Accounting for attribute non-attendance and common-metric aggregation in a probabilistic decision process mixed multinomial logit model: A warning on potential confounding

Transportation

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1003-1020

  Hensher, David A ^a   Collins, Andrew T ^a   Greene, William H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aggregation of common metric attributes; Attribute non attendance; Car commuters; Latent class mixed multinomial logit; Preference heterogeneity; Random parameters; Stated choice experiment

Indexed keywords

ATTRIBUTE NON-ATTENDANCE; CAR COMMUTERS; MULTINOMIAL LOGIT; PREFERENCE HETEROGENEITY; RANDOM PARAMETERS; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS;

TRANSPORTATION;

CIVIL ENGINEERING;

CAR USE; COMMUTING; DATA SET; DECISION MAKING; HETEROGENEITY; LOGIT ANALYSIS; PROBABILITY; TRAVEL BEHAVIOR; TRAVEL TIME;

AUSTRALIA;

EID: 84883133211     PISSN: 00494488     EISSN: 15729435     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11116-012-9447-0     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bujosa, A., Riera, A., Hicks, R.: Combining discrete and continuous representation of preference heterogeneity: a latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47, 477-493 (2010).
2. Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A., Scarpa, R.: Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54(8), 1061-1076 (2011).
3. Campbell, D., Hutchinson, W., Scarpa, R.: Incorporating discontinuous preferences into the analysis of discrete choice experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 41(3), 401-417 (2008).
4. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Lampi, E.: Dealing with ignored attributes in choice experiments on valuation of Sweden. Environ. Resour. Econ. 47(1), 65-89 (2010).
5. Collins, A. T., Rose, J. M., and Hensher, D. A.: The random parameters attribute nonattendance model. Paper presented at The 13th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Toronto, July (2012).
6. Everitt, B.: A finite mixture model for the clustering of mixed-mode data. Stat. Probab. Lett. 6, 305-309 (1988).
7. Fiebig, D., Keane, M., Louviere, J., Wasi, N.: The generalized multinomial logit: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark. Sci. 29(3), 393-421 (2010).
8. Greene, W. H., Hensher, D. A.: A latest class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. Part B 37, 681-698 (2003).
9. Greene, W. H., Hensher, D. A.: Does scale heterogeneity matter? a comparative assessment of logit models. Transportation 37(3), 413-428 (2010).
10. Greene, W. H., Hensher, D. A.: Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model. Appl. Econ. 45(14), 1897-1902 (2013).
11. Heckman, J., Singer, B.: A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models. Econometrica 52, 271-320 (1984).
12. Hensher, D. A.: How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. J. Appl. Econ. 21(6), 861-878 (2006).
13. Hensher, D. A., Greene, W. H.: Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: a latent class specification. Empir. Econ. 39(2), 413-426 (2010).
14. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M.: Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: implications for willingness to pay. Transp. Res. Part E 45(4), 583-590 (2009).
15. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., Greene, W. H.: The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32, 203-222 (2005).
16. Hensher, D. A., Li, Z., and Rose, J. M.: Accommodating risk in the valuation of expected travel time savings. J. Adv. Transp. online 16 January 2011 (2012a). doi: 10. 1002/atr. 160.
17. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., Greene, W. H.: Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design. Transportation 39(2), 235-246 (2012).
18. Hess, S., Hensher, D. A.: Using conditioning on observed choices to retrieve individual-specific attribute processing strategies. Transp. Res. Part B 44(6), 781-790 (2010).
19. Hess, S., Rose, J. M.: A latent class approach to modelling heterogeneous information processing strategies in SP studies. Paper presented at the Oslo Workshop on valuation methods in transport planning, Oslo (2007).
20. Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A., Campbell, D., O'Neill, V., Caussade, S.: It's not that I don't care, I just don't care very much: confounding between attribute non-attendance and taste heterogeneity. Transportation (2011). doi: 10. 1007/s11116-012-9438-1.
21. Hess, S., Stathopoulos, A., Daly, A.: Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies. Transportation 39(3), 565-591 (2012).
22. Hole, A. R.: A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance. Econ. Lett. 110(3), 203-205 (2011).
23. Layton, D., Hensher, D. A.: Aggregation of common-metric attributes in preference revelation in choice experiments and implications for willingness to pay. Transp. Res. Part D 15, 394-404 (2010).
24. Li, Z., Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M.: Willingness to pay for travel time reliability for passenger transport: a review and some new empirical evidence. Transp. Res. Part E. 46(3), 384-403 (2010).
25. McNair, B., Hensher, D. A., Bennett, J.: Modelling heterogeneity in response behaviour towards a sequence of discrete choice questions: a probabilistic decision process model. Environ. Resour. Econ. 51, 599-616 (2012).
26. Puckett, S. M., Hensher, D. A.: The role of attribute processing strategies in estimating the preferences of road freight stakeholders under variable road user charges. Transp. Res. E 44, 379-395 (2008).
27. Rose, J. M., Bliemer, M. C., Hensher, D. A., Collins, A. T.: Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives. Transp. Res. B 42(4), 395-406 (2008).
28. Scarpa, R., Gilbride, T. J., Campbell, D., Hensher, D. A.: Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 36(2), 151-174 (2009).
29. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., Hensher, D. A.: Monitoring choice task attribute attendance in nonmarket valuation of multiple park management services: does it matter? Land Econ. 86(4), 817-839 (2010).
30. Shen, J.: Latent class model or mixed logit model? A comparison by transport mode choice data. Appl. Econ. 41, 2915-2924 (2009).
31. Thiene, M., Meyerhoff, J., De Salvo, M.: Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: models of serial nonparticipation and their effects. J. For. Econ. 18(4), 355-369 (2012).
32. Train, K.: EM algorithms for nonparametric estimation of mixing distributions. J. Choice Model. 1(1), 40-69 (2008).
33. Train, K., Weeks, M.: Discrete choice models in preference space and willing to-pay space. In: Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 1, pp. 1-16. Springer Publisher, Dordrecht, (2005).
34. Wasi, N., Carson, R. T.: The Influence of Rebate Programs on the Demand for Water Heaters The Case of New South Wales. UC Center for Energy and Environmental Economics, Berkeley (2011).
35. Vij, A., Carrel, A., Walker, J. L.: Latent modal preferences: behavioral mixture models with longitudinal data, E3 WP-025, UC Berkeley, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Berkeley (2012).