Amending the incentive for strategic bias in stated preference studies case study in users' valuation of rolling stock

Transportation Research Record

Volumn , Issue 2049, 2008, Pages 128-135

  Lu, Hui ^a   Fowkes, Tony ^a   Wardman, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLEET OPERATIONS; INVESTMENTS; RAILROAD ROLLING STOCK; SURVEYS;

CASE-STUDIES; COST AND BENEFITS; PRODUCT FEATURE; STATED PREFERENCE METHOD; STATED PREFERENCE SURVEYS; STATED PREFERENCES; STATED-PREFERENCE STUDIES; STUDY CASE; TRAIN OPERATING COMPANIES; TRANSPORT RESEARCH;

COSTS;

EID: 56749107315     PISSN: 03611981     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3141/2049-15     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bates, J. Reflections on Stated Preference: Theory and Practice. In Travel Behaviour Research: Updating the State of Play (J de D. Ortúzar, D. A. Hensher, and S. Jara-Diaz, eds.), Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998, pp. 89-103.
2. Ampt, E., J. Swanson, and D. Pearmain. Stated Preference: Too Much Deference? Stated Preference Modelling Techniques. PTRC, London, 2000, pp. 191-201.
3. Wardman, M., and J. Shires. Comparison of Within Mode Revealed Preference and Stated Preference Choice Models. Paper presented at AET European Transport Conference, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2001.
4. Arentze, T., A., Borgers, H. Timmermans, and R. DelMistro. Transport Stated Choice Responses: Effects of Task Complexity, Presentation Format and Literacy. Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 39, 2003, pp. 229-244.
5. Bonsall, P. W. Transfer Price Data-Its Definition, Collection and Use. In Selected Proceedings of Second international Conference on New Survey Methods in Transport (E. Ampt, W. Brog, and A. J. Richardson, eds.), VNU Science Press, Utrecht, Netherlands. 1986, pp. 63-76.
6. Wardman. M. Route Choice and the Value of Motorists Travel Time: Theoretical and Methodological Issue. Working Paper 224. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, 1986.
7. Bradley, M. Realism and Adaptation in Designing Hypothetical Travel Choice Concepts. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1988, pp. 121-137.
8. Carson, R. T., T. Groves, and M. J. Machina. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Presented at the Kobe Conference on Theory and Application of Environment Valuation, Kobe University, Japan, 2000.
9. Samuelson, P. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 4, 1954, pp. 387-389.
10. Bohm, P. An Approach to the Problem of Estimating Demand for Public Goods. Swedish Journal of Economics, Vol., 73, No. 1, 1971, pp. 51-66.
11. Gensch, D. H. Choice Model Calibrated on Current Behaviour Predicts Public Response to New Policies. Transportation Research A, Vol. 14, 1980, pp. 171-180.
12. Couture, M. R., and T. Dooley. Analyzing Traveler Attitudes to Resolve Intended and Actual Use of a New Transit Service. In Highway Research Record 194, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1981, pp. 27-33.
13. Chatterjee, A., F. J. Wegmann, and M. A. McAdams. Non-Commitment Bias in Public Opinion on Transit Usage. Transportation, Vol. 11, 1983, pp. 347-360.
14. Fowkes, A. S., and J. Preston. Novel Approaches to Forecasting the Demand for New Local Rail Services. Transportation Research A, Vol. 25. No. 4, 1991, pp. 209-218.
15. Wardman, M., and J. Shires, Review of Fare Elasticities in Great Britain. Working Paper 573. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, 2003.
16. Fowkes, A. S. The Influence of Modelling Error on the Shapes of Estimated Demand Functions. Transportation Planning Methods. PTRC, London, 1995, pp. 49-60.
17. Mitchell, R. C., and R. T. Carson. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., 1989.
18. Adamowicz, W. L., P. C. Boxall, J. J. Louviere, and J. Swait. Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities. In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Methods in the US, EU and Developing Countries (I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis, eds.,), Oxford University Press, London, 1999, pp. 460-482.
19. Wardman, M., and G. Whelan. Valuation of Improved Railway Rolling Stock: A Review of the Literature and New Evidence. Transport Reviews, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2001, pp. 415-448.
20. Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook. Assn. of Train Operating Companies, London, 2002, 2005.
21. Wardman, M. Public Transport Values of Time. Working Paper 564. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, 2001.
22. Wardman, M. Reliability of Values Obtained from Stated Preference Methods. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, United Kingdom, 2003.
23. Wardman, M., and A. L. Bristow. Noise and Air Quality Valuations: Evidence from Stated Preference Residential Choice Models, Transportation Research D, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2004, pp. 1-27.
24. Bohm, P. Revealing Demand for an Actual Public Good. Journal of Public Economics Vol. 24, 1984, pp. 135-151.
25. Cummings, R. G., and L. O. Taylor. Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, 1999, pp. 649-665.
26. List, J. A. Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards. The American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 5, 2001, pp. 1498-1507.
27. Poe, G. L., J. E. Clark, D. Rondeau, and W. D. Schulze. Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 23, 2002, pp. 105-131.
28. Carlsson, F., P. Frykblom, and C. J. Lagerkvist. Using Cheap Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments. Economics Letter, Vol. 89, 2005, pp. 147-152.
29. List, J. A., P. Sinha, and M. H. Taylor. Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 6, No, 2, 2006, pp. 1-37.
30. Lu. H., A. Fowkes, and M. Wardman. The Influence of SP Design on Incentive to Bias in Response. Presented at the European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France, 2006.
31. MVA Consultancy. Passenger Priorities Research Stage 1. Prepared for London Underground Limited, 1993.
32. ALOGIT 4.0EC. Hague Consulting Group, The Hague, Netherlands, 2000.
33. Swait, J., and W. Adamowicz. Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behaviour: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, 2001, pp. 141-167.
34. DeShazo, J. R., and G. Fermo. Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 44, 2002, pp. 123-143.
35. Caussade, S., J. D. Ortuzar, L. I. Rizzi, and D. A. Hensher. Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 39, 2005, pp. 621-640.
36. GAUSS User's Manual, Aptech Systems, Mapple Valley, Wash., 1999.
37. Bradley, M., and A. Daly. Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Test for Rank-Order and Fatigue Effects in Stated Preference Data. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 167-184.
38. Koppelman, F, S., and V. Sethi. Incorporating Variance and Covariance Heterogeneity in the Generalized Nested Logit Model: An Application to Modelling Long Distance Travel Choice Behaviour. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 39, No. 9, 2005, pp. 825-853.
39. Wardman, M. Public Transport Values of Time. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, 2004, pp. 363-377.