IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v12y2014icp10-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models

Author

Listed:
  • Dekker, Thijs

Abstract

The notion of Value of Time (VoT) is a cornerstone of discrete choice based economic appraisal in transportation. Its derivation and interpretation in the context of Random Utility Maximisation (RUM) models with linear-additive utility functions is straightforward and well known. The choice set-composition effects and semi-compensatory behaviour emphasised in the Random Regret Minimisation (RRM) model induces deviations from this basic VoT specification. This paper reviews and provides new insights into the RRM based VoT measure developed by Chorus (2012a). It defines the theoretical properties of the measure using the micro-economic notion of indifference, and provides insights into the limitations of the measure with respect to deriving individual and aggregate welfare measures. Additionally, the representative consumer approach is adopted to derive an alternative VoT measure, which is behaviourally more complete than the Chorus (2012a) measure. Although alleviating some of the restrictions, the measure has its own theoretical disadvantage. The main contribution of the paper can therefore be summarised as the generation of the necessary insights into the extent to which RRM-based VoT measures can be applied for the purpose of economic appraisal.

Suggested Citation

  • Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 10-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:12:y:2014:i:c:p:10-20
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2014.09.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534514000360
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2014.09.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    2. Chorus, Caspar G., 2012. "Logsums for utility-maximizers and regret-minimizers, and their relation with desirability and satisfaction," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1003-1012.
    3. Constant I. Tra, 2013. "Nonlinear income effects in random utility models: revisiting the accuracy of the representative consumer approximation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 55-63, January.
    4. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    5. Chorus, Caspar G. & Arentze, Theo A. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2008. "A Random Regret-Minimization model of travel choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, January.
    6. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2009. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 51-104.
    7. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    8. Hau, Timothy Doe-Kwong, 1985. "A Hicksian Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis with Discrete-Choice Models," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 52(208), pages 479-490, November.
    9. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    10. Anderson, Simon Peter & de Palma, Andre & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1988. "A Representative Consumer Theory of the Logit Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 29(3), pages 461-466, August.
    11. André Palma & Karim Kilani, 2011. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in additive random utility models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(3), pages 427-454, April.
    12. Richard Batley & J. Nicolás Ibá-ez, 2013. "Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models: implications of theory for empirical specification," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Choice Modelling, chapter 7, pages 144-171, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. James J. Opaluch & Kathleen Segerson, 1988. "Hicksian Welfare Measures within a Regret Theory Framework," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(5), pages 1100-1106.
    14. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2428-2436.
    15. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    16. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2007. "Toward Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 464-470, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geržinič, Nejc & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Cats, Oded & Lancsar, Emily & Chorus, Caspar, 2021. "Estimating decision rule differences between ‘best’ and ‘worst’ choices in a sequential best worst discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Rosa Marina González & Concepción Román & Ángel Simón Marrero, 2021. "Values of Travel Time for Recreational Trips under Different Behavioural Rules," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Hancock, Thomas O. & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2018. "Decision field theory: Improvements to current methodology and comparisons with standard choice modelling techniques," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 18-40.
    4. Follett, Lendie & Naald, Brian Vander, 2023. "Heterogeneity in choice experiment data: A Bayesian investigation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    5. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Prato, Carlo G., 2016. "On the robustness of random regret minimization modelling outcomes towards omitted attributes," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 51-70.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2019. "Laboratory experimentation and simulation of discrete direction choices: Investigating hypothetical bias, decision-rule effect and external validity based on aggregate prediction measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 134-157.
    7. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Does the decision rule matter for large-scale transport models?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 338-353.
    8. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "On the robustness of efficient experimental designs towards the underlying decision rule," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 50-64.
    9. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    10. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum probability: A new method for modelling travel behaviour," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 165-198.
    11. Giovanna Piracci & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2023. "Investigating Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Packaging Through a Different Behavioural Approach: A Random Regret Minimization Application," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 86(1), pages 1-27, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Min Qiang Zhao & Ju-Chin Huang, 2018. "The Representative Consumer Approximation Bias in Discrete Choice Welfare Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 969-984, December.
    2. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    3. Peng Jing & Mengxuan Zhao & Meiling He & Long Chen, 2018. "Travel Mode and Travel Route Choice Behavior Based on Random Regret Minimization: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    4. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Guevara, Cristian Angelo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "New insights on random regret minimization models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 91-109.
    5. Paolo Delle Site & André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2021. "Consumers’ welfare and compensating variation: survey and mode choice application," THEMA Working Papers 2021-11, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    6. Delle Site, Paolo & Salucci, Marco Valerio, 2013. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in random utility models with imperfect before–after correlation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 215-242.
    7. Caspar G. Chorus, 2014. "Capturing alternative decision rules in travel choice models: a critical discussion," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 13, pages 290-310, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Batley, Richard & Nicolás Ibáñez, J., 2013. "On the path independence conditions for discrete-continuous demand," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 13-23.
    9. Caspar G. Chorus & Sander Cranenburgh, 2018. "Specification of regret-based models of choice behaviour: formal analyses and experimental design based evidence—commentary," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 247-256, January.
    10. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2428-2436.
    11. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    12. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Chorus, Caspar G., 2017. "Detecting dominance in stated choice data and accounting for dominance-based scale differences in logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-104.
    13. Hiroki Nishimura, 2014. "The Transitive Core: Inference of Welfare from Nontransitive Preference Relations," Working Papers 201419, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    14. Nishimura, Hiroki, 2018. "The transitive core: inference of welfare from nontransitive preference relations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    15. A. de Palma & K. Kilani, 2003. "Compensating Variation for Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2003-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    16. Lew, Daniel K., 1999. "Multi-Purpose Trip Valuation in Recreation Demand Models: Some Methodological Approaches," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 271486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar G., 2018. "Does the decision rule matter for large-scale transport models?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 338-353.
    18. Sunghoon Jang & Soora Rasouli & Harry Timmermans, 2017. "Incorporating psycho-physical mapping into random regret choice models: model specifications and empirical performance assessments," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 999-1019, September.
    19. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    20. Fernandez Pernett, Stephanie & Amaya, Johanna & Arellana, Julián & Cantillo, Victor, 2022. "Questioning the implication of the utility-maximization assumption for the estimation of deprivation cost functions after disasters," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:12:y:2014:i:c:p:10-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.