Accommodating spatial correlation across choice alternatives in discrete choice models: An application to modeling residential location choice behavior

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 294-303

  Sener, Ipek N ^a   Pendyala, Ram M ^b   Bhat, Chandra R ^c  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM   (United States)

^b Arizona State University   (United States)

^c The University of Texas at Austin   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity travel behavior modeling; Discrete choice modeling; Distance decay function; Residential location choice; Spatial correlation; Spatially correlated logit model

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR;

CALIFORNIA; SAN FRANCISCO BAY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79953812453     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Abbe E., Bierlaire M., Toledo T. Normalization and correlation of cross-nested logit models. Transportation Research Part B 2007, 41(7):795-808.
2. Abraham J.E., Hunt J.D. Specification and estimation of a nested logit model of home, workplace and commuter mode choice by multiple worker households. Transportation Research Record 1997, 1606:17-24.
3. Bekhor S., Prashker J.N. GEV-based destination choice models that account for unobserved similarities among alternatives. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 42(3):243-262.
4. Ben-Akiva M., Bowman J.L. Integration of an activity-based model system and a residential location model. Urban Studies 1998, 35(7):1131-1153.
5. Bhat C.R., Guo J.Y. A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling. Transportation Research Part B 2004, 38(2):147-168.
6. Bhat C.R., Guo J.Y. A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transportation Research Part B 2007, 41(5):506-526.
7. Bhat C.R., Sener I.N. A copula-based closed-form binary logit choice model for accommodating spatial correlation across observational units. Journal of Geographical Systems 2009, 11(3):243-272.
8. Bhat C.R., Zhao H. The spatial analysis of activity stop generation. Transportation Research Part B 2002, 36(6):557-575.
9. Bolduc D., Fortin B., Fournier M. The effect of incentive policies on the practice location of doctors: a multinomial probit analysis. Journal of Labor Economics 1996, 14(4):703-732.
10. Boots B.N., Kanaroglou P.S. Incorporating the effect of spatial structure in discrete choices models of migration. Journal of Regional Science 1988, 28(4):495-507.
11. Brown D.G., Robinson D.T. Effects of heterogeneity in residential preferences on an agent-based model of urban sprawl. Ecology and Society 2006, 11(1):46.
12. Cho E.J., Rodrigeuez D.A., Song Y. The role of employment subcenters in residential location decisions. Journal of Transport and Land Use 2008, 1(2):121-151.
13. Clark W.A.V., Onaka J.L. An empirical test of a joint model of residential mobility and housing choice. Environment and Planning A 1985, 17(7):915-930.
14. Clark W.A.V., Huang Y. The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets. Environment and Planning A 2003, 35(2):323-339.
15. Daly A., Bierlaire M. A general and operational representation of generalized extreme value models. Transportation Research Part B 2006, 40(4):285-305.
16. Daly A.J., Zachary S. Improved multiple choice models. Determinants of Travel Choice 1978, Saxon House, Westmead. D.A. Hensher, M.Q. Dalvi (Eds.).
17. Deng Y., Ross S.L., Wachter S.M. Racial differences in homeownership: the effect of residential location. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2003, 33(5):517-556.
18. Fleming M. Techniques for estimating spatially dependent discrete choice models. Advances in Spatial Econometrics 2004, Springer, Berlin. R. Florax, L. Anselin (Eds.).
19. Garrido R.A., Mahmassani H.S. Forecasting freight transportation demand with the space-time multinomial probit model. Transportation Research Part B 2000, 34(5):403-418.
20. Guo, J.Y., 2004. Addressing spatial complexities in residential location choice models. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas.
21. Guo J.Y., Bhat C.R. Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood: application to residential location choice analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(1):31-45.
22. Habib, M.A., Miller, E.J., 2007. Modeling residential and spatial search behaviour: evidence from the greater Toronto area. Presented at 6th Triennial Symposium on Transportation Analysis, Phuket Island, Thailand, June 10-15, 2007.
23. Haynes K., Fotheringham A.S. The impact of space on the application of discrete choice models. Review of Regional Studies 1990, 2:39-49.
24. Horowitz J.H. Identification and diagnosis of specification error in the multinomial logit model. Transportation Research Part B 1981, 15(5):345-360.
25. Hunt L.M., Boots B., Kanaroglou P.S. Spatial choice modelling: new opportunities to incorporate space into substitution patterns. Progress in Human Geography 2004, 28(6):746-766.
