Skip to main content
Log in

Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stated preference (SP) methods are widely used in travel behaviour research and practice to identify behavioural responses to choice situations which are not revealed in the market, and where the attribute levels offered by existing choices are modified to such an extent that the reliability of revealed preference models as predictors of response is brought into question. This paper reviews recent developments in the application of SP models which add to their growing relevance in demand modelling and prediction. The main themes addressed include a comparative assessment of choice models and preference models, the importance of scaling when pooling different types of data, especially the appeal of SP data as an enriching strategy in the context of revealed preference models, hierarchical designs when the number of attributes make single experiments too complex for the respondent, and ways of accommodating dynamics (i.e. serial correlation and state dependence) in SP modelling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamowicz W, Louviere JJ & Williams M (1992) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Working Paper, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NH (1981)Foundations of Information Integration Theory. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NH (1982)Methods of Information Integration Theory. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates J (1988) Stated preference methods in transport research.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. XXII (1): 1–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates JJ et al. (1987)The Value of Travel Time Savings. Policy Journals, United Kingdom.

  • Batsell RR & Louviere JJ (1991) Experimental analysis of choice.Marketing Letters 2(3): 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton WP, Meghdir H & Carragher FJ (1992) Assessing the effectiveness of transportation control measures: Use of stated preference models to project mode split for work trips.Transportation Research Record 1346: 44–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva ME & Lerman S (1985)Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva ME & Morikawa T (1990) Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions.Transportation Research 24A(6): 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M, Morikawa T & Shiroishi F (1992) Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data.Journal of Business Research 24(2): 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsch-Supan A (1986)Econometric Analysis of Discrete Choice. Springer-Verlaag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley MA & Bovy PHL (1984) A stated preference analysis of bicyclist route choice. PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, Sussex (pp 39–53).

  • Bradley MA & Daly AJ (1991) Estimation of logit choice models using mixed stated preference and revealed preference information. Paper presented to the6th International Conference on Travel Behavior, Quebec, May 22–24, 1991.

  • Bradley MA & Daly AJ (1992) Use of the logit scaling approach in stated preference analysis. Paper presented at the7th World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, July.

  • Bradley MA & Daly AJ (1992) Stated preference surveys. In: Ampt ES, Richardson AJ & Meyburg AH (eds),Selected Readings in Transport Survey Methodology. Eucalyptus Press, Melbourne (pp 31–35).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunch DS & Batsell RR (1989) How many choices are enough? The effect of the number of observations on maximum likelihood estimator performance in the analysis of discrete choice repeated measures data sets with the multinomial logit model. Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman RG & Staelin, R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the. stochastic utility model.Journal of Marketing Research 19: 288–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crask MR & Fox RJ (1981) An exploration of the interval properties of three commonly used marketing research scales: a magnitude estimation approach.Journal of the Market Research Society 29: 317–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson JD (1973) Forecasting traffic on STOL.Operations Research Quarterly 24: 561–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Econometric Software (1992)LIMDEP 6.0, Econometric Software Inc., New York and Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elrod T Louviere JJ & Davey KS (1992) An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice based conjoint models.Journal of Marketing Research XXIX(3): 368–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green PE & Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook.Journal of Consumer Research 5: 103–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green PE & Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing research: New developments and directions.Journal of Marketing 54(4): 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (1990)Econometric Analysis. MacMillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunn HF, Bradley MA & Hensher DA (1992) High speed rail market projection: survey design and analysis.Transportation 19: 117–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hague Consulting Group (1988) A stated preference analysis of public transport service, station and vehicle improvements in Stockholm. Report prepared for Stockholm Transport, October 1988 (mimeo)

  • Hahn GJ & Shapiro SS (1966) A catalogue and computer programme for design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional experiments.General Electric Research and Development Centre Report No 66-C-165, Schenectady, New York.

  • Henry F (1982) Multivariate analysis and ordinal data.American Sociological Review 47: 299–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (1982) Functional measurement, individual preference and discrete-choice modelling: theory and application.Journal of Economic Psychology II(3): 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (1986) Sequential and full information maximum likelihood estimation of a nested logit model.Review of Economics and Statistics LXVIII(4): 657–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, DA (1991) Hierarchical stated response designs and estimation in the context of bus use preferences.Logistics and Transportation Reviews 26(4): 299–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (1993) Treating the replications of a stated preference experiment as a panel specification. Institute of Transport Studies, Graduate School of Business, The University of Syndey (in preparation).

