Monte Carlo analysis of SP-off-RP data

Journal of Choice Modelling

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 101-117

  Train, Kenneth E ^a   Wilson, Wesley W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice modeling; Contingent valuation; Stated preference; Survey methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857854050     PISSN: 17555345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70006-X     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Anas, A. and Feng, C., 1988. Invariance of expected utilities in logit models. Economic Letters, 27, 57-78.
2. Ben-Akiva, M. and Morikawa, T., 1990. Estimation of switching models from revealed preference and stated intentions. Transportation Research Part A, 24, 485-495.
3. Bhat, C. and Castelar, S., 2001. A unitfied mixed logit framework for modeling revealed and stated preferences: Formulation and application to congestion pricing in the San Francisco bay area. Transportation Research Part B, 36, 577-669.
4. Bradley, M., and Daly, A., 1993. New analysis issues in stated preference research. In Proceedings of Seminar-D. PTRC 21st Summer Annual Meetings, London, reprinted in J. de D. Ortuzar, ed., Stated Preference Modeling Techniques, PTRC Education and Research Services, London, 75-89.
5. Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. and Train, K., 2000. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for alternative-fueled vehicles. Transportation Research Part B, 34, 315-338. (Pubitemid 30334492)
6. Caussade, S., Ortuzar, J. de D., Rizzi, L. and Hensher, D., 2005. Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research Part B, 39, 621-640. (Pubitemid 40306746)
7. Fowkes, A. and Shinghal, N., 2002. The Leeds adaptive stated preference methodology. In R. Danielis, ed., Freight Transportation Demand and Stated Preference Experiments, FrancoAngeli, Milan.
8. Greene, W., Hensher, D., and Rose, J., 2006. Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models. Transportation Research Part B, 40, 75-92. (Pubitemid 41245406)
9. Hensher, D., 2004. Accounting for stated choice design dimensionality in willingness to pay for travel time savings. Transportation Research Part B, 38, 425-446. (Pubitemid 39474332)
10. Hensher, D. and Bradley, M., 1993. Using stated response data to enrich revealed preference discrete choice models. Marketing Letters, 4, 39-152.
11. Hensher, D., Louviere, J. and Swait, J., 1999. Combining sources of preference data. Journal of Econometrics, 89, 197-221. (Pubitemid 128416651)
12. Hensher, D. and Rose, J., 2007. Development of commuter and noncommuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study. Transportation Research Part A, 41, 428-443. (Pubitemid 46024613)
13. Louviere, J., Hensher, D. and Swait, J., 2000. Stated Preference Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York.
14. Rose, J. and Bliemer, M., 2008. Stated preference experimental design strategies. In Handbook of Transport Modelling, ed. D.A Hensher and K.J. Button, Elsevier Oxford, United Kingdom, 151-79.
15. Rose, J., Bliemer, M., Hensher, D. and Collins, A., 2008. Designing efficient stated choice experiments in presence of reference alternatives. Transportation Research Part B, 42, 395-406. (Pubitemid 351309109)
16. Train, K., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, New York.
17. Train, K. and Wilson, W., 2008 Estimation on stated preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices. forthcoming, Transportation Research Part B, 42, 191-203.