Accounting for scale heterogeneity within and between pooled data sources
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.
Volume (Year): 46 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|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|
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.:
- 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.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009.
"Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation,"
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, March.
- Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, December.
- Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2.
- 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.
- 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.
- Brownston, David & Bunch, David S. & Train, Kenneth, 1999. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7rf7s3nx, University of California Transportation Center.
- Brownstone, David & Bunch, David S & Train, Kenneth, 1999. "Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fuel vehicles," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt45f996hh, University of California Transportation Center.