logit和logit混合模型在空间决策背景下的选择抽样:德国淡水娱乐的模拟和应用

IF 3.1 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Oliver Becker, Tobias Börger, Jürgen Meyerhoff
{"title":"logit和logit混合模型在空间决策背景下的选择抽样:德国淡水娱乐的模拟和应用","authors":"Oliver Becker,&nbsp;Tobias Börger,&nbsp;Jürgen Meyerhoff","doi":"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Destination choice modeling is challenging as the number of feasible sites is often very large. Sampling of alternatives has been used successfully to make large choice sets manageable and yields consistent estimates under certain conditions. However, the specific structure of destination choice data has rarely been addressed explicitly. Besides large numbers of alternatives, it is characterized by a skewed distribution of travel costs with few low-cost nearby sites and a disproportionate increase in alternatives with distance. In this paper, we investigate how this characteristic travel cost structure affects the quality of destination choice models estimated on samples of alternatives. Comparing uniform and strategic sampling (Lemp and Kockelman, 2012), we find that (i) strategic sampling reduces bias and improves efficiency relative to uniform sampling, (ii) sampling performance generally declines with stronger travel cost sensitivity, and (iii) the gains from strategic sampling increase as travel cost sensitivity becomes stronger. For multinomial logit, strategic sampling yields high levels of accuracy and precision when drawing as few as 10 out of 20,000 alternatives. For mixed logit, bias is higher, while the protocol still offers substantial performance gains. After presenting Monte Carlo evidence, we apply both sampling approaches to a nationwide freshwater recreation dataset and examine their impact on welfare estimates for two policy scenarios, as well as on bias and efficiency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47952,"journal":{"name":"Resource and Energy Economics","volume":"84 ","pages":"Article 101535"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sampling of alternatives in spatial decision contexts with logit and logit mixture models: Simulation and application to freshwater recreation in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Becker,&nbsp;Tobias Börger,&nbsp;Jürgen Meyerhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Destination choice modeling is challenging as the number of feasible sites is often very large. Sampling of alternatives has been used successfully to make large choice sets manageable and yields consistent estimates under certain conditions. However, the specific structure of destination choice data has rarely been addressed explicitly. Besides large numbers of alternatives, it is characterized by a skewed distribution of travel costs with few low-cost nearby sites and a disproportionate increase in alternatives with distance. In this paper, we investigate how this characteristic travel cost structure affects the quality of destination choice models estimated on samples of alternatives. Comparing uniform and strategic sampling (Lemp and Kockelman, 2012), we find that (i) strategic sampling reduces bias and improves efficiency relative to uniform sampling, (ii) sampling performance generally declines with stronger travel cost sensitivity, and (iii) the gains from strategic sampling increase as travel cost sensitivity becomes stronger. For multinomial logit, strategic sampling yields high levels of accuracy and precision when drawing as few as 10 out of 20,000 alternatives. For mixed logit, bias is higher, while the protocol still offers substantial performance gains. After presenting Monte Carlo evidence, we apply both sampling approaches to a nationwide freshwater recreation dataset and examine their impact on welfare estimates for two policy scenarios, as well as on bias and efficiency.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resource and Energy Economics\",\"volume\":\"84 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101535\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resource and Energy Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765525000594\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resource and Energy Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765525000594","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的地选择建模具有挑战性,因为可行站点的数量通常非常大。备选方案的抽样已成功地用于使大的选择集易于管理,并在某些条件下产生一致的估计。然而,目的地选择数据的具体结构很少得到明确的解决。除了大量的选择外,它的特点是旅行成本分布不平衡,附近的低成本地点很少,而且随着距离的增加,选择的数量不成比例地增加。在本文中,我们研究了这种特征的旅行成本结构如何影响目的地选择模型的质量。比较均匀抽样和策略抽样(Lemp和Kockelman, 2012),我们发现(i)相对于均匀抽样,策略抽样减少了偏差,提高了效率;(ii)随着旅行成本敏感性的增强,抽样性能一般会下降;(iii)随着旅行成本敏感性的增强,策略抽样的收益会增加。对于多项逻辑,策略抽样产生高水平的准确性和精度,当绘制少至10的20,000个备选方案。对于混合logit,偏差更高,而协议仍然提供了大量的性能增益。在提供蒙特卡罗证据之后,我们将这两种抽样方法应用于全国淡水娱乐数据集,并检查它们对两种政策情景下福利估计的影响,以及偏差和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sampling of alternatives in spatial decision contexts with logit and logit mixture models: Simulation and application to freshwater recreation in Germany
Destination choice modeling is challenging as the number of feasible sites is often very large. Sampling of alternatives has been used successfully to make large choice sets manageable and yields consistent estimates under certain conditions. However, the specific structure of destination choice data has rarely been addressed explicitly. Besides large numbers of alternatives, it is characterized by a skewed distribution of travel costs with few low-cost nearby sites and a disproportionate increase in alternatives with distance. In this paper, we investigate how this characteristic travel cost structure affects the quality of destination choice models estimated on samples of alternatives. Comparing uniform and strategic sampling (Lemp and Kockelman, 2012), we find that (i) strategic sampling reduces bias and improves efficiency relative to uniform sampling, (ii) sampling performance generally declines with stronger travel cost sensitivity, and (iii) the gains from strategic sampling increase as travel cost sensitivity becomes stronger. For multinomial logit, strategic sampling yields high levels of accuracy and precision when drawing as few as 10 out of 20,000 alternatives. For mixed logit, bias is higher, while the protocol still offers substantial performance gains. After presenting Monte Carlo evidence, we apply both sampling approaches to a nationwide freshwater recreation dataset and examine their impact on welfare estimates for two policy scenarios, as well as on bias and efficiency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Resource and Energy Economics provides a forum for high level economic analysis of utilization and development of the earth natural resources. The subject matter encompasses questions of optimal production and consumption affecting energy, minerals, land, air and water, and includes analysis of firm and industry behavior, environmental issues and public policies. Implications for both developed and developing countries are of concern. The journal publishes high quality papers for an international audience. Innovative energy, resource and environmental analyses, including theoretical models and empirical studies are appropriate for publication in Resource and Energy Economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信