Results are presented from a study of possible order effects in stated-choice experiments tested in the context of transport mode choice decisions. A stated-choice experiment with three alternatives—car, public transport, and bicycle—is used to analyze whether the sequence in which choice sets are presented influences the estimated utility functions of transport modes. The data were collected by means of a self-administered mail questionnaire. More than 950 respondents participated in the experiment. The analyses show that order effects are relatively small but significant. The appearance of the public transport alternative before the bicycle in the choice task influences the utility of public transport significantly. Order effects depend on trip purpose.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HensherD. A.Stated Preference Analysis of Travel Choices: The State of Practice. Transportation, Vol. 21, 1994, pp. 107–134.
2.
LouviereJ. J.HensherD. A. and SwaitJ. D.. Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Application.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2000.
3.
van der WaerdenP.TimmermansH. and BorgersA.. PAMELA: Parking Analysis Model for Predicting Effects in Local Area. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1781, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 10–18.
4.
O'FallonC.SullivanC. and HensherD. A.. Constraints Affecting Mode Choices by Morning Car Commuters. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, 2004, pp. 17–29.
5.
ShiftanY.VaryD. and GeyerD.. Demand for Park Shuttle Services—A Stated Preference Approach. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 14, 2006, pp. 52–59.
6.
TilahunN. Y.LevinsonD. and KrizekK. J.. Trails, Lanes, or Traffic: Value of Different Bicycle Facilities Using an Adaptive Stated-Preference Survey: Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
7.
HensherD. A.StopherP. R. and LouviereJ. J.. An Exploratory Analysis of the Effect of Number of Choice Sets in Designed Choice Experiments: An Airline Choice Application. Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 7, 2001, pp. 373–379.
8.
PearmainD.SwansonJ.KroesE. and BradleyM.. Stated Preference Techniques: A Guide to Practice, 2nd ed. Steer Davies Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, Richmond, Surrey, United Kingdom, 1991.
9.
WidlertS.Stated Preference Studies: The Design Affects the Results. In Travel Behavior Research: Updating the State of Play (OrtuzarJ. de D.HensherD. and Jara-DiazS., eds.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1998.
10.
DeShazoJ. R. and FermoG.. Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 44, 2002, pp. 123–143.
11.
OrmeB. K.AlpertM. I. and ChristensenE.. Assessing the Validity of Conjoint Analysis—Continued.Sawtooth Software Research Papers Series. Sequim, Wash., 1997.
12.
ArentzeT.BorgersA.TimmermansH. and DelMistroR.. Transport Stated Choice Responses: Effects of Task Complexity, Presentation Format and Literacy. Transportation Research, Vol. 39E, 2003, pp. 229–244.
13.
NerellaS. and BhatC. R.. Numerical Analysis of Effect of Sampling of Alternatives in Discrete Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1894, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 11–19.
14.
OrtúzarJ. de D. and WillumsenL. G.. Modelling Transport, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England, 2001.
15.
TharpM. and MarksL.. An Examination of the Effects of Attribute Order and Product Order Biases in Conjoint Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, 1990, pp. 563–570.
16.
ChrzanK.Three Kinds of Order Effects in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis. Marketing Letters, Vol. 5, No. 21994, pp. 165–172.
17.
Ben-AkivaM. E. and LermanS. R.. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.
