IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v108y2023ics096669232300039x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic choice set formation incorporating activity spaces into the context of mode and destination choice modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Tsoleridis, Panagiotis
  • Choudhury, Charisma F.
  • Hess, Stephane

Abstract

Understanding the constraints that individuals face during their spatial choices is important from a policy perspective. Such constraints, however, are often overlooked in the choice set generation process during model development. In order to address that gap, the current study proposes a probabilistic choice set formation based on Manski's framework assuming that the actual choice set of an individual is latent (unobserved). Though latent class models with heterogeneous choice sets have been used previously in the context of mode and route choice, their application in the context of spatial choices have been hindered due to the inherently large choice sets making the problem computationally intractable. To address this issue, we propose to computationally simplify the problem by utilising the geography-derived notions of Activity Spaces to delineate a range of potential choice sets per individual helping us to capture both issues of spatial awareness and time-space constraints. In order to account for the latent nature of the true choice set, we propose a Latent Class Choice Modelling (LCCM) framework to allocate the individuals probabilistically into the different resulting choice sets, with each class having a different choice set and a different set of parameters. Thus the LCCM is able to capture heterogeneity in the choice sets and in the sensitivities, at the same time. The proposed LCCM framework is empirically tested on joint mode and shopping destination choices captured through a GPS smartphone application. It is compared to a base MNL model estimated on the global choice set, an LCCM capturing heterogeneity only in the sensitivities and a LCCM with latent consideration choice sets, similarly to the proposed model, but with generic parameters across classes. Our proposed specification is able to outperform all of the remaining models, while also providing insights on the factors affecting individuals to be constrained in their location choices across space hinting to cases of spatial cognition, the importance of the home and workplace geography and the individual's socioeconomic status. Such insights can be important for developing more behaviourally realistic models that can be used by planners and policy makers to formulate more effective measures that better relate to the underlying population. Furthermore, the analysis provides insights into the discrepancies that can emerge by accounting for latent consideration sets in willingness-to-pay measures and demand elasticities, which could have significant implications in the effectiveness of policy measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2023. "Probabilistic choice set formation incorporating activity spaces into the context of mode and destination choice modelling," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:108:y:2023:i:c:s096669232300039x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096669232300039X
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103567?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cascetta, Ennio & Papola, Andrea, 2009. "Dominance among alternatives in random utility models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 170-179, February.
    2. Schönfelder, Stefan & Axhausen, Kay W., 2003. "Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 273-286, October.
    3. Calastri, Chiara & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma & Daly, Andrew & Gabrielli, Lorenzo, 2019. "Mode choice with latent availability and consideration: Theory and a case study," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 374-385.
    4. Basar, Gözen & Bhat, Chandra, 2004. "A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 889-904, December.
    5. Jean-Claude Thill & Joel L. Horowitz, 1997. "Modelling Non-Work Destination Choices with Choice Sets Defined by Travel-Time Constraints," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Manfred M. Fischer & Arthur Getis (ed.), Recent Developments in Spatial Analysis, chapter 10, pages 186-208, Springer.
    6. 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.
    7. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Deriving transport appraisal values from emerging revealed preference data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 225-245.
    8. Li, Lianhua & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre, 2015. "The effect of choice set misspecification on welfare measures in random utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 71-92.
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. Leite Mariante, Gabriel & Ma, Tai-Yu & Van Acker, Véronique, 2018. "Modeling discretionary activity location choice using detour factors and sampling of alternatives for mixed logit models," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 151-165.
    11. Capurso, Mauro & Hess, Stephane & Dekker, Thijs, 2019. "Modelling the role of consideration of alternatives in mode choice: An application on the Rome-Milan corridor," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 170-184.
    12. Moshe Ben-Akiva & Joffre Swait, 1986. "The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 133-136, May.
    13. Justen, Andreas & Martínez, Francisco J. & Cortés, Cristián E., 2013. "The use of space–time constraints for the selection of discretionary activity locations," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 146-152.
    14. Zachary Patterson & Steven Farber, 2015. "Potential Path Areas and Activity Spaces in Application: A Review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 679-700, November.
    15. Silvia Ferrari & Francisco Cribari-Neto, 2004. "Beta Regression for Modelling Rates and Proportions," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(7), pages 799-815.
