IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v46y2012i3p480-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources

Author

Listed:
  • Hensher, David A.

Abstract

There is growing interest in incorporating both preference heterogeneity and scale heterogeneity in choice models, as a way of capturing an increasing number of sources of utility amongst a set of alternatives. The extension of mixed logit to incorporate scale heterogeneity in a generalised mixed logit (GMXL) model provides a way to accommodate these sources of influence, observed and unobserved. The small but growing number of applications of the GMXL model have parameterized scale heterogeneity as a single estimate; however it is often the case that analysts pool data from more than one source, be it revealed preference (RP) and stated preference (SP) sources, or multiple SP sources, inducing the potential for differences in the scale factor between the data sources. Existing practice has developed ways of accommodating scale differences between data sources by adopting a scale homogeneity assumption within each data source (e.g., the nested logit trick) that varies between data sources. This paper extends the state of the art by incorporating data-source specific scale differences in scale heterogeneity setting across pooled RP and SP data set. An example of choice amongst RP and SP transport modes (including two ‘new’ SP modes) is used to obtain values of travel time savings that vary significantly between a model that accounts for scale heterogeneity differences within pooled RP and SP data, and the other where differences in scale heterogeneity is also accommodated between RP and SP data.

Suggested Citation

  • Hensher, David A., 2012. "Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 480-486.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:46:y:2012:i:3:p:480-486
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2011.11.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856411001765
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2011.11.007?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. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    2. Hensher, David A. & Rose, John M. & Greene, William H., 2008. "Combining RP and SP data: biases in using the nested logit ‘trick’ – contrasts with flexible mixed logit incorporating panel and scale effects," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 126-133.
    3. Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 2000. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 315-338, June.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    5. Bhat, Chandra R. & Castelar, Saul, 2002. "A unified mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: formulation and application to congestion pricing analysis in the San Francisco Bay area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 593-616, August.
    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.
    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. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," Working Papers 144447, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2021. "Attribute range effects: Preference anomaly or unexplained variance?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Ratcliffe, Julie & Huynh, Elisabeth & Chen, Gang & Stevens, Katherine & Swait, Joffre & Brazier, John & Sawyer, Michael & Roberts, Rachel & Flynn, Terry, 2016. "Valuing the Child Health Utility 9D: Using profile case best worst scaling methods to develop a new adolescent specific scoring algorithm," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 48-59.
    4. 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.
    5. Shimeng Liu & Yingyao Chen & Shunping Li & Ningze Xu & Chengxiang Tang & Yan Wei, 2021. "What Are the Important Factors Influencing the Recruitment and Retention of Doctoral Students in a Public Health Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Chen, Gang & Ratcliffe, Julie & Milte, Rachel & Khadka, Jyoti & Kaambwa, Billingsley, 2021. "Quality of care experience in aged care: An Australia-Wide discrete choice experiment to elicit preference weights," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    7. ILes, Richard, 2017. "Government Doctor Absenteeism And Its Effects On Consumer Demand In Rural North India," Working Papers 2018-9, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, revised 12 2018.
    8. Biswas, Mehek & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pinjari, Abdul Rawoof, 2024. "The use of pooled RP-SP choice data to simultaneously identify alternative attributes and random coefficients on those attributes," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Shimeng Liu & Shunping Li & Yujia Li & Haipeng Wang & Jingjing Zhao & Gang Chen, 2019. "Job preferences for healthcare administration students in China: A discrete choice experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Richard Andrew Iles, 2013. "Demand for primary healthcare in rural north India," 2013 Papers pil50, Job Market Papers.
    12. Richard A. Iles, 2019. "Government doctor absenteeism and its effects on consumer demand in rural north India," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 475-491, April.
    13. Paul Hindsley & Craig E. Landry & Kurt Schnier & John C. Whitehead & Mohammadreza Zarei, 2021. "Joint Estimation of Revealed Preference Site Selection and Stated Preference Choice Experiment Recreation Data Considering Attribute NonAttendance," Working Papers 21-10, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    15. Javier Anta & José B. Pérez-López & Ana Martínez-Pardo & Margarita Novales & Alfonso Orro, 2016. "Influence of the weather on mode choice in corridors with time-varying congestion: a mixed data study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 337-355, March.

    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. 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.
    2. ILes, Richard, 2017. "Government Doctor Absenteeism And Its Effects On Consumer Demand In Rural North India," Working Papers 2018-9, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University, revised 12 2018.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    4. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Hensher, David A., 2008. "Empirical approaches to combining revealed and stated preference data: Some recent developments with reference to urban mode choice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 23-29, January.
    7. Yang, Chih-Wen & Sung, Yen-Ching, 2010. "Constructing a mixed-logit model with market positioning to analyze the effects of new mode introduction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 175-182.
    8. Shenhao Wang & Qingyi Wang & Jinhua Zhao, 2019. "Multitask Learning Deep Neural Networks to Combine Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Papers 1901.00227, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2019.
    9. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    10. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    11. Train, Kenneth & Wilson, Wesley W., 2008. "Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 191-203, March.
    12. Ahn, Jiwoon & Jeong, Gicheol & Kim, Yeonbae, 2008. "A forecast of household ownership and use of alternative fuel vehicles: A multiple discrete-continuous choice approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 2091-2104, September.
    13. Hossan, Md Sakoat & Asgari, Hamidreza & Jin, Xia, 2016. "Investigating preference heterogeneity in Value of Time (VOT) and Value of Reliability (VOR) estimation for managed lanes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 638-649.
    14. Kurtuluş, Ercan & Çetin, İsmail Bilge, 2020. "Analysis of modal shift potential towards intermodal transportation in short-distance inland container transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 24-37.
    15. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    16. 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.
    17. Lorenzo Masiero & David Hensher, 2011. "Shift of reference point and implications on behavioral reaction to gains and losses," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 249-271, March.
    18. Rudolph, Christian, 2016. "How may incentives for electric cars affect purchase decisions?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 113-120.
    19. von Haefen, Roger H. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2008. "Identifying demand parameters in the presence of unobservables: A combined revealed and stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 19-32, July.
    20. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, 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:eee:transa:v:46:y:2012:i:3:p:480-486. 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.