Quantifying residential self-selection effects: A review of methods and findings from applications of propensity score and sample selection approaches

Journal of Transport and Land Use

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 7-26

  Mokhtarian, Patricia L ^a   van Herick, David ^b  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Propensity score; Residential self selection; Sample selection; Travel behavior

Indexed keywords

EID: 84969136143     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19387849     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2016.788     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Austin, P. C. 2011. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research 46: 399-424.
2. Becker, S. O., and A. Ichino. 2002. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal 2(4): 358-377.
3. Bhat, C. R., and N. Eluru. 2009. A copula-based approach to accommodate residential self-selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 43(7): 749-765.
4. Cameron, A. C., and P. K. Trivedi. 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Cao, X. 2009. Disentangling the influence of neighborhood type and self-selection on driving behavior: An application of sample selection model. Transportation 36: 207-222.
6. Cao, X. 2010. Exploring causal effects of neighborhood type on walking behavior using stratification on the propensity score. Environment and Planning A 42(2): 487-504.
7. Cao, X. 2015. The effects of neighborhood type and self-selection on driving: A case study of Northern California. Chapter 10 in International Handbook on Transport and Development, edited by R. Hickman, M. Givoni, D. Bonilla, and D. Banister. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
8. Cao, X., and Y. Fan. 2012. Exploring the influences of density on travel behavior using propensity score matching. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(3): 459-470.
9. Cao, X., Z. Xu, and Y. Fan. 2010. Exploring the connections among residential location, self-selection, and driving: Propensity score matching with multiple treatments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44(10): 797-805.
10. Cao, X., P. L. Mokhtarian, and S. L. Handy. 2011. Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: methodologies and empirical findings. Chapter 1 in Urban Sustainable Mobility, edited by E. Venezia. Milan: FrancoAngeli, pp. 15-100. Available as Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-08-25. http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=1194.
11. Cook, T. D., W. R. Shadish, and V. C. Wong. 2008. Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 27(4): 724-750.
12. D'Agostino, Jr., R. B. 1998. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine. 17(19): 2265-2281.
13. Greene, W. H. 2007. LIMDEP Version 9.0 Econometric Modeling Guide Vol. 2. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software Inc.
14. Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1): 153-161.
15. Heckman, J. J., J. L. Tobias, and E. J. Vytlacil. 2001. Four parameters of interest in the evaluation of social programs. Southern Economic Journal 68(2): 210-223.
16. Heckman, J. J., and E. J. Vytlacil. 2005. Structural equations, treatment effects, and economic policy evaluation. Econometrica 73(3): 669-738.
17. Ho, D. E., K. Imai, G. King, and E. A. Stuart. 2007. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis 15: 199-236.
18. Imbens, G. W. 2004. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 4-29.
19. Joh, K., N. Mai Thi, and M. G. Boarnet. 2012. Can built and social environmental factors encourage walking among individuals with negative walking attitudes? Journal of Planning Education and Research 32(2): 219-236.
20. Larco, N., B. Steiner, J. Stockard, and A. West. 2012. Pedestrian-friendly environments and active travel for residents of multifamily housing: The role of preferences and perceptions. Environment and Behavior 44(3): 303-333.
21. Oakes, M. J., and P. J. Johnson. 2006. Propensity score matching for social epidemiology. In Methods in Epidemiology, edited by M. J. Oakes and J. S. Kaufman. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observation studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1): 41-55.
23. Rosenbaum, P. R., and D. B. Rubin. 1984. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79(387): 516-524.
24. Shadish, W. R., M. H. Clark, and P. M. Steiner. 2008. Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103(484): 1334-1356.
25. Tucker, J. W. 2010. Selection bias and econometric remedies in accounting and finance research. Journal of Accounting Literature 29: 31-57.
26. Winship, C., and S. L. Morgan. 1999. The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 659-707.
27. Zhou, B., and K. Kockelman. 2008. Self-selection in home choice: Use of treatment effects in evaluating the relationship between the built environment and travel behavior. Transportation Research Record 2077: 54-61.