IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v9y2013icp3-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simplified probabilistic choice set formation models in a residential location choice context

Author

Listed:
  • Zolfaghari, Alireza
  • Sivakumar, Aruna
  • Polak, John

Abstract

The implementation of a theoretically sound, two-stage discrete-choice modelling paradigm incorporating probabilistic choice sets is impractical when the number of alternatives is large, which is a typical case in most spatial choice contexts. In the context of residential location choice, Kaplan et al. (2009), (2011), (2012) (KBS) developed a semi-compensatory choice model incorporating data of individuals searching for dwellings observed using a customised real estate agency website. This secondary data is used to compute the probability of considering a choice set that takes the form of an ordered probit model. In this paper, we illustrate that the simplicity of the KBS model arises because of an unrealistic assumption that individuals' choice sets only contain alternatives that derive from their observed combination of thresholds. Relaxing this assumption, we introduce a new probabilistic choice set formation model that allows the power set to include all potential choice sets derived from variations in thresholds' combinations. In addition to extending the KBS model, our proposed model asymptotically approaches the classical Manski model, if a suitable structure is used to categorise alternatives. In order to illustrate the biases inherent in the original KBS approach, we compare it with our proposed model and the MNL model using a Monte Carlo experiment. The results of this experiment show that the KBS model causes biases in predicted market share if individuals are free to choose from any potential choice sets derived from combinations of thresholds.

Suggested Citation

  • Zolfaghari, Alireza & Sivakumar, Aruna & Polak, John, 2013. "Simplified probabilistic choice set formation models in a residential location choice context," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 3-13.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:9:y:2013:i:c:p:3-13
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2013.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534513000614
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2013.12.004?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. Basar, Gözen & Bhat, Chandra, 2004. "A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay Area," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 889-904, December.
    2. Punj, Girish & Moore, Robert, 2009. "Information search and consideration set formation in a web-based store environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 644-650, June.
    3. Farooq, Bilal & Miller, Eric J., 2012. "Towards integrated land use and transportation: A dynamic disequilibrium based microsimulation framework for built space markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1030-1053.
    4. Bhat, Chandra R. & Srinivasan, Sivaramakrishnan, 2005. "A multidimensional mixed ordered-response model for analyzing weekend activity participation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 255-278, March.
    5. S R Lerman & H S Mahmassani, 1985. "The Econometrics of Search," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 17(8), pages 1009-1024, August.
    6. Kenneth Train, 1980. "A Structured Logit Model of Auto Ownership and Mode Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 357-370.
    7. Hicks, Robert L. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2010. "Spatial regulations and endogenous consideration sets in fisheries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 117-134, April.
    8. Gaundry, Marc J. I. & Dagenais, Marcel G., 1979. "The dogit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 105-111, June.
    9. Andrews, Rick L. & Manrai, Ajay K., 1998. "Feature-based elimination: Model and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 248-267, December.
    10. Sigal Kaplan & Shlomo Bekhor & Yoram Shiftan, 2011. "Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory residential choice model based on explicit choice protocols," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(1), pages 51-80, August.
    11. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 643-666, August.
    12. Cantillo, Víctor & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2005. "A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 641-657, August.
    13. Kaplan, Sigal & Shiftan, Yoram & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2012. "Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 291-304.
    14. Manrai, Ajay K. & Andrews, Rick L., 1998. "Two-stage discrete choice models for scanner panel data: An assessment of process and assumptions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 193-215, December.
    15. Jianan Wu & Arvind Rangaswamy, 2003. "A Fuzzy Set Model of Search and Consideration with an Application to an Online Market," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 411-434, March.
    16. , & ,, 2011. "Search, choice, and revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
    17. George R. Parsons & A. Brett Hauber, 1998. "Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 32-48.
    18. Swait, Joffre & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 1987. "Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 91-102, April.
    19. Martínez, Francisco & Aguila, Felipe & Hurtubia, Ricardo, 2009. "The constrained multinomial logit: A semi-compensatory choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 365-377, March.
    20. Mette Termansen & Colin J McClean & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2004. "Recreational Site Choice Modelling Using High-Resolution Spatial Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(6), pages 1085-1099, June.
    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. Faghih-Imani, Ahmadreza & Eluru, Naveen, 2015. "Analysing bicycle-sharing system user destination choice preferences: Chicago’s Divvy system," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 53-64.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R., 2015. "A comprehensive dwelling unit choice model accommodating psychological constructs within a search strategy for consideration set formation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 161-188.

    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. Kaplan, Sigal & Shiftan, Yoram & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2012. "Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexible error structure," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 291-304.
    2. Bhat, Chandra R., 2015. "A comprehensive dwelling unit choice model accommodating psychological constructs within a search strategy for consideration set formation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 161-188.
    3. Hicks, Robert L. & Holland, Daniel S. & Kuriyama, Peter T. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2020. "Choice sets for spatial discrete choice models in data rich environments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Sigal Kaplan & Yoram Shiftan & Shlomo Bekhor, 2011. "A Semi-Compensatory Residential Choice Model With Flexible Error Structure," ERSA conference papers ersa10p65, European Regional Science Association.
    5. Cascetta, Ennio & Papola, Andrea, 2009. "Dominance among alternatives in random utility models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 170-179, February.
    6. José Luis Espinosa-Aranda & Ricardo García-Ródenas & María Luz López-García & Eusebio Angulo, 2018. "Constrained nested logit model: formulation and estimation," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1523-1557, September.
    7. Marisol Castro & Francisco Martínez & Marcela Munizaga, 2013. "Estimation of a constrained multinomial logit model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 563-581, May.
    8. Swait, Joffre, 2009. "Choice models based on mixed discrete/continuous PDFs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 766-783, August.
    9. Sigal Kaplan & Shlomo Bekhor & Yoram Shiftan, 2011. "Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory residential choice model based on explicit choice protocols," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(1), pages 51-80, August.
    10. Chorus, Caspar G. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2009. "Measuring user benefits of changes in the transport system when traveler awareness is limited," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 536-547, June.
    11. Capurso, Mauro & Hess, Stephane & Dekker, Thijs, 2019. "Modelling the role of consideration of alternatives in mode choice: An application on the Rome-Milan corridor," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 170-184.
    12. Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Benefit of adding an alternative to one׳s choice set: A regret minimization perspective," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 49-59.
    13. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Utilising activity space concepts to sampling of alternatives for mode and destination choice modelling of discretionary activities," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    14. Stafford, Tess M., 2018. "Accounting for outside options in discrete choice models: An application to commercial fishing effort," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-179.
    15. Xuan Di & Henry X. Liu & Shanjiang Zhu & David M. Levinson, 2017. "Indifference bands for boundedly rational route switching," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1169-1194, September.
    16. Vij, Akshay & Carrel, André & Walker, Joan L., 2013. "Incorporating the influence of latent modal preferences on travel mode choice behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 164-178.
    17. Siyu Li & Der-Horng Lee, 2017. "Learning daily activity patterns with probabilistic grammars," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 49-68, January.
    18. Chorus, Caspar G. & Arentze, Theo A. & Molin, Eric J.E. & Timmermans, Harry J.P. & Van Wee, Bert, 2006. "The value of travel information: Decision strategy-specific conceptualizations and numerical examples," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 504-519, July.
    19. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    20. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry & Borgers, Aloys & Wang, Donggen, 2004. "Modeling traveler choice behavior using the concepts of relative utility and relative interest," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 215-234, March.

    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:9:y:2013:i:c:p:3-13. 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.