IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v40y2013i3p609-624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A flexible model structure approach for discrete choice models

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Ishaq
  • Shlomo Bekhor
  • Yoram Shiftan

Abstract

Multi-dimensional discrete choice problems are usually estimated by assuming a single-choice hierarchical order for the entire study population or for pre-defined segments representing the behavior of an “average” person and by indicating either limited differences or a variety in choices among the study population. This study develops an integral methodological framework, termed the flexible model structure (FMS), which enhances the application of the discrete choice model by developing an optimization algorithm that segment given data and searches for the best model structure for each segment simultaneously. The approach is demonstrated here through three models that conceptualize the multi-dimensional discrete choice problem. The first two are Nested Logit models with a two-choice dimension of destination and mode; they represent the estimation of a fixed-structure model using pre-segmented data as is mostly common in multi-dimensional discrete choice model implementation. The third model, the FMS, includes a fuzzy segmentation method with weighted variables, as well as a combination of more than one model structure estimated simultaneously. The FMS model significantly improves estimation results, using fewer variables than do segmented NL models, thus supporting the hypothesis that different model structures may best describe the behavior of different groups of people in multi-dimensional choice models. The implementation of FMS involves presenting the travel behavior of an individual as a mix of travel behaviors represented by a number of segments. The choice model for each segment comprises a combination of different choice model structures. The FMS model thus breaks the consensus that an individual belongs to only one segment and that a segment can take only one structure. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Ishaq & Shlomo Bekhor & Yoram Shiftan, 2013. "A flexible model structure approach for discrete choice models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 609-624, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:3:p:609-624
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-012-9431-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-012-9431-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-012-9431-8?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. Yoram Shiftan & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2011. "A practical policy-sensitive, activity-based, travel-demand model," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(3), pages 517-541, December.
    2. Robert Tibshirani & Guenther Walther & Trevor Hastie, 2001. "Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 411-423.
    3. Stephane Hess & Amanda Stathopoulos & Andrew Daly, 2012. "Allowing for heterogeneous decision rules in discrete choice models: an approach and four case studies," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 565-591, May.
    4. Mark Bradley & Peter Vovsha, 2005. "A model for joint choice of daily activity pattern types of household members," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 545-571, September.
    5. 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.
    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. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Tinessa, Fiore & Marzano, Vittorio & Papola, Andrea, 2020. "Mixing distributions of tastes with a Combination of Nested Logit (CoNL) kernel: Formulation and performance analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 1-23.
    3. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    4. Mahmud, Asif & Gayah, Vikash V. & Paleti, Rajesh, 2022. "A latent choice model to analyze the role of preliminary preferences in shaping observed choices," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 95-108.
    5. Gonçalves, Tânia & Pinto, Lígia M. Costa & Lourenço-Gomes, Lina, 2020. "Attribute non-attendance in wine choice: Contrasts between stated and inferred approaches," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 262-275.

    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. 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.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid, 2018. "Hypothetical bias and decision-rule effect in modelling discrete directional choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-388.
    3. Zhang, Junyi & Kuwano, Masashi & Lee, Backjin & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2009. "Modeling household discrete choice behavior incorporating heterogeneous group decision-making mechanisms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 230-250, February.
    4. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    5. 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.
    6. Han, Yafei & Pereira, Francisco Camara & Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Zegras, Christopher, 2022. "A neural-embedded discrete choice model: Learning taste representation with strengthened interpretability," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 166-186.
    7. Boeri, Marco & Scarpa, Riccardo & Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-135.
    8. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu, 2020. "Towards Sustainable Energy Consumption Electricity Demand Flexibility and Household Fuel Choice," Umeå Economic Studies 971, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    10. 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.
    11. Balbontin, Camila & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2019. "How to better represent preferences in choice models: The contributions to preference heterogeneity attributable to the presence of process heterogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 218-248.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    14. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    15. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    16. Péter Czine & Péter Balogh & Zsanett Blága & Zoltán Szabó & Réka Szekeres & Stephane Hess & Béla Juhász, 2024. "Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    18. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    19. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.

    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:kap:transp:v:40:y:2013:i:3:p:609-624. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.