Constructing the universal choice set in spatial choice models developed at the level of elemental alternatives (atomistic models) is challenging because disaggregate data on the attributes of nonchosen alternatives are often not available. Even when the disaggregate data on nonchosen alternatives are available, matching two data sources will inevitably be error prone given that they might be collected at different times and they might have different coding for categorical variables. An important practical question in the estimation of such atomistic models, therefore, is how to construct the universal choice set in the absence of disaggregate data on the attributes of the nonchosen alternatives. This paper presents a novel approach for spatial imputation of attributes of nonchosen alternatives for estimation and application of atomistic spatial choice models in the absence of disaggregate data. The proposed approach uses the iterative proportional fitting algorithm to impute the attributes of nonchosen alternatives from aggregated data on elemental alternatives. The proposed method is validated with a Monte Carlo experiment and applied to real data in the London residential location choice context.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LermanS. R.Location, Housing, Automobile Ownership, and Mode to Work: A Joint Choice Model. In Transportation Research Record 610, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 6–11.
2.
McFaddenD.Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. In Transportation Research Record 673, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978, pp. 72–77.
3.
CadwalladerM.A Behavioral Model of Consumer Spatial Decision Making. Economic Geography, Vol. 51, No. 4, 1975, pp. 339–349.
4.
KoppelmanF. S., and HauserJ. R.. Destination Choice Behavior for Non-Grocery-Shopping Trips. In Transportation Research Record 673, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978, pp. 157–165.
5.
QuigleyJ. M.Consumer Choice of Dwelling, Neighborhood, and Public Services. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1985, pp. 41–63.
6.
ZolfaghariA., SivakumarA., and PolakJ. W.. Choice Set Formation in Residential Location Choice Modeling: Empirical Comparison of Alternative Approaches. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
7.
LeeB. H. Y., WaddellP., WangL., and PendyalaR. M.. Operationalizing Time–Space Prism Accessibility in a Building-Level Residential Choice Model: Empirical Results from the Puget Sound Region. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
8.
WaddellP.Parcel-Level Microsimulation of Land Use and Transportation: The Walking Scale of Urban Sustainability. In 12th International Conference on Travel Behavior Research, Jaipur, India, 2009.
9.
BayerP., McMillanR., and RuebenK.. An Equilibrium Model of Sorting in an Urban Housing Market. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2004.
10.
Guevara-CueC. A.Endogeneity and Sampling of Alternatives in Spatial Choice Models. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2010.
11.
SchiraldiP., SeilerS., and SmithH.. Supermarket Choice with Multi-Store Shopping: Measuring the Effect of Format Regulation. Working paper. 2011.
12.
ZolfaghariA.Methodological and Empirical Challenges in Modelling Residential Location Choices. PhD dissertation. Imperial College London, 2013.
13.
BhatC. R.A Comprehensive Dwelling Unit Choice Model Accommodating Psychological Constructs within a Search Strategy for Consideration Set Formation. Technical paper. Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 2015.
14.
ZhouB., and KockelmanK. M.. Microsimulation of Residential Land Development and Household Location Choices: Bidding for Land in Austin, Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2077, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 106–112.
15.
BellD. R., HoT.-H., and TangC. S.. Determining Where to Shop: Fixed and Variable Costs of Shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1998, pp. 352–369.
16.
TrainK.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 2003.
17.
de PalmaA., MotamediK., PicardN., and WaddellP.. A Model of Residential Location Choice with Endogenous Housing Prices and Traffic for the Paris Region. European Transport, 2005.
18.
LermanS.Disaggregate Behavioral Model of Urban Mobility Decisions. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1975.
19.
Ben-AkivaM., and WatanatadaT.. Application of a Continuous Spatial Choice Logit Model. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (ManskiC. F. and McFaddenD. L., eds), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1981.
20.
McFaddenD.Modelling the Choice of Residential Location. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, 1978.
21.
ManskiC. F., and LermanS. R.. The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, Vol. 45, No. 8, 1977, pp. 1977–1988.
22.
HaslettS., JonesG., NobleA., and BallasD.. More for Less? Comparing Small Area Estimation, Spatial Microsimulation, and Mass Imputation. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, Va., 2010, pp. 1584–1598.
23.
MüllerK., and AxhausenK. W.. Population Synthesis for Microsimulation: State of the Art. ETH Zürich, Institut für Verkehrsplanung, Transporttechnik, Strassen-und Eisenbahnbau (IVT), 2010.
24.
PritchardD. R., and MillerE. J.. Advances in Population Synthesis: Fitting Many Attributes per Agent and Fitting to Household and Person Margins Simultaneously. Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2012, pp. 685–704.
25.
BeckmanR. J., BaggerlyK. A., and McKayM. D.. Creating Synthetic Baseline Populations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1996, pp. 415–429.
26.
DavisM. W.Production of Conditional Simulations via the LU Triangular Decomposition of the Covariance Matrix. Mathematical Geology, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1987, pp. 91–98.
27.
BayerP., McMillanR., and RuebenK.. Residential Segregation in General Equilibrium. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.
28.
GuevaraC. A., and Ben-AkivaM.. Endogeneity in Residential Location Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1977, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 60–66.
29.
Data Management and Analysis Group (DMAG). The 2002 London Household Survey Documentation. Greater London Authority, 2003.
30.
ChiaradiaA., HillierB., BarnesY., and SchwanderC.. Residential Property Value Patterns in London: Space Syntax Spatial Analysis. In 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm, 2009.
31.
HansenW. G.How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1959, pp. 73–76.
32.
BhatC. R., and GuoJ.. A Mixed Spatially Correlated Logit Model: Formulation and Application to Residential Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2004, pp. 147–168.
33.
BekhorS., Ben-AkivaM. E., and RammingM. S.. Evaluation of Choice Set Generation Algorithms for Route Choice Models. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 144, No. 1, 2006, pp. 235–247.
34.
SunL., and ErathA.. A Bayesian Network Approach for Population Synthesis. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 61, 2015, pp. 49–62.
