跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(54.80.249.22) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/01/20 07:35
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:方菀萍
研究生(外文):Wan-Ping Fang
論文名稱:個體選擇模式選擇集合之研究─以國道客運北高路線為例
論文名稱(外文):Disaggregate Intercity Passenger Mode Choice Models Considering Choice Set Generation
指導教授:段良雄段良雄引用關係
指導教授(外文):Liang-Siong Duann
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:交通管理學系碩博士班
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:123
中文關鍵詞:國道客運選擇集合羅吉特模式個體異質性
外文關鍵詞:incomplete pairwise comparisonheterogeneityLogit modelchoice sethighway passenger transport
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:21
  • 點閱點閱:1356
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:261
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究從選擇集合內生化之定義方式,尋找能合理解釋並可實際反映國道客運市場旅運者選擇行為之運具選擇模式,藉此瞭解國道客運旅運者對運具選擇之偏好,以期對未來營運者之行銷策略有所助益。
本研究利用不完全成對比較法,瞭解旅運者對客運公司各服務準則之感受度,以為不同選擇集合定義方式下個體選擇模式構建之基礎。模式構建包括決定論定義選擇集合之MNL模式、機率論定義選擇集合之CDM模式與PIAL模式。此外亦探討個體異質性問題,瞭解個體品味差異對選擇模式之影響。
研究結果可以發現機率論定義選擇集合之CDM模式與PIAL模式,其模式解釋力皆較決定論定義選擇集合之MNL模式佳,其中又以CDM模式更能呈現個體選擇行為。本研究除了利用機率論定義選擇集合方式考慮個體異質性外,亦透過隨機個體品味差異項進行個體異質性之探討。在本研究模式解釋變數結構下,模式校估結果可以發現各服務感受度可直接反映個體之品味差異。而考慮個體異質性,有助於模式對個體選擇行為之解釋能力,唯不同個體品味差異項之假設,對模式呈現個體選擇行為亦有所異同。
This paper aims to look for reasonable and reflective of travelers behavior in the highway passenger transport market from an aspect of endogenous choice set generation. Basing on this mode choice preference, we can assist the highway passenger transport proprietors in marketing strategy.
In this research, we can understand travelers’ conscious of service that highway passenger transport proprietors provide. Basing on this conscious of service, we can construct individual choice models under different definitions of choice set. We constructed several models under deterministic definitions of choice set, like MNL, or under probability definitions of choice set, like CDM or PIAL. Beside this consideration for the individual heterogeneity by probability definitions of choice set, we also discussed the heterogeneity with individual random taste difference.
The empirical results showed that CDM and PIAL under probability definitions of choice set were better than MNL under deterministic definitions of choice set, especially CDM. This result indicated that model under probability definitions of choice set could express actual travelers’ behavior. Under the explanation variable structures in this research, the results showed that the conscious of service could reflect individual random taste difference directly. In short, the consideration of individual heterogeneity could improve the explanation of models. Only while different individual random taste difference were hypothesized, there are different appearances of individual choice behavior in the model.
目 錄
第一章 緒論1
1-1 研究動機與目的1
1-2 研究範圍與限制3
1-3 研究方法4
1-4 研究內容與架構5
第二章 文獻回顧8
2-1 個體選擇模式之發展8
2-1.1 一階段選擇模式8
2-1.2 二階段選擇模式10
2-1.3 小結13
2-2 結合選擇集合之個體選擇模式15
2-2.1 考慮單一替選方案集合與所有替選方案集合之模式16
2-2.2 考慮所有可能選擇集合之模式19
2-2.3 受限制選擇集合模式21
2-2.4 小結27
2-3 個體異質性模式之文獻回顧29
2-4 成對比較(Pairwise Comparisons )之理論與研究30
2-4.1 成對比較之基礎理論30
2-4.2 不完全成對比較之理論與研究32
第三章 模式理論與架構34
3-1 個體選擇模式之基本理論34
3-2 模式之內容與架構35
3-2.1 MNL模式36
3-2.2 CDM模式37
3-2.3 PIAL模式37
3-2.4 個體異質性CDM模式38
3-2.5 小結42
3-3 成對比較之內容與架構44
3-3.1 服務評估準則之萃取44
3-3.2 評估準則感受度值之計算45
3-4模式參數之校估48
3-4.1 最大概似法48
3-4.2 參數校估49
第四章 研究方法50
4-1客運公司提供服務之調查50
4-2 成對比較之結構53
4-2.1 前測問卷內容與調查53
4-2.2 前測問卷之基本特性與敘述性統計54
4-2.3 成對比較架構57
4-3 問卷設計62
第五章 研究結果65
5.1 問卷回收與基本資料分析65
5.1.1 問卷回收65
5.1.2 基本資料分析65
5.1.3 旅次資料分析70
5-2 各服務構面之敘述統計分析75
5-2.1整體受訪者對國道客運的評價75
5-2.2 各客運公司受訪者對國道客運的評價78
5-2.3 小結83
5-3 MNL模式之校估84
5-3.1 方案選擇階段變數說明84
5-3.2 基礎MNL模式86
5-3.3 不同成對比較資訊之模式比較89
5-4 決定論定義選擇集合之MNL模式比較91
5-4.1決定論定義選擇集合模式之數據處理91
5-4.2決定論定義選擇集合模式之比較95
5-4.3小結97
5-5 機率型式定義選擇集合之選擇模式99
5-5.1 選擇集合階段變數說明99
5-5.2 CDM模式101
5-5.3 PIAL模式105
5-6個體異質性之選擇模式107
5-6.1 個體異質性之MNL模式107
5-6.2 個體異質性之CDM模式110
5-6.3 小結114
第六章 結論與建議116
參考文獻120
中文文獻120
英文文獻120
附錄124
附錄一:前測問卷124
附錄二:成對比較問卷126
附錄三:各國道客運公司提供的服務131