26. Jokela M., Elovainio M., Kivimäki M., Keltikangas-Järvinen L. Temperament and migration patterns in Finland. Psychological Science 2008, 19(9):831-837.
27. Kim J.H., Pagliara F., Preston J. The intention to move and residential location choice behaviour. Urban Studies 2005, 42(9):1621-1636.
28. Kelejian H.H. A spatial J-test for model specification against a single or a set of non-nested alternatives. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 2008, 1(1):3-11.
29. Koppelman F.S., Sethi V. Closed-form discrete choice models. Handbook of Transport Modelling 2008, 211-225. Elsevier Science, (Chapter 13). second ed. D.A. Hensher, K.J. Button (Eds.).
30. Marzano V., Papola A. On the covariance structure of the cross-nested logit model. Transportation Research Part B 2008, 42(2):83-98.
31. McFadden D. Modeling the choice of residential location. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models 1978, 75-96. North Holland, Amsterdam. A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, J. Weibull (Eds.).
32. McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data 1981, 198-272. MIT Press, Cambridge. C. Manski, D. McFadden (Eds.).
33. Miyamoto K., Vichiensan V., Shimomura N., Páez A. Discrete choice model with structuralized spatial effects for location analysis. Transportation Research Record 2004, 1898:183-190.
34. MORPACE International, Inc., 2002. Bay Area Travel Survey Final Report. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, CA. http://ftp.abag.ca.gov/pub/mtc/planning/BATS/BATS2000/.
35. Páez A., Suzuki J. Transportation impacts on land use change: an assessment considering neighborhood effects. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 2001, 4(6):47-59.
36. Páez A., Scott D.M. Social influence on travel behavior: a simulation example of the decision to telecommute. Environment and Planning A 2007, 39(3):647-665.
37. Pellegrini P.A., Fotheringham A.S. Modeling spatial choice: a review and synthesis in a migration context. Progress in Human Geography 2002, 26(4):487-510.
38. Peterson M.N., Chen X., Liu J. Household location choices: implications for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 2008, 22(4):912-921.
39. Pinjari, A., Eluru, N., Copperman, R. Sener, I.N., Guo, J.Y., Srinivasan, S., Bhat, C.R., 2006. Activity-based travel-demand analysis for metropolitan areas in texas: CEMDAP models, framework, software architecture and application results. Report 4080-8, Prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
40. Pinjari A.R., Bhat C.R., Hensher D.A. Residential self-selection effects in an activity time-use behavior model. Transportation Research Part B 2009, 43(7):729-748.
41. Prashker J., Shiftan Y., Hershkovitch-Sarusi P. Residential choice location, gender and the commute trip to work in Tel Aviv. Journal of Transport Geography 2008, 16(5):332-341.
42. Sermons M.W., Koppelman F.S. Factor analytic approach to incorporating systematic taste variation into models of residential location choice. Transportation Research Record 1998, 1617:194-202.
43. Sermons M.W., Koppelman F.S. Representing the differences between female and male commute behavior in residential location choice models. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9(2):101-110.
44. Tobler W. A computer model simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography 1970, 46(2):234-240.
45. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press.
46. Timmermans H., Borgers A., Dijk J., Oppewal H. Residential choice behavior of dual earner households: a decompositional joint choice model. Environment and Planning A 1992, 24(4):517-533.
47. Uyar B., Brown K.H. Impact of local public services and taxes on dwelling choice within a single taxing jurisdiction: a discrete choice model. The Journal of Real Estate Research 2005, 27(4):427-443.
48. Waddell P. Exogenous workplace choice in residential location models: is the assumption valid?. Geographical Analysis 1993, 25:65-82.
49. Waddell, P., 1996. Accessibility and residential location: the interaction of workplace, residential mobility, tenure, and location choices. Presented at the Lincoln Land Institute TRED Conference. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddtpan/modeling.html.
50. Waller L.A., Zhu L., Gotway C.A., Gorman D.M., Gruenewald P.J. Quantifying geographic variations in associations between alcohol distribution and violence: a comparison of geographically weighted regression and spatially varying coefficient models. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2007, 21(5):573-588.
51. Wen C.-H., Koppelman F.S. The generalized nested logit model. Transportation Research Part B 2001, 35(7):627-641.
52. Whitfield J.B., Zhu G., Heath A.C., Martin N.G. Choice of residential location: chance, family influences, or genes?. Twin Research and Human Genetics 2005, 8(1):22-26.
53. Williams H.C.W.L. On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environment and Planning A 1977, 9(3):285-344.