Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A practical assessment of stated preferences methods


Stated preferences data in the form of rankings, ratings and choices were collected in Santiago and discrete choice models estimated with them. The models were compared in terms of accuracy v/s the cost of obtaining the information and models. All methods produced reasonable but different models and fairly close subjective values of time. In terms of production costs the ranking method was a clear looser although the experimental design was slightly biased against it. Finally, the use of computerised interviews is highly recommended particularly for dealing with low income people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bates JJ (1988) Econometric issues in stated preference analysis.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 59–69.

  2. Bates JJ & Roberts M (1983) Recent experience with models fitted to stated preferences data.Proceedings 11th PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Sussex, England, July 1983.

  3. Ben-Akiva ME, Morikawa T & Shiroishi F (1989) Analysis of the reliability of preference ranking data.Journal of Business Research 24: 149–164.

  4. Bradley M (1988) Realism and adaptation in designing hypothetical travel choice concepts.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 121–137.

  5. Bradley M & Bovy PHL (1986) Functional measurement of cyclists' route choice in the Netherlands. In: Ruhl A (ed)Behavioural Research for Transport Policy. Utrecht: VNU Science Press.

  6. Bradley M & Kroes EP (1990) Simultaneous analysis of stated preference and revealed preference information.Proceedings 18th PTRC Summer Annual Meeting, University of Sussex, England, September 1990.

  7. Bradley M & Daly AJ (1992) Uses of the logit scaling approach in stated preference analysis.Proceedings 6th World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, France, July 1992.

  8. Chapman RG & Staelin R (1982) Exploiting rank ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model.Journal of Marketing Research 19: 288–301.

  9. Daly AJ (1992)ALOGIT 3.2 User's Guide. Hague Consulting Group, The Hague.

  10. Garrido RA (1992) The influence of the semantic scale on the estimation of values of time from linear regression models fitted to stated preference data.Working Paper 62, Department of Transport Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

  11. Gaudry MJI, Jara-Díaz SR & Ortúzar J de D. (1989) Value of time sensitivity to model specification.Transportation Research 23B: 151–158.

  12. Elrod T, Louviere JJ & Davey KS (1992) An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models.Journal of Marketing Research 29: 368–377.

  13. Hahn GJ & Shapiro SS (1966) A catalogue and computer programme for design and analysis of orthogonal symmetric and asymmetric fractional experiments.Report No. 66-C-165. General Electric Research and Development Centre, Schenectady, New York.

  14. Hausman JA & Ruud PA (1987) Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data.Journal of Econometrics 34: 83–104.

  15. Hensher DA (1994) Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice.Transportation.

  16. Hensher DA & Barnard PO (1990) The orthogonality issue in stated choice designs. In: Fisher MM, Nijkamp P & Papageorgiou YY (eds)Spatial Choices and Processes. North Holland, Amsterdam.

  17. Jara-Díaz SR & Ortúzar J de D (1989) Introducing the expenditure rate in the estimation of mode choice models.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 23: 293–308.

  18. Johnson RM (1985)Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. Sairtooth Software Inc., Idaho.

  19. Kocur G, Adler T, Hyman W & Aunet B (1982) Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct utility assessment.Report No. UMTA-NH-11-1-82, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

  20. Kruskal JB (1965) Analysis of factorial experiments by estimating monotone transformations of the data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 27B: 251–263.

  21. Louviere JJ (1988) Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: a review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity.Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 93–119.

  22. Ortúzar J de D (1980) Mixed-mode demand forecasting techniques.Transportation Planning and Technology 6: 81–95.

  23. Ortúzar J de D (1989) Determining the preferences for frozen cargo exports. In: World Conference on Transport Research (eds)Transport Policy, Management and Technology Towards 2001. Ventura, California: Western Periodicals Co.

  24. Ortúzar J de D & Garrido RA (1994) On the semantic scale problem in stated preference rating experiments.Transportation.

  25. Ortúzar J de D, Ivelic AM & Candia A (1991) User perception of public transport level-of-service.Proceedings 6th International Conference on Travel Behaviour. Quebec, Canada, May 1991.

  26. Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E & Bradley M (1991)Stated Preference Techniques: A Guide to Practice. Steer Davies Gieave and Hague Consulting Group, London.

  27. SAS Institute Inc. (1982)SAS User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

  28. SDG (1990)The Game Generator: User Manual. Steer Davies Gleave Ltd., Richmond.

  29. Smith, SM (1986)PC-MDS Multidimensional Scaling and Conjoint Analysis Documentation. Brighman Young University, Provo, Utah.

  30. Wardman M. (1991) Stated preference methods and travel demand forecasting: an examination of the scale factor problem.Transportation Research 25A: 79–89.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ortúzar, J.D.D., Garrido, R.A. A practical assessment of stated preferences methods. Transportation 21, 289–305 (1994).

Download citation

Key words

  • choice
  • modelling
  • ranking
  • rating
  • stated preferences
  • value of time