting the Choice of Households’ Primary Cooking Fuel in Sudan," Working Papers 760, Economic Research Forum, revised Jun 2013.
    3. Yao, Mingzhu & Wang, Donggen & Yang, Hai, 2017. "A game-theoretic model of car ownership and household time allocation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 667-685.
    4. Juan de Dios Ortúzar & Elisabetta Cherchi & Luis Ignacio Rizzi, 2014. "Transport research needs," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 29, pages 688-698, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. van Cranenburgh, S. & Chorus, C.G. & van Wee, B., 2014. "Vacation behaviour under high travel cost conditions – A stated preference of revealed preference approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 105-118.
    3. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    5. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    8. John K. Dagsvik & Zhiyang Jia, 2016. "Labor Supply as a Choice Among Latent Jobs: Unobserved Heterogeneity and Identification," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 487-506, April.
    9. Lapo Filistrucchi & Tobias J. Klein, 2013. "Price Competition in Two-Sided Markets with Heterogeneous Consumers and Network Effects," Working Papers 13-20, NET Institute.
    10. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    11. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    12. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    13. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    14. Zhao, Yuanying & Pawlak, Jacek & Sivakumar, Aruna, 2022. "Theory for socio-demographic enrichment performance using the inverse discrete choice modelling approach," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 101-134.
    15. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    16. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    18. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    19. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    20. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    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:kap:netspa:v:11:y:2011:i:3:p:419-438. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.