IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Dominance among alternatives in random utility models

  • Cascetta, Ennio
  • Papola, Andrea
Registered author(s):

    In many discrete choice contexts the actual choice set, including the alternatives effectively perceived and considered by the decision maker, may substantially differ from the universal choice set, including all available alternatives: one of the most relevant examples within transport demand simulation is probably the choice of destination, wherein the universal choice set normally includes hundreds of traffic zones. In these cases, proper simulation of the choice set is crucial for correct simulation of the choice context. In this regard, our paper has two main objectives. The first is to give a general contribution to choice set modelling by extending and applying the concept of dominance among alternatives to the framework of random utility theory. The main result is the definition of a methodology for the generation of new dominance attributes, which can be used in choice set modelling. The second aim is to make a specific contribution to destination choice modelling: dominance attributes are defined from the above methodology and introduced into this choice context, and new spatial variables reproducing better knowledge of zones with a privileged spatial position are also proposed. Methodology and attributes are tested both on synthetic and on real data.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(08)00189-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.

    Volume (Year): 43 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 2 (February)
    Pages: 170-179

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:43:y:2009:i:2:p:170-179
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description

    Order Information: Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: https://shop.elsevier.com/order?id=547&ref=547_01_ooc_1&version=01

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. 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.
    2. Chiang, Jeongwen & Chib, Siddhartha & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 1998. "Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 223-248, November.
    3. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 643-666, August.
    4. Daly, Andrew, 1982. "Estimating choice models containing attraction variables," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 5-15, February.
    5. Gaundry, Marc J. I. & Dagenais, Marcel G., 1979. "The dogit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 105-111, June.
    6. Dennis H. Gensch, 1987. "A Two-Stage Disaggregate Attribute Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 223-239.
    7. Cantillo, Víctor & Heydecker, Benjamin & de Dios Ortúzar, Juan, 2006. "A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 807-825, November.
    8. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    9. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. " The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    13. H C W L Williams, 1977. "On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit," Environment and Planning A, SAGE Publishing, vol. 9(3), pages 285-344, March.
    14. John R. Hauser & Steven P. Gaskin, 1984. "Application of the “Defender” Consumer Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 327-351.
    15. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:43:y:2009:i:2:p:170-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.