IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v32y1998i5p289-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Alternative nested logit models: structure, properties and estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Koppelman, Frank S.
  • Wen, Chieh-Hua

Abstract

Two distinctly different nested logit models have been widely used in both research and applications. The differences, not widely recognized, between these models will substantially influence estimation results, behavioral interpretation and policy analysis. The McFadden nested logit model is derived from random utility theory; the Daly or non-normalized nested logit model is based on probability relationships and is not consistent with utility maximization. This paper describes and compares the model structure and properties of these different nested logit models identifying important differences between the different model structures. An empirical application demonstrates that the different nested logit models produce dramatically different results with respect to nesting structure and the relative importance of utility components. Thus, the selection of one or another of the nested logit models has important consequences for model interpretation and prediction with consequent impacts on policy analysis. The authors prefer the McFadden model because of its basis in utility theory, intuitively reasonable elasticity relationships and a clear interpretation of utility function parameters across alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Koppelman, Frank S. & Wen, Chieh-Hua, 1998. "Alternative nested logit models: structure, properties and estimation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 289-298, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:32:y:1998:i:5:p:289-298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191-2615(98)00003-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1996. "Testing the consistency of nested logit models with utility maximization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 33-39, January.
    2. Brownstone, David & Small, Kenneth A, 1989. "Efficient Estimation of Nested Logit Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 7(1), pages 67-74, January.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 1995. "An Empirical Investigation of the Consistency of Nested Logit Models with Utility Maximization," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 875-884.
    4. Daly, Andrew, 1987. "Estimating "tree" logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 251-267, August.
    5. Yai, Tetsuo & Iwakura, Seiji & Morichi, Shigeru, 1997. "Multinomial probit with structured covariance for route choice behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 195-207, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Lahiri, Kajal & Gao, Jian, 2002. "Bayesian analysis of nested logit model by Markov chain Monte Carlo," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 103-133, November.
    3. Matilde P. Machado & Ricardo Mora & Antonio Romero-Medina, 2012. "Can We Infer Hospital Quality From Medical Graduates’ Residency Choices?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(6), pages 1400-1424, December.
    4. Honora Smith & Christine Currie & Pornpimol Chaiwuttisak & Andreas Kyprianou, 2018. "Patient choice modelling: how do patients choose their hospitals?," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 259-268, June.
    5. Schwabe, Kurt A. & Schuhmann, Peter W., 1999. "The Value Of Increasing The Length Of Deer Season In Ohio," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21574, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Martin, Elliott William, 2009. "New Vehicle Choice, Fuel Economy and Vehicle Incentives: An Analysis of Hybrid Tax Credits and the Gasoline Tax," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5gd206wv, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Youssef M. Aboutaleb & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Patrick Jaillet, 2020. "Learning Structure in Nested Logit Models," Papers 2008.08048, arXiv.org.
    8. Martin, Elliot William, 2009. "New Vehicle Choices, Fuel Economy and Vehicle Incentives: An Analysis of Hybrid Tax Credits and Gasoline Tax," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6sz198c2, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Matthew Kovach & Gerelt Tserenjigmid, 2022. "Behavioral Foundations of Nested Stochastic Choice and Nested Logit," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(9), pages 2411-2461.
    10. Bente Halvorsen, 2000. "Comparing Ranking and Contingent Valuation for Valuing Human Lives, Applying Nested and Non-Nested Logit Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    11. Gil-Molto, Maria Jose & Hole, Arne Risa, 2004. "Tests for the consistency of three-level nested logit models with utility maximization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 133-137, October.
    12. Gil-Molto, Maria Jose & Hole, Arne Risa, 2004. "Tests for the consistency of three-level nested logit models with utility maximization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 133-137, October.
    13. Wang, Jin, 2021. "Do birds of a feather flock together? Platform’s quality screening and end-users’ choices theory and empirical study of online trading platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Kurt Schwabe & Peter Schuhmann & Roy Boyd & Khosrow Doroodian, 2001. "The Value of Changes in Deer Season Length: An Application of the Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 131-147, June.
    15. Chen, Anning, 2011. "Reliable GPS Integer Ambiguity Resolution," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9gs0t2f9, University of California Transportation Center.
    16. repec:cte:werepe:we060201 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. W. Shaw & Michael Ozog, 1999. "Modeling Overnight Recreation Trip Choice: Application of a Repeated Nested Multinomial Logit Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(4), pages 397-414, June.
    18. repec:rri:wpaper:200704 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Wissam Qassim Al-Salih & Domokos Esztergár Kiss, 2022. "Activity Chains Modelling of Travellers by Using Logit Models Based on the Utility Function," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-36, March.
    20. Phaneuf, Daniel James, 1997. "Generalized corner solution models in recreation demand," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000013022, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    21. Christiadi & Brian Cushing, 2007. "Conditional Logit, IIA, and Alternatives for Estimating Models of Interstate Migration," Working Papers Working Paper 2007-04, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    22. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:transb:v:32:y:1998:i:5:p:289-298. 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.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description .

    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.