IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i5p460-d504825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accommodating Taste and Scale Heterogeneity for Front-Seat Passenger’ Choice of Seat Belt Usage

Author

Listed:
  • Mahdi Rezapour

    (Wyoming Technology Transfer Center, 1000 E University Ave, Department 3295, Laramie, WY 82071, USA)

  • Khaled Ksaibati

    (Wyoming Technology Transfer Center, 1000 E University Ave, Department 3295, Laramie, WY 82071, USA)

Abstract

There is growing interest in implementation of the mixed model to account for heterogeneity across population observations. However, it has been argued that the assumption of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) error terms might not be realistic, and for some observations the scale of the error is greater than others. Consequently, that might result in the error terms’ scale to be varied across those observations. As the standard mixed model could not account for the aforementioned attribute of the observations, extended model, allowing for scale heterogeneity, has been proposed to relax the equal error terms across observations. Thus, in this study we extended the mixed model to the model with heterogeneity in scale, or generalized multinomial logit model (GMNL), to see if accounting for the scale heterogeneity, by adding more flexibility to the distribution, would result in an improvement in the model fit. The study used the choice data related to wearing seat belt across front-seat passengers in Wyoming, with all attributes being individual-specific. The results highlighted that although the effect of the scale parameter was significant, the scale effect was trivial, and accounting for the effect at the cost of added parameters would result in a loss of model fit compared with the standard mixed model. Besides considering the standard mixed and the GMNL, the models with correlated random parameters were considered. The results highlighted that despite having significant correlation across the majority of the random parameters, the goodness of fits favors more parsimonious models with no correlation. The results of this study are specific to the dataset used in this study, and due to the possible fact that the heterogeneity in observations related to the front-seat passengers seat belt use might not be extreme, and do not require extra layer to account for the scale heterogeneity, or accounting for the scale heterogeneity at the cost of added parameters might not be required. Extensive discussion has been made in the content of this paper about the model parameters’ estimations and the mathematical formulation of the methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahdi Rezapour & Khaled Ksaibati, 2021. "Accommodating Taste and Scale Heterogeneity for Front-Seat Passenger’ Choice of Seat Belt Usage," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:5:p:460-:d:504825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/5/460/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/5/460/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    3. Hossain, Ishrat & Saqib, Najam U. & Haq, Munshi Masudul, 2018. "Scale heterogeneity in discrete choice experiment: An application of generalized mixed logit model in air travel choice," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 85-88.
    4. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    5. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    6. Rambonilaza, Tina & Brahic, Elodie, 2016. "Non-market values of forest biodiversity and the impact of informing the general public: Insights from generalized multinomial logit estimations," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-100.
    7. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    8. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    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. Juan Pérez & Héctor López-Ospina, 2022. "Competitive Pricing for Multiple Market Segments Considering Consumers’ Willingness to Pay," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(19), pages 1-32, 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. Kassie, Girma T. & Abdulai, Awudu & Greene, William H. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Abate, Tsedeke & Tarekegne, Amsal & Sutcliffe, Chloe, 2017. "Modeling Preference and Willingness to Pay for Drought Tolerance (DT) in Maize in Rural Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 465-477.
    2. Akshay Vij & Rico Krueger, 2018. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Papers 1802.02299, arXiv.org.
    3. Vij, Akshay & Krueger, Rico, 2017. "Random taste heterogeneity in discrete choice models: Flexible nonparametric finite mixture distributions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 76-101.
    4. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    5. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    6. Kassie, Girma Tesfahun & Abdulai, Awudu & MacRobert, John F. & Abate, Tsedeke & Shiferaw, Bekele & Tarekegne, Amsal & Maleni, Debrah, 2014. "Willingness to pay for Drought Tolerance (DT) in Maize in Communal Areas of Zimbabwe," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169747, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Thiene, Mara & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & De Salvo, Maria, 2012. "Scale and taste heterogeneity for forest biodiversity: Models of serial nonparticipation and their effects," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 355-369.
    8. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    9. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Jemal Ahmed & Tewodros Tefera & Girma T. Kassie, 2020. "Consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for enriched snack product traits in Shashamane and Hawassa cities, Ethiopia," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    13. Bartczak, Anna, 2015. "The role of social and environmental attitudes in non-market valuation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 357-365.
    14. Fecke, Wilm & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "E-commerce in agriculture: The case of crop protection product purchases in a discrete choice experiment," DARE Discussion Papers 1803, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    15. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2017. "The Presence of Hypothetical Bias within Spatial Decay and Charismatic Species: An Application of Monarch and Viceroy Butterflies," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258204, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Kaambwa, Billingsley & Lancsar, Emily & McCaffrey, Nicola & Chen, Gang & Gill, Liz & Cameron, Ian D. & Crotty, Maria & Ratcliffe, Julie, 2015. "Investigating consumers' and informal carers' views and preferences for consumer directed care: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 81-94.
    17. Riise, Julie & Hole, Arne Risa & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Skåtun, Diane, 2016. "GPs' implicit prioritization through clinical choices – evidence from three national health services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 169-183.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nicholas & LaRiviere, Jacob, 2013. "The Effects of Experience on Preference Uncertainty: Theory and Empirics for Public and Quasi-Public Environmental Goods," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2013-11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    19. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    20. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:5:p:460-:d:504825. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.