A major concern of geographers has been the explanation and prediction of spatial choice behavior. Several discrete choice models have been developed which attempt to account for the use of different transport routes, modes, shopping centers, and so on. One of the fundamental issues associated with these models is the problem of model specification; furthermore, each type of model can potentially give disparate results for the same spatial choice situation. In this paper the models and their characteristics are summarized, and a generalized method for comparing the results yielded by alternative model specifications, or results obtained from different model formulations, are presented. The procedure is an application of recent developments in heuristic methods for comparing related matrices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurnettP, 1973, “The dimensions of alternatives in spatial choice processes”Geographical Analysis5181–204
2.
Charles River Associates, 1976Disaggregate Travel Demand Models National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Phase 1 Report, Volumes 1, 2, Charles River Associates, Cambridge, MA
3.
CostanzoC MHalperinW CGaleNRichardsonG D, 1982, “An alternative method for assessing goodness-of-fit for logit models”Environment and Planning A14963–971
4.
CoxD R, 1962, “Further results on tests of separate families of hypotheses”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological)24406–424
5.
CrittleF JJohnsonL W, 1980User Manual: Basic Logit (BLOGIT) Australian Road Research Board Technical Manual, ATM-9, Australian Road Research Board, 500 Burwood Highway, Vermont South, Victoria 3133
6.
DaganzoC F, 1979a, “Calibration and prediction with random utility models: Some recent advances and unresolved questions” paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Behavioral Travel Modelling, Elsbee, FRG; copy available from Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA
7.
DaganzoC F, 1979bMultinomial Probit: The Theory and Its Application to Demand Forecasting (Academic Press, New York)
8.
DaganzoC FBouthelierFSheffiY, 1977, “Multinomial probit and qualitative choice: A computationally efficient algorithm”Transportation Science11253–274
9.
DaganzoC FSheffiY, 1977, “On stochastic models of traffic assignments”Transportation Science11338–358
10.
DomencichT AMcFaddenD, 1975Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis (North-Holland, Amsterdam)
11.
EdgingtonE S, 1980Randomization Tests (Marcel Dekker, New York)
12.
FisherR A, 1935Design of Experiments (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh)
13.
GaudryM J IDagenaisM G, 1979, “The dogit model”Transportation Research B13105–111
HansonSHansonP, 1981, “The travel activity patterns of urban residents: Dimensions and relationships to sociodemographic characteristics”Economic Geography57332–347
16.
HausmanJWiseD, 1978, “A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences”Econometrica46403–426
17.
HensherD, 1978, “A review of individual choice modelling” report prepared for the Australian Department of Environment, Housing, and Community Development, Housing Research Grant AH2, Project 73; copy available from School of Economic and Financial Studies, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW
18.
HensherD, 1981, “A practical concern about the relevance of alternative-specific constants for new alternatives in simple logit models”Transportation Research B15407–410
19.
HensherDJohnsonL, 1981Applied Discrete Choice Modelling (John Wiley, New York)
HorowitzJ, 1980, “The accuracy of the multinomial logit as an approximation to the multinomial probit model of travel demand”Transportation Research B14331–341
22.
HorowitzJ, 1981a, “Identification and diagnosis of specification errors in the multinomial logit model”Transportation Research B15345–360
23.
HorowitzJ, 1981b, “Testing the multinomial logit against the multinomial probit without estimating the probit parameters”Transportation Science15153–163
24.
HorowitzJ, 1982, “Specification tests for probabilistic choice models”Transportation Research A16383–394
25.
HubertL JGolledgeR G, 1981, “A heuristic method for the comparison of related structures”Journal of Mathematical Psychology23214–226
26.
HubertL JSchultzJ V, 1976, “Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy”British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology29190–241
27.
KrantzD HTverskyA, 1971, “Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology”Psychological Review78151–179
28.
LouviereJ J, 1982, “Applications of functional measurement to problems in spatial decision-making” in Proximity and Preference Eds GolledgeR GRaynerJ N, (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) pp 191–213
29.
