IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v10y2014icp46-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A GEV model with scale heterogeneity for investigating the role of mobility tool ownership in peak period non-work travel mode choices

Author

Listed:
  • Habib, Khandker M. Nurul
  • Sasic, Ana

Abstract

The paper presents results of investigation on mode choice behaviour for peak period non-work trips (trips that are made during the peak period and are not linked to any other trips). Pure non-work trips within the peak period represent a significant portion of peak period traffic. In the case of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), the study area of this investigation, around 11 percent of peak period trips are pure non-work trips and auto driving is the dominant mode. Also more peak period non-work trips are made using the auto passenger mode than all transit modes combined. This heavy auto dependency for pure non-work trips in the peak period, when transit service is at its highest throughout the day, requires an improved understanding of such mode choice behaviour. This paper uses data from a household travel survey collected in the GTHA to investigate peak period pure non-work trip mode choice in the context of household mobility tool ownership (auto and transit pass ownership). The paper also proposes an advanced econometric modelling approach for capturing preference heterogeneity as well as scale heterogeneity (heteroskedasticity). The model involves systematic parameterization of the scale parameter of a GEV model. Empirical models highlight the superiority of the proposed model over a homoskedastic model. Empirical model also explains the influence of household mobility tool ownership on peak period pure non-work trip mode choices in terms of explaining both preference heterogeneity and scale heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Habib, Khandker M. Nurul & Sasic, Ana, 2014. "A GEV model with scale heterogeneity for investigating the role of mobility tool ownership in peak period non-work travel mode choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 46-59.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:10:y:2014:i:c:p:46-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2014.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534514000049
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2014.01.003?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephane Hess & Denis Bolduc & John Polak, 2010. "Random covariance heterogeneity in discrete choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 391-411, May.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    4. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    5. Bhat, Chandra R., 1997. "Covariance heterogeneity in nested logit models: Econometric structure and application to intercity travel," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 11-21, February.
    6. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    7. Currie, Graham & Delbosc, Alexa, 2011. "Exploring the trip chaining behaviour of public transport users in Melbourne," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 204-210, January.
    8. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Koppelman, Frank S., 2001. "The generalized nested logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 627-641, August.
    9. Mark Bradley & Peter Vovsha, 2005. "A model for joint choice of daily activity pattern types of household members," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 545-571, September.
    10. Bhat, Chandra R., 1997. "Work travel mode choice and number of non-work commute stops," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 41-54, 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. Khandker M. Nurul Habib & Vivian Hui, 2017. "An activity-based approach of investigating travel behaviour of older people," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 555-573, May.
    2. Biranchi Adhikari & Ajay Kumar Behera & Rabindra Narayan Mahapatra & Harish Chandra Das, 2022. "Retracted: An empirical model for Indian senior citizens in traffic management," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 35-56, March.
    3. Habib, Khandker Nurul & Weiss, Adam & Hasnine, Sami, 2018. "On the heterogeneity and substitution patterns in mobility tool ownership choices of post-secondary students: The case of Toronto," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 650-665.
    4. Rashedi, Zohreh & Mahmoud, Mohamed & Hasnine, Sami & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2017. "On the factors affecting the choice of regional transit for commuting in Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Application of an advanced RP-SP choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Giancarlos Parady & Kay W. Axhausen, 2024. "Size matters: the use and misuse of statistical significance in discrete choice models in the transportation academic literature," Transportation, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2393-2425, December.
    6. Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2023. "Rational inattention in discrete choice models: Estimable specifications of RI-multinomial logit (RI-MNL) and RI-nested logit (RI-NL) models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 53-70.

    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. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    2. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    3. Enni Roukamo & Mikolaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & A. Juutinen & R. Svento, 2016. "Linking perceived choice complexity with scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiments: home heating in Finland," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-16, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    4. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    5. Christie, Mike & Gibbons, James, 2011. "The effect of individual ‘ability to choose’ (scale heterogeneity) on the valuation of environmental goods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2250-2257.
    6. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    7. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Julie Riise & Arne Risa Hole & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2014. "GPs' shifting agencies in choice of treatment," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 750-761, March.
    8. Chen, Tiantian & Fu, Xiaowen & Hensher, David A. & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sze, N.N., 2022. "Air travel choice, online meeting and passenger heterogeneity – An international study on travellers’ preference during a pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 439-453.
    9. Holte, Jon Helgheim & Kjaer, Trine & Abelsen, Birgit & Olsen, Jan Abel, 2015. "The impact of pecuniary and non-pecuniary incentives for attracting young doctors to rural general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    10. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    11. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    12. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    13. Yuanyuan Gu & Arne Risa Hole & Stephanie Knox, 2013. "Fitting the generalized multinomial logit model in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 13(2), pages 382-397, June.
    14. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, "undated". "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. 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.
    16. Rocha, Luiz Eduardo Vasconcelos & Santos, Gilnei Costa & Bastos, Patricia de Melo Abrita, 2006. "Evolução Da Distribuição Da Renda E Da Pobreza Das Famílias Ocupadas E Residentes No Meio Rural Do Estado De Minas Gerais, De 1981 A 2003," 44th Congress, July 23-27, 2006, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 148649, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).
    17. John C. Whitehead & Daniel K. Lew, 2020. "Estimating recreation benefits through joint estimation of revealed and stated preference discrete choice data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2009-2029, April.
    18. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    19. Davis, Katrina J & Burton, Michael & Kragt, Marit E, "undated". "Discrete choice models: scale heterogeneity and why it matters," Working Papers 235373, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Leite, Sheila Cristina Ferreira & De Figueiredo, Margarida Garcia, 2006. "Fluxos De Algodão Em Pluma Para Exportação No Estado Da Bahia: Uma Aplicação De Programação Linear," 44th Congress, July 23-27, 2006, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil 149116, Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:10:y:2014:i:c:p:46-59. 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.