參考文獻中文部分1.吳泰岳,「敘述偏好數據誤差項之探討」,國立成功大學交通管理研究所碩士論文,民國90年2.段良雄、楊志文,「考慮選擇集合之兩階段運具選擇模式」,中華民國運輸學會第十五屆學術研討會論文集,民國89年3.施鴻志、段良雄、凌瑞賢,「都市交通計畫─理論與實務」,茂昌圖書有限公司,民國73年4.楊國峰,「家戶運具選擇模式」,國立成功大學交通管理研究所碩士論文,民國77年5.陳順宇,「多變量分析」,華泰書局,民國89年英文部分6.Alba, K.W., Hutchinson, J.W. and Lynch Jr., J.G. (1991), “Memory and decision making ,” In: Robertson, T.S., Kassarjian, H.H., Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NK, 1-49.7.Andrews, R.L. and Srinivansan, T.C. (1995), “Studying consideration effects in empirical models using scanner panel data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 30-41.8.Ben Akiva, M. (1977), “Choice Models with Simple Choice Set Generating Processes,” working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.9.Bronnenberg, B.K. and Vanhonacker, W.R. (1996), “Limited choice sets, local price response, and implied measures of price competition,” Journal of Marketing Research, 33. 163-173.10.Chamberlian, G.(1984), “Panel Data,” Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 2, 1248-1318, North-Holland, Amsterdam.11.Cho, H.J. and Kim, K.S.(1999), “Combined analysis of heteroscedasticity and correlation of repeated observations in SP data,” Proceeding of 27th European Transport Forum (PTRC), England.12.Cogger, K.O. and Yu, P.L.(1985), “Eigen weight vectors and least distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios”, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 46, 483-49113.Crawford, G.. and Williams, C.A., “A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387-40514.Fotheringham, A.S. (1988), “Consumer Store choice and Choice Set Definition,” Marketing Science, 7, 299-310.15.Hutchinson, J.W., Raman, K., and Mantrala, M.K. (1994), “Finding choice alternatives in memory: Probability models of brand name recall,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 441-461.16.Gaudry, M.J.I. and Dagenais, M.G. (1979), “The Dogit model,” Transportation Research, Series B 13B, 105-111.17.Gensch, D.H. (1987), “A two-stage disaggregate attribution choice model,” Marketing Science, 6, 223-231.18.Koczkodaj, W. W.(1993), “A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons”, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 18, 79-8419.Koczkodaj, W. W.(1996), “Statistically accurate evidence of improved error rate by pairwise comparisons”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 43-3820.Koczkodaj, W. W.(1998), “Testing the accuracy enhancement of pairwise comparisons by a Monte Carlo experiment”, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 69, 21-3121.Manrai, A.K. (1995), “Mathematical models of brand choice behavior,” European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 1-17.22.Manrai, A.K. and Andrews, R.L. (1998), “Two-stage Discrete Choice Models for Scanner Panel Data: An assessment of Process and Assumptions,” European Journal of Operational Research, 111, 193-215.23.Michael W.H. and Waldemar W.K. (1996), “A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparison ”, Information Processing Letters, 57, 25-29.24.Manski, C. (1977), “The structure of random utility models,” Theory and Decision, 8, 229-254.25.Mitra, A. (1995), “Advertising and the stability of consideration sets over multiple purchase occasions,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 81-94.26.Parkinson, T.L. and Michael, R. (1978), “An Information Processing Approach to Evoked Set Formation,” Advances in Consumer Research, 6 366-387.27.Roberts, J.H. (1989), “A Grounded Model of Consideration Set Size and Composition,” Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 749-757.28.Shocker, A.D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B. and Nedungadi, P. (1991), “Consideration set influences on consumer decision making and choice: Issues, models, suggestions,” Marketing Letters, 2, 181-197.29.Siddarth, S., Bucklin, R.E. and Morrison, D.G, (1995), “Making the cut: Modeling and analyzing choice set restriction in scanner panel data,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 255-266.30.Stigler, G. J. (1961), “The economics of information,” Journal of Pplitical Economy, 69, 213-225.31.Swait, J.D. (1984), “Probabilistic choice set generation in transportation demand models,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA32.Swait, J.D. and Ben-Akiva, M. (1985), “Constrains on Individual Travel Behavior in a Brazilizn City,” Transportation Research Record, 1085, 75-85.33.Swait, J.D. and Ben-Akiva, M. (1987a), “Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation,” Transportation Research, Series B 21B, 91-10234.Swait, J.D. and Ben-Akiva, M, (1987b), “Empirical test of a constrained choice discrete model: Mode choice in Sao Paulo, Brazil,” Transportation Research, Series B 21B, 103-11535.Satty, T.L. (1977), “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structure”, Journal of Mathmematical Psychology , 15,234-28136.Satty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (1984), “Comparison of Eigenvalue, Logarithmic Least Square and Least Square methods in estimating ratios”, Mathematical Modelling, 5, 309-324
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