This paper defines a reality-based approach to soliciting stated preference data. It is related to existing preference methods in regard to both a common conceptual framework and recent trends in the literature. The reality-based approach is compared with the standard approach in both general characteristics and design procedures. Its expectations-based validity is illustrated with an application to pedestrian street-crossing behavior in the Tampa Bay area of Florida. The approach combines the realism of revealed-preference surveys and the flexibility of standard stated preference surveys. It adds to the toolbox of travel behavior research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LouviereJ. J., HensherD. A., and SwaitJ. D.. Stated Choice Method: Analysis and Application.Cambridge University PressCambridge, United Kingdom,2000.
2.
BatesJ.Reflections on Stated Preference: Theory and Practice. In Travel Behavior Research: Updating the State of Play (OrtuzarJ. D. D., HensherD., and Jara-DiazS., eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1998.
3.
Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Supporting Documentation.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1999.
4.
HensherD., LouviereJ., and SwaitJ.. Combining Sources of Preference Data.Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 89, 1999, pp. 197–221.
5.
AdamowiczW., LouviereJ., and SwaitJ.. Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods.U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998.
6.
FowkesT., and WardmanM.. The Design of Stated Preference Travel Choice Experiments.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 27–44.
7.
HensherD. A.Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice.Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 107–133.
8.
StopherP. R., and HensherD. A.. Are More Profiles Better than Fewer? Searching for Parsimony and Relevance in Stated Choice Experiments. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1719, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 165–174.
9.
WangD., LiJ., and TimmermansH.. Reducing Respondent Burden, Information Processing Effort, and Incomprehensibility in Stated Preference Surveys: Principles and Properties of the Pairwise Design Strategy. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1768, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 71–78.
10.
ArentzeT., BorgersA., and TimmermansH.. Transport Stated Choice Responses: Effects of Task Complexity, Presentation Format and Literacy.Transportation Research E, Vol. 39, 2003, pp. 229–244.
11.
Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: Summary Guide.Department of Transport, Local Government and Regions, London, 2002.
12.
NolandR. B., SmallK. A., KoskenojaP. M., and ChuX. H.. Simulating Travel Reliability.Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 535–564.
13.
BatesJ.Econometric Issues in Stated Preference Analysis.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 59–9.
14.
WardmanM.A Comparison of Revealed Preference and Stated Preference Models of Travel Behavior.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol. 22, 1988, pp. 71–1.
15.
ChuX., and BaltesM. R.. Measuring Pedestrian Quality of Service for Midblock Street Crossings: Selection of Potential Determinants. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 89–97.
16.
PalamarthyS., MahmassaniH. S., and MachemehlR. B.. Models of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at Signalized Intersections.Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin,1994.
17.
CriderL. B., BurdenJ., and HanF.. Multimodal LOS—Point Level of Service Project—Final Report.Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, 2001.
18.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., OttenbergR. M., McLeodD. S., and GuttenplanM.. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 82–88.
19.
ChuX., GuttenplanM., and BaltesM. R.. Why People Cross Where They Do: The Role of Street Environment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1878, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 3–10.
20.
ChuX.Testing Behavioral Hypotheses for Street Crossing.Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa,2003.
21.
SwaitJ., and AdamowiczW.. The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behavior: Discriminating Between Contribution and Confusion. Staff Paper 9609. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, 1996.
22.
HensherD. A., and GreeneW. H.. Specification and Estimation of the Nested Logit Model: Alternative Normalizations.Transportation Research B, Vol. 36, 2002, pp. 1–17.
23.
BaltesM. R., and ChuX.. Pedestrian Level of Service for Midblock Street Crossings. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1818, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 125–133.
24.
HineJ., and RussellJ.. Traffic Barriers and Pedestrian Crossing Behavior.Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 230–239.
25.
ZegeerC. V., StewartJ. R., HuangH., and LagerweyP.. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Analysis of Pedestrian Crashes in 30 Cities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 56–68.
26.
DaviesA.Images and Stated Preference: Do People Need to Be Told What the Attributes Are or Do They Notice Them Anyway? Presented at 3rd Conference of Environmental Psychology in the UK, Aberdeen, June 23–25, 2003.
27.
LouviereJ., AndersonD., SwaitJ., and Gray-LeeJ.. Cross-Task and External Validity Comparisons of SP and RP Choice Models. Presented at 1995 International Conference on Retailing and Consumer Services, Gold Coast, Australia, 1995.