  • Hensher DA & Barnard PO (1990) The orthogonality issue in stated choice designs. In: Fischer M, Nijkamp, P & Papageorgiou Y (eds),Spatial Choices and Processes (pp 365–278). North Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA & Battellino HC (1993) The use of discrete choice models in the determination of community preferences towards sub-arterial traffic management devices. Proceeding of the 7th World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA & Louviere JJ (1983) Identifying individual preferences for international air fares.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy XVII(2): 225–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA & Stopher PR (eds) (1979)Behavioural Travel Modelling. Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA, Barnard P, Milthorpe F & Smith N (1989) Urban tollways and the valuation of travel time savings.The Economic Record 66(193): 146–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz JL (1981) Sampling specification and data errors in probabilistic discrete-choice models, Appendix C. In: Hensher DA & Johnson LW (eds),Applied Discrete-Choice Modelling (pp 417–435). Croom Helm (London) and Wiley (New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz JL & Louviere JJ (1993) Testing predicted probabilities against observed discrete choices in probabistic discrete choice models.Marketing Science (in press).

  • Johnson LW (1990) Discrete choice analysis with ordered alternatives. In: Fischer MM, Nijkamp P Papageorgiou YY (eds),Spatial Choices and Presses (pp 279–289). North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocur G, Adler T, Hyman W & Audet E (1982)Guide to Forecasting Travel Demand with Direct Utility Measurement. UMTA, USA Department of Transportation, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes E & Sheldon R (1988) Are there any limits to the amount consumers are prepared to pay for product improvements? Paper presented at the PTRC Annual Summer Meeting, July.

  • Lerman SR & Louviere JJ (1978) On the use of functional measurement to identify the functional form of the utility expression in travel demand models.Transportation Research Record No 673 (pp 78–86).

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1979) Attitudes, attitudinal measurement and the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. In: Hensher DA Stopher PR (eds),Behavioural Travel Modelling, Croom Helm, London, 782–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1988) Analysing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Paper No. 67, Newbury Park, Beverly Hills.

  • Louviere JJ (1992) Special issue on experimental choice analysis.Journal of Business Research 24(6): 89–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1993) Conjoint analysis. In: R Bagozzi (ed),Handbook of Marketing Research. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ & Gaeth GJ (1987) Decomposing the determinants of retail facility choice using the method of hierarchical information integration: a supermarket illustration.Journal of Retailing 63: 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, JJ & Hensher DA (1982) On the design and analysis of simulated or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling.Transportation Research Record 890: 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ & Hensher, DA (1983) Using discrete choice models with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for a unique cultural event.Journal of Consumer Research, 10(3), 348–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ & Kocur G (1983) The magnitude of individual level variation in demand coefficients: a Xenia, Ohio, case example.Transportation Research 17A: 363–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ & Timmermans H. (1990) Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review.Leisure Sciences 12: 9–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ & Woodworm GG (1983) Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data.Journal of Marketing Research 20: 350–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Meyer R, Stetzer F & Beavers LL (1973) Theory, methodology and findings in mode choice behaviour. Working Paper No. 11, The Institute of Urban and Regional Research, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA & Shocker A (1992)Conjoint Measurement: A Short Course. Course offered annually in Australia and the USA.

  • Madden GG (1992) Social experimentation in economics: an overview of the stated-preference experimental design method. Paper presented to the Fourth Conference of the Australian Centre for Experimental Economics, University of Adelaide, 19–21 June.

  • Mason CH & Perreault WD (1991) Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis.Journal of Marketing Research XXVIII: 268–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1981) Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski CF & McFadden D (eds),Structural Analysis of Discrete Data (pp 198–272). MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer RJ, Levin IP & Louviere JJ (1978) Functional analysis of mode choice.Transportation Research Record No. 673 (pp 1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa T (1989) Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T.

  • Morikawa T, McFadden D & Ben-Akiva ME (1990) Incorporating psychometric data in econometric travel demand models. Kyoto University Working Paper, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kyoto, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa T, Ben-Akiva ME & Yamada K (1992) Estimation of mode choice models with serially correlated RP and SP data. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, July.

  • Ortuzar J de Dios & Garrido RA (1993) On the probabilistic interpretation of semantic scales in stated preference rating experiments. Department of Transport Engineering, Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile (unpublished).

  • Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E & Bradley M (1991),Stated Preference Techniques: A Guide to Practice, 2nd edition. Steer Davies Gleave and Hague Consulting Group.

  • Senna L ADS (1992) Traveller's willingness to pay for reductions in travel time variability. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, July.

  • Swait J Louviere JJ (1993) The role of the scale parameter in the estimation and comparison of multinomial logit models.Journal of Marketing Research (in press).

  • Timmermans, HJP (1988) Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice processes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Geographers, Phoenix, Arizona.

  • Wardman, M. (1988) A Comparison of revealed and stated preference models of travel behaviour.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy XXII(1): 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winship C & Mare RD (1984) Regression models with ordinal variables,American Sociological Review49: 512–525.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

An earlier modified version was presented as the keynote address to the 1993 National Conference on Tourism Research, held at the University of Sydney, 19 March 1993. The comments of Jordan Louviere, Lester Johnson, Paul Hooper, W.G. Waters II and Mark Bradley are appreciated.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hensher, D.A. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21, 107–133 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098788

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098788

Key words

Navigation