IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sot/journl/y2008i40p4-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice of season cards in public transport: a study of a Stated Preference experiment

Author

Listed:
  • van den Berg, Vincent
  • Kroes, Eric
  • Verhoef, Erik T.

Abstract

This paper studies a Stated Preference (SP) experiment on the choice of type of (Rail) season card, conducted among current Dutch Railways season cardholders. They were asked to choose from the following three alternatives: (1) an unrestricted season card, (2) a cheaper season card with peak travel and travel frequency restrictions, and (3) not buying a season card. Multinomial logit (MNL), nested logit and mixed logit models are used to analyse their choices. It is found that MNL underestimates the price sensitivities (as measured by the price elasticities) of the respondents and overestimates their Willingness-to- Pay (WTP) for reductions in the restrictions. The mixed logit estimation shows that there are (unobserved) differences in the marginal utilities of the price of the card (response heterogeneity), and the utility of owning a season card (preference heterogeneity). In the Netherlands a large share of commuters and business travellers receive travel cost compensation from their employer. However, empirical studies often do not control for the effect of travel cost compensation. We find, as expected, that travel cost compensation has a large impact on the price sensitivities and choices of the respondents.

Suggested Citation

  • van den Berg, Vincent & Kroes, Eric & Verhoef, Erik T., 2008. "Choice of season cards in public transport: a study of a Stated Preference experiment," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 40, pages 4-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:sot:journl:y:2008:i:40:p:4-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10077/6003
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating variations in responsiveness to level-of-service measures in travel mode choice modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 495-507, September.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    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. Toner, Jeremy & Wardman, Mark & Shires, Jeremy & Teklu, Fitsum & Hatfield, Andrew, 2020. "Enhancing rail direct demand models with competition between ticket types using contributions from economic theory and market research," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 127-144.

    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. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China," Working Papers halshs-00846085, HAL.
    2. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Multinomial and Mixed Logit Modeling in the Presence of Heterogeneity: A Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Provider Choice in Rural China," CERDI Working papers halshs-00846085, HAL.
    3. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    4. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    5. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    6. Riccardo SCARPA & Fiorenza SPALATRO & Maurizio CANAVARI, 2005. "Investigating Preferences For Environment Friendly Production," Others 0505003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Stephane Hess & John W. Polak, 2004. "An analysis of parking behaviour using discrete choice models calibrated on SP datasets," ERSA conference papers ersa04p60, European Regional Science Association.
    8. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl-Johan Lagerkvist, 2004. "Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GMO Foods: An Emprical Analysis Using Choice Experiments," Working Papers 04-02, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    11. Rocha, Marta & Baddeley, Michelle & Pollitt, Michael & Weeks, Melvyn, 2019. "Addressing self-disconnection among prepayment energy consumers: A behavioural approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 273-286.
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    14. Collins Asante‐Addo & Daniela Weible, 2020. "Is there hope for domestically produced poultry meat? A choice experiment of consumers in Ghana," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 281-298, April.
    15. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    16. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    17. Z. Eylem Gevrek & Ayse Uyduranoglu, 2015. "Public Preferences for Carbon Tax Attributes," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2015-15, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    18. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    19. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in New Zealand Winegrowing Regions: Testing for Benefit Transfer," Review of Applied Economics, Lincoln University, Department of Financial and Business Systems, vol. 6(1-2), pages 1-23, April.
    20. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.

    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:sot:journl:y:2008:i:40:p:4-32. 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: Romeo Danielis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/xxxxxxx.html .

    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.