Development of an indicator to assess the spatial fit of discrete choice models

Transportation Research Part B: Methodological

Volumn 56, Issue , 2013, Pages 217-233

  Páez, Antonio ^a   López, Fernando A ^b   Ruiz, Manuel ^b   Morency, Catherine ^c  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CARTAGENA   (Spain)

^c ÉCOLE POLYTECHNIQUE DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Auto ownership; Discrete choice models; Montreal; Q statistic; Spatial analysis; Spatial fit

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION;

AUTO OWNERSHIP; DISCRETE CHOICE MODELS; MONTREAL; Q STATISTICS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPATIAL FIT;

SPATIAL VARIABLES MEASUREMENT;

CANONICAL ANALYSIS; CAR OWNERSHIP; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

CANADA; MONTREAL; QUEBEC [CANADA];

EID: 84883547408     PISSN: 01912615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2013.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Adjemian M.K., Lin C.Y.C., Williams J. Estimating spatial interdependence in automobile type choice with survey data. Transportation Research Part A 2010, 44(9):661-675.
2. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis 1990, Wiley, New York.
3. Alemu D.D., Tsutsumi J.G. Determinants and spatial variability of after-school travel by teenagers. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(4):876-881.
4. Anselin L. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models 1988, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
5. Axsen J., Kurani K. Interpersonal influence within car buyers' social networks: applying five perspectives to plug-in hybrid vehicle drivers. Environment and Planning A 2012, 44(5):1047-1065.
6. Bailey T.C., Gatrell A.C. Interactive Spatial Data Analysis 1995, Addison Wesley Longman, Essex.
7. Bhat C.R. The maximum approximate composite marginal likelihood (Macml) estimation of multinomial probit-based unordered response choice models. Transportation Research Part B 2011, 45(7):923-939.
8. Bhat C.R., Guo J. A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling. Transportation Research Part B 2004, 38(2):147-168.
9. Bhat C.R., Pulugurta V. A comparison of two alternative behavioral choice mechanisms for household auto ownership decisions. Transportation Research Part B 1998, 32(1):61-75.
10. 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.
11. Bhat C.R., Sener I.N., Eluru N. A flexible spatially dependent discrete choice model: formulation and application to teenagers' weekday recreational activity participation. Transportation Research Part B 2010, 44(8-9):903-921.
12. Boots B. Local configuration measures for categorical spatial data: binary regular lattices. Journal of Geographical Systems 2006, 8(1):1-24.
13. Chakir R., Parent O. Determinants of land use changes: a spatial multinomial probit approach. Papers in Regional Science 2009, 88(2):327-344.
14. Dacey M.F. A Review on measures of contiguity for two and k-color maps. Spatial Analysis: A Reader in Statistical Geography 1968, 479-495. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. B.J.L. Berry, D.F. Marble (Eds.).
15. Dugundji E.R., Walker J.L. Discrete choice with social and spatial network interdependencies - an empirical example using mixed generalized extreme value models with field and panel effects. Transportation Research Record 2005, 1921:70-78.
16. Farber S., Páez A., Volz E. Topology and dependency tests in spatial and network autoregressive models. Geographical Analysis 2009, 41(2):158-180.
17. Frazier C., Kockelman K.M. Spatial econometric models for panel data - incorporating spatial and temporal data. Transportation Research Record 2005, 1902:80-90.
18. Giuliano G., Dargay J. Car ownership, travel and land use: a comparison of the us and Great Britain. Transportation Research Part A 2006, 40(2):106-124.
19. Goetzke F. Network effects in public transit use: evidence from a spatially autoregressive mode choice model. Urban Studies 2008, 45(2):407-417.
20. Goetzke F., Rave T. Bicycle use in Germany: explaining differences between municipalities with social network effects. Urban Studies 2011, 48(2):427-437.
21. Goetzke F., Weinberger R. Separating contextual from endogenous effects in automobile ownership models. Environment and Planning A 2012, 44(5):1032-1046.
22. Griffith D.A. Advanced Spatial Statistics: Special Topics in the Exploration of Quantitative Spatial Data Series 1988, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
23. Haining R. Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Hammadou H., Thomas I., Verhetsel A., Witlox F. How to incorporate the spatial dimension in destination choice models: the case of Antwerp. Transportation Planning and Technology 2008, 31(2):153-181.
25. Hoeffding W., Robbins H. The central limit theorem for dependent random variables. Duke Mathematical Journal 1948, 15(3):773-780.
26. LeSage J., Pace R.K. Introduction to Spatial Econometrics 2009, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
27. McFadden D. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics 1974, 3(4):303-328.
28. McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., Cook J.M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 2001, 27:415-444.
29. 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.
30. Morency C., Páez A., Roorda M.J., Mercado R.G., Farber S. Distance traveled in three Canadian cities: spatial analysis from the perspective of vulnerable population segments. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(1):39-50.
31. Páez A. Exploring contextual variations in land use and transport analysis using a probit model with geographical weights. Journal of Transport Geography 2006, 14(3):167-176.
32. Páez A. Spatial perspectives in urban systems: developments and directions. Journal of Geographical Systems 2007, 9(1):1-6.
33. Páez A., Ruiz M., López F., Logan J. Measuring ethnic clustering and exposure with the q statistic: an exploratory analysis of Irish, Germans, and Yankees in 1880 Newark. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2012, 102(1):84-102.
34. Páez A., Scott D.M. Spatial statistics for urban analysis: a review of techniques with examples. GeoJournal 2004, 61(1):53-67.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Paleti, R., Bhat, C., Pendyala, R.M., Goulias, K., 2013. The modeling of household vehicle type choice accommodating spatial dependence effects. In: 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
38. Roorda M.J., Páez A., Morency C., Mercado R.G., Farber S. Trip generation of vulnerable populations in three Canadian cities: a spatial ordered probit approach. Transportation 2010, 37(3):525-548.
39. Ruiz M., López F., Páez A. Testing for spatial association of qualitative data using symbolic dynamics. Journal of Geographical Systems 2010, 12(3):281-309.
40. Sener I.N., Bhat C.R. Flexible spatial dependence structures for unordered multinomial choice models: formulation and application to teenagers' activity participation. Transportation 2012, 39(3):657-683.
41. Sidharthan R., Bhat C.R., Pendyala R.M., Goulias K.G. Model for children's school travel mode choice accounting for effects of spatial and social interaction. Transportation Research Record 2011, 2213:78-86.
42. Smirnov O.A. Spatial econometrics approach to integration of behavioral biases in travel demand analysis. Transportation Research Record 2010, 2157:1-10.
43. Wang X., Kockelman K.M., Lemp J.D. The dynamic spatial multinomial probit model: analysis of land use change using parcel-level data. Journal of Transport Geography 2012, 24:77-88.
44. Wang X.K., Kockelman K.M. Application of the dynamic spatial ordered probit model: patterns of land development change in Austin. Texas. Papers in Regional Science 2009, 88(2):345-365.
45. Whalen K., Páez A., Bhat C.R., Moniruzzaman M., Paleti R. T-communities and sense of community in a university town: evidence from a student sample using a spatial ordered response model. Urban Studies 2012, 49(6):1357-1376.
46. Zhou B., Kockelman K.M. Neighborhood impacts on land use change: a multinomial logit model of spatial relationships. Annals of Regional Science 2008, 42(2):321-340.