LuceR D, 1959Individual Choice Behavior (John Wiley, New York)
30.
McCarthyP S, 1980, “A study of the importance of generalized attributes in shopping choice behavior”Environment and Planning A121269–1286
31.
McFaddenD, 1978, “Modelling the choice of residential location” in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models Eds KarlqvistALundqvistLSnickarsFWeibullJ W, (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 75–96
32.
McFaddenD, 1979, “Qualitative methods for analyzing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments” in Behavioural Travel Modelling Eds HensherDStopherP R, (Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent) pp 279–318
33.
McFaddenDTalvitieA, 1977Demand Model Estimation and Validation Final Report 263–231, Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, University of California, Berkeley, CA
34.
McFaddenDTrainDTyeW, 1977, “An application of diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevant alternatives property of the multinomial logit model”Transportation Research Recordnumber 637, 39–45
35.
McFaddenDTyeWTrainD, 1976, “Diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevant alternatives property of the multinomial logit model” WP-7616, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA
36.
McLynnJ, 1973, “A technical note on a class of fully competitive modal choice models” unpublished manuscript, DTM Corporation, Bethesda, MD
37.
MantelN, 1967, “The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach”Cancer Research27209–220
38.
PipkinJ S, 1981a, “Cognitive behavioral geography and repetitive travel” in Behavioral Problems in Geography Revisited Eds CoxK RGolledgeR G, (Methuen, Andover, Hants) pp 145–181
39.
PipkinJ S, 1981b, “The concept of choice and cognitive explanations of spatial behavior”Economic Geography57315–331
40.
RichardsM, 1982, “Disaggregate demand models—problems and prospects”Transportation Research A16345–362
41.
RushtonG, 1969, “The scaling of locational preferences” in Behavioral Problems in Geography: A Symposium Eds CoxK RGolledgeR G, (Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL) pp 197–227
42.
SheffiY, 1979, “Estimating probabilities among nested alternatives”Transportation Research B13189–205
43.
SheppardE S, 1979, “Notes on spatial interaction”The Professional Geographer318–15
44.
SheppardE S, 1980, “The ideology of spatial choice”Papers of the Regional Science Association45197–213
45.
SneathP H ASokalR R, 1973Numerical Taxonomy (W H Freeman, New York)
46.
SobelK R, 1980, “Travel demand forecasting with the nested MNL model” paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Fifty-Ninth Meeting, January; copy available from Cambridge Systematics, Cambridge, MA
WilliamsH C W L, 1981, “Random utility theory and probabilistic choice models” in Optimization in Locational and Transport Analysis Eds WilsonA GCoelhoJ DMacgillS MWilliamsH C W L, (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 46–84
53.
WilliamsH C W LOrtuzarJ D, 1982a, “Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-specification of travel demand models”Transportation Research B16167–219
54.
WilliamsH C W LOrtuzarJ D, 1982b, “Travel demand and response analysis—some integrating themes”Transportation Research A16345–362
55.
WolfeD A, 1976, “On testing equality of related correlation coefficients”Biometrika63214–215
56.
WolfeD A, 1977, “A distribution-free test for related correlation coefficients”Technometrics19507–509
57.
WrigleyN, 1980, “An approach to the modelling of shop-choice patterns: An exploratory analysis of purchasing patterns in a British city” in Geography and the Urban Environment, Volume 3 Eds HerbertD TJohnstonR J, (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex) pp 45–85
58.
WrigleyN, 1981, “Categorical data analysis” in Quantitative Geography: A British View Eds WrigleyNBennettR J, (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon) pp 111–122
59.
WrigleyN, 1982, “Quantitative methods: Developments in discrete choice modelling”Progress in Human Geography6547–562
60.
WrigleyNDunnR, 1983a, “Stochastic panel-data models of urban shopping behaviour: 1. Purchasing at individual stores in a single city”Environment and Planning A16629–650
61.
WrigleyNDunnR, 1983b, “Stochastic panel-data models of urban shopping behaviour: 2. Multistore purchasing patterns and the Dirichlet model”Environment and Planning A16759–778
