, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 107–133 | Cite as

Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice

  • David A. Hensher


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.

Key words

choice situations models prediction stated preference (SP) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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 Working Paper, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Edmonton (unpublished).Google Scholar
  2. Anderson NH (1981)Foundations of Information Integration Theory. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson NH (1982)Methods of Information Integration Theory. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bates J (1988) Stated preference methods in transport research.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. XXII (1): 1–137.Google Scholar
  5. Bates JJ et al. (1987)The Value of Travel Time Savings. Policy Journals, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  6. Batsell RR & Louviere JJ (1991) Experimental analysis of choice.Marketing Letters 2(3): 199–214.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Ben-Akiva ME & Lerman S (1985)Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Ben-Akiva ME & Morikawa T (1990) Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions.Transportation Research 24A(6): 485–495.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Borsch-Supan A (1986)Econometric Analysis of Discrete Choice. Springer-Verlaag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Bradley MA & Bovy PHL (1984) A stated preference analysis of bicyclist route choice. PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, Sussex (pp 39–53).Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Davidson JD (1973) Forecasting traffic on STOL.Operations Research Quarterly 24: 561–9.Google Scholar
  20. Econometric Software (1992)LIMDEP 6.0, Econometric Software Inc., New York and Sydney.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Green PE & Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook.Journal of Consumer Research 5: 103–123.Google Scholar
  23. Green PE & Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing research: New developments and directions.Journal of Marketing 54(4): 3–19.Google Scholar
  24. Greene WH (1990)Econometric Analysis. MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Gunn HF, Bradley MA & Hensher DA (1992) High speed rail market projection: survey design and analysis.Transportation 19: 117–139.Google Scholar
  26. 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)Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Henry F (1982) Multivariate analysis and ordinal data.American Sociological Review 47: 299–304.Google Scholar
  29. Hensher DA (1982) Functional measurement, individual preference and discrete-choice modelling: theory and application.Journal of Economic Psychology II(3): 323–335.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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).Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Hensher DA & Louviere JJ (1983) Identifying individual preferences for international air fares.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy XVII(2): 225–245.Google Scholar
  36. Hensher DA & Stopher PR (eds) (1979)Behavioural Travel Modelling. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Horowitz JL & Louviere JJ (1993) Testing predicted probabilities against observed discrete choices in probabistic discrete choice models.Marketing Science (in press).Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Louviere JJ (1988) Analysing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Sage University Paper No. 67, Newbury Park, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
  46. Louviere JJ (1992) Special issue on experimental choice analysis.Journal of Business Research 24(6): 89–189.Google Scholar
  47. Louviere JJ (1993) Conjoint analysis. In: R Bagozzi (ed),Handbook of Marketing Research. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Louviere JJ & Timmermans H. (1990) Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review.Leisure Sciences 12: 9–32.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA & Shocker A (1992)Conjoint Measurement: A Short Course. Course offered annually in Australia and the USA.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Mason CH & Perreault WD (1991) Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis.Journal of Marketing Research XXVIII: 268–280.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Meyer RJ, Levin IP & Louviere JJ (1978) Functional analysis of mode choice.Transportation Research Record No. 673 (pp 1–7).Google Scholar
  60. Morikawa T (1989) Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. 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).Google Scholar
  64. 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.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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).Google Scholar
  67. 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.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Winship C & Mare RD (1984) Regression models with ordinal variables,American Sociological Review49: 512–525.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Hensher
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Transport Studies, Graduate School of BusinessThe University SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations