On the Treatment of Repeated Observations in Panel Data: Efficiency of Mixed Logit Parameter Estimates

Networks and Spatial Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 393-418

  Yáñez, María Francisca ^a   Cherchi, Elisabetta ^b   Heydecker, Benjamin G ^c   de Dios Ortúzar, Juan ^a  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAGLIARI   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Discrete choice models; Panel data with repeated observations; Parameter efficiency

Indexed keywords

EID: 80053924648     PISSN: 1566113X     EISSN: 15729427     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11067-010-9143-6     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abdel-Aty MA, Kitamura R, Jovanis PP (1997) Using stated preference data for studying the effect of advanced traffic information on driver's route choice. Transp Res 5C: 39-50.
2. Ampt ES, de Dios Ortúzar J (2004) On best practice in continuous large-scale mobility surveys. Transport Rev 24: 337-363.
3. Axhausen KW, Zimmermann A, Schönfelder S, Rindsfüser G, Haupt T (2002) Observing the rhythms of daily life: a six-week travel diary. Transportation 29: 95-124.
4. Axhausen KW, Löchl M, Schlich R, Buhl T, Widmer P (2007) Fatigue in long-duration travel diaries. Transportation 34: 143-160.
5. Bierlaire M (2003) BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verit, Ascona, Switzerland.
6. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM (2010) Constructing of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations. Transportation Research B (forthcoming).
7. Cantillo V, de Dios Ortúzar J, Williams HCWL (2007) Modelling discrete choices in the presence of inertia and serial correlation. Transportation Science 41: 195-205.
8. Cherchi E, Cirillo C (2008) A modal mixed logit choice model on panel data: accounting for systematic and random heterogeneity in preferences and tastes. 86th Seminar of the Transportation Research Board. Washington D. C., USA.
9. Cherchi E, de Dios Ortúzar J (2007) On the efficiency of mixed logit parameters estimates: analysing the effect of data richness. Proceedings XIII Congreso Chileno de Ingeniería de Transporte. Santiago, Chile (on CD).
10. Cherchi E, de Dios Ortúzar J (2008) Empirical identification in the mixed logit model: analysing the effect of data richness. Networks Spatial Econ 8: 109-124.
11. Cherchi E, Polak JW (2005) The assessment of user benefits using discrete choice models: implications of specification errors under random taste heterogeneity. Transp Res Rec 1926: 61-69.
12. Cirillo C, Axhausen KW (2006) Dynamic model of activity-type choice and scheduling. Proceedings European Transport Conference, Strasbourg France.
13. Cirillo C, Daly AJ, Lindveld K (2000) Eliminating bias due to the repeated measurements problem in SP data. In: de Dios Ortúzar J (ed), Stated preference modelling techniques. Perspectives 4, PTRC, London.
14. de Dios Ortúzar J, Willumsen LG (2001) Modelling transport, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester.
15. de Dios Ortúzar J, DA Roncagliolo, UC Velarde (2000) Interactions and independence in stated preference modelling. In: de Dios Ortúzar J (ed), Stated preference modelling techniques. Perspectives 4, PTRC, London.
16. DICTUC (2003) Encuesta de Movilidad 2001 de Santiago. Informe final para el Ministerio de Planificación. Departamento de Ingeniería de Transporte y Logística, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago.
17. Galbraith RA, Hensher DA (1982) Intra-metropolitan transferability of mode choice models. J Transport Econ Pol 16: 7-29.
18. Hess S, Rose JM (2009) Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data. Transp Res 43B: 708-719.
19. Hess S, Train K (2009) Approximation issues in simulation-based estimation of random coefficient models. Mimeo, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.
20. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105-142.
21. Mobidrive (2000) Mobidrive questionnaires. Arbeitsberichte Verkehrs und Raumplanung, 52, Institut für Ver-kehrsplanung, Transporttechnik, Strassen und Eisenbahnbau, ETH Zürich.
22. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev Econ Stat 80: 647-657.
23. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2008) Stated preference experimental design strategies. In: Hensher DA, Button KJ (eds) Handbook of transport modelling. Elsevier, Oxford.
24. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ (2009) Constructing efficient choice experimental designs. Transport Rev 29 (in press).
25. Rose JM, Hess S, Bliemer MCJ, Daly AJ (2009) The impact of varying the number of repeated choice observations on the mixed multinomial logit model. European Transport Conference, Leiden.
26. Ruiz T (2006) Attrition in transport panels. In: Stopher P, Stecher C (eds) Travel survey methods: quality and future directions. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
27. Sillano M, de Dios Ortúzar J (2005) Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environ Plan 37A: 525-550.
28. Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. van Wisen LJG, Meurs HJ (1989) The Dutch mobility panel: experiences and evaluation. Transportation 16: 99-119.
30. Walker J (2001) Extended discrete choice models: Integrated framework, flexible error structures, and latent variables. Ph. D. Thesis, Center for Transport Studies, MIT.
31. Williams HCWL, de Dios Ortúzar J (1982) Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-specification of travel demand models. Transp Res 16B: 167-219.
32. Yáñez MF, Cherchi E, de Dios Ortúzar J, Heydecker B (2009) Inertia and shock effects over mode choice process: implications of the Transantiago implementation. Transp Sci (under revision).
33. Yáñez MF, de Dios Ortúzar J (2009) Modelling choice in a changing environment: assessing the shock effects of a new transport system. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) Choice modelling: the state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice, Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference. Emerald, Bingley.
34. Yáñez MF, Mansilla P, de Dios Ortúzar J (2010) The Santiago panel: measuring the effects of implementing Transantiago. Transportation 37. doi: 10. 1007/s11116-009-9223-y.
35. Yen J, Mahmassani H, Herman R (1998) A model of employee participation in telecommuting programs based on stated preference data. In: de Dios Ortúzar J, Hensher DA, Jara-Díaz SR (eds) Travel behaviour research: updating the state of play. Pergamon, Oxford.