    16. Kristoffersson, Ida & Daly, Andrew & Algers, Staffan, 2018. "Modelling the attraction of travel to shopping destinations in large-scale modelling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 52-62.
    17. Hasnine, Md Sami & Lin, TianYang & Weiss, Adam & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2018. "Determinants of travel mode choices of post-secondary students in a large metropolitan area: The case of the city of Toronto," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 161-171.
    18. Daly, Andrew, 1982. "Estimating choice models containing attraction variables," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 5-15, February.
    19. Chiara Calastri & Romain Crastes dit Sourd & Stephane Hess, 2020. "We want it all: experiences from a survey seeking to capture social network structures, lifetime events and short-term travel and activity planning," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 175-201, February.
    20. Swait, Joffre & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 1987. "Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 91-102, April.
    21. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Logit Mixture models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 185-198.
    22. Martínez, Francisco & Aguila, Felipe & Hurtubia, Ricardo, 2009. "The constrained multinomial logit: A semi-compensatory choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 365-377, March.
    23. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Multivariate Extreme Value (MEV) models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-52.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Utilising activity space concepts to sampling of alternatives for mode and destination choice modelling of discretionary activities," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    2. Bhat, Chandra R., 2015. "A comprehensive dwelling unit choice model accommodating psychological constructs within a search strategy for consideration set formation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 161-188.
    3. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Deriving transport appraisal values from emerging revealed preference data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 225-245.
    4. Edenbrandt, Anna Kristina & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Lüken, Malte & Orquin, Jacob L., 2022. "Seen but not considered? Awareness and consideration in choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Cascetta, Ennio & Papola, Andrea, 2009. "Dominance among alternatives in random utility models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 170-179, February.
    6. Leite Mariante, Gabriel & Ma, Tai-Yu & Van Acker, Véronique, 2018. "Modeling discretionary activity location choice using detour factors and sampling of alternatives for mixed logit models," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 151-165.
    7. Kaplan, Sigal & Shiftan, Yoram & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2012. "Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 291-304.
    8. Habtamu Tilahun Kassahun & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen & Joffre Swait & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2020. "Social Cooperation in the Context of Integrated Private and Common Land Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 105-136, January.
    9. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Swait, Joffre & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2021. "Distortions in willingness-to-pay for public goods induced by endemic distrust in institutions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    10. Yao, Rui & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2022. "A variational autoencoder approach for choice set generation and implicit perception of alternatives in choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 273-294.
    11. Oehlmann, Malte & Glenk, Klaus & Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2021. "Quantifying landscape externalities of renewable energy development: Implications of attribute cut-offs in choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    12. Swait, Joffre, 2009. "Choice models based on mixed discrete/continuous PDFs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 766-783, August.
    13. Hamzeh Alizadeh & Bilal Farooq & Catherine Morency & Nicolas Saunier, 2018. "On the role of bridges as anchor points in route choice modeling," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1181-1206, September.
    14. Bruno Wichmann & Minjie Chen & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2016. "Social Networks and Choice Set Formation in Discrete Choice Models," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Heike Link & Dennis Gaus & Neil Murray & Maria Fernanda Guajardo Ortega & Flavien Gervois & Frederik von Waldow & Sofia Eigner, 2023. "Combining GPS Tracking and Surveys for a Mode Choice Model: Processing Data from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2047, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Cantillo, Víctor & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2005. "A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 641-657, August.
    17. Zolfaghari, Alireza & Sivakumar, Aruna & Polak, John, 2013. "Simplified probabilistic choice set formation models in a residential location choice context," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 3-13.
    18. Capurso, Mauro & Hess, Stephane & Dekker, Thijs, 2019. "Modelling the role of consideration of alternatives in mode choice: An application on the Rome-Milan corridor," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 170-184.
    19. Li, Lianhua & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre, 2015. "The effect of choice set misspecification on welfare measures in random utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 71-92.
    20. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.

    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:jotrge:v:108:y:2023:i:c:s096669232300039x. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    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.