IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v129y2019icp170-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling the role of consideration of alternatives in mode choice: An application on the Rome-Milan corridor

Author

Listed:
  • Capurso, Mauro
  • Hess, Stephane
  • Dekker, Thijs

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the role consideration of the alternatives plays in mode choice models. On the Rome-Milan corridor, in Italy, where seven alternative modes of transport are available, we administered a stated choice (SC) experiment. Responses to supplementary questions on consideration of the different modes of transport and the presence of thresholds for the travel time attribute indicate travellers are less likely to consider the slower modes. Two model specifications, in which consideration for the slower alternatives is measured using both sets of supplementary questions, are proposed and contrasted against a model which assumes all alternatives are considered. Our results suggests that some of the unobserved preference heterogeneity could potentially be due to consideration effects. Accounting for consideration of alternatives also has direct impacts on choice probabilities, parameter estimates and willingness-to-pay measures.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:170-184
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.07.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417304718
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2019.07.011?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. 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.
    2. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2014. "Does attribute cut-off elicitation affect choice consistency? Contrasting hypothetical and real-money choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 16-29.
    3. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    4. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh, 2015. "The role of perceived acceptability of alternatives in identifying and assessing choice set processing strategies in stated choice settings: The case of road pricing reform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 225-237.
    5. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    6. David A. Hensher & John M. Rose, 2012. "The Influence of Alternative Acceptability, Attribute Thresholds and Choice Response Certainty on Automobile Purchase Preferences," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 46(3), pages 451-468, September.
    7. Stephane Hess & David Hensher, 2013. "Making use of respondent reported processing information to understand attribute importance: a latent variable scaling approach," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 397-412, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Glenn Bush & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Should all Choices Count? Using the Cut-Offs Approach to Edit Responses in a Choice Experiment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 397-414, November.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    15. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Zhu, Siying & Jia, Shuai & Sun, Qinghe & Meng, Qiang, 2023. "An empirical study of China–Singapore International Land–Sea Trade Corridor: Analysis from supply and demand sides," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Masanobu Kii & Varameth Vichiensan & Carlos Llorca & Ana Moreno & Rolf Moeckel & Yoshitsugu Hayashi, 2021. "Impact of Decentralization and Rail Network Extension on Future Traffic in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Masanobu Kii & Yuki Goda & Varameth Vichiensan & Hiroyuki Miyazaki & Rolf Moeckel, 2021. "Assessment of Spatiotemporal Peak Shift of Intra-Urban Transportation Taking a Case in Bangkok, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Swait, Joffre, 2009. "Choice models based on mixed discrete/continuous PDFs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 766-783, August.
    4. Truong, Thuy D. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. (Vic) & Boxall, Peter C., 2015. "Modeling non-compensatory preferences in environmental valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 89-107.
    5. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Hicks, Robert L. & Holland, Daniel S. & Kuriyama, Peter T. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2020. "Choice sets for spatial discrete choice models in data rich environments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Sigal Kaplan & Yoram Shiftan & Shlomo Bekhor, 2011. "A Semi-Compensatory Residential Choice Model With Flexible Error Structure," ERSA conference papers ersa10p65, European Regional Science Association.
    11. José Luis Espinosa-Aranda & Ricardo García-Ródenas & María Luz López-García & Eusebio Angulo, 2018. "Constrained nested logit model: formulation and estimation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1523-1557, September.
    12. Marisol Castro & Francisco Martínez & Marcela Munizaga, 2013. "Estimation of a constrained multinomial logit model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 563-581, May.
    13. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2014. "Does attribute cut-off elicitation affect choice consistency? Contrasting hypothetical and real-money choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 16-29.
    14. Campbell, Danny & Hensher, David A. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2012. "Cost thresholds, cut-offs and sensitivities in stated choice analysis: Identification and implications," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 396-411.
    15. 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).
    16. María Feo-Valero & Leandro García-Menéndez & Salvador Saz-Salazar, 2016. "Rail freight transport and demand requirements: an analysis of attribute cut-offs through a stated preference experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 101-122, January.
    17. Joffre Swait & Fred Feinberg, 2014. "Deciding how to decide: an agenda for multi-stage choice modelling research in marketing," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 26, pages 649-660, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. María Feo-Valero & Leandro García-Menéndez & Salvador del Saz-Salazar, 2016. "Rail freight transport and demand requirements: an analysis of attribute cut-offs through a stated preference experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 101-122, January.
    19. Zhu, Wei & Timmermans, Harry, 2010. "Modeling simplifying information processing strategies in conjoint experiments," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 764-780, July.
    20. 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.

    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:transa:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:170-184. 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.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.