Can dominance affect spatial choices

Models adopted in the literature to represent spatial choices are generally rather elementary and result in the application of random utility theory to the choice among hundreds of alternatives. The attributes are usually related to spatial attractiveness and to generalised travel cost without any reference to perception/availability attributes. The objective of this paper is twofold: to use perception/availability variables named dominance variables for modelling spatial choices to have a better predictive model and to use dominance criteria as weights for the sampling probabilities to show how weighted sampling of alternatives provide parameters estimates “closer” to the full choice set. spatial choices, dominance variables, random utility models, sampling techniques

[1]  Mark Wardman,et al.  Noise and air quality valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice models , 2004 .

[2]  M. Bierlaire,et al.  The estimation of generalized extreme value models from choice-based samples , 2008 .

[3]  M. Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete choice models with latent choice sets , 1995 .

[4]  F. Koppelman,et al.  Factor Analytic Approach to Incorporating Systematic Taste Variation into Models of Residential Location Choice , 1998 .

[5]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Modelling the Choice of Residential Location , 1977 .

[6]  Sigrun Beige.  Long-term mobility decisions in the life course , 2006 .

[7]  J. Thill.  Modeling Store Choices with Cross-Sectional and Pooled Cross-Sectional Data: A Comparison , 1995 .

[8]  Khandker M. Nurul Habib,et al.  Modeling Choice of Residential Location and Home Type:Recent Movers in Austin, Texas , 2008 .

[9]  Morton E. O'Kelly,et al.  Spatial Interaction Models:Formulations and Applications , 1988 .

[10]  D Simmonds,et al.  THE TRANS-PENNINE CORRIDOR MODEL , 2001 .

[11]  M. Fischer,et al.  Spatial Choices and Processes , 1990 .

[12]  Andrea Papola,et al.  DOMINANCE AMONG ALTERNATIVES IN RANDOM UTILITY MODELS: A GENERAL FRAMEWORK AND AN APPLICATION TO DESTINATION CHOICE , 2005 .

[13]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[14]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A MIXED SPATIALLY CORRELATED LOGIT MODEL: FORMULATION AND APPLICATION TO RESIDENTIAL CHOICE MODELING , 2004 .

[15]  G. Olsson.  Explanation, Prediction, and Meaning Variance: An Assessment of Distance Interaction Models , 1970 .

[16]  Alan Geoffrey Wilson,et al.  Complex Spatial Systems , 2000 .

[17]  J. Cooper,et al.  Energy Trade-offs and Market Responses in Transport and Residential Land-use Patterns: Promoting Sustainable Development Policy , 2001 .

[18]  K. Axhausen,et al.  Feldbericht der Befragung zur langfristigen räumlichen Mobilität , 2005 .

[19]  Yacov Y. Haimes,et al.  Decision Making with Multiple Objectives , 1985 .

[20]  Andrea Papola,et al.  Random utility models with implicit availability/perception of choice alternatives for the simulation of travel demand , 2001 .

[21]  Jae Hong Kim,et al.  The Intention to Move and Residential Location Choice Behaviour , 2005 .

[22]  Andrea Papola,et al.  Alternative approaches to trip distribution modelling: A retrospective review and suggestions for combining different approaches , 2007 .

[23]  C. Manski.  The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[24]  A S Fotheringham,et al.  A New Set of Spatial-Interaction Models: The Theory of Competing Destinations † , 1983 .

[25]  Kay W. Axhausen,et al.  Verkehrsmodell für den öffentlichen Verkehr des Kantons Zürich , 2005 .

[26]  A. Fotheringham.  Note---Consumer Store Choice and Choice Set Definition , 1988 .

[27]  Ennio Cascetta,et al.  Transportation Systems Analysis: Models and Applications , 2009 .