Disaggregated approach to urban trip distribution: a comparative analysis between artificial neural networks and discrete choice models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14295/transportes.v30i2.2686Keywords:
Destination choices, Multinomial Logit, Nested Logit, Artificial Neural NetworksAbstract
Discrete choice models have been used over the years in disaggregated approaches to forecast destination choices. However, there are important constraints in some of these models that pose obstacles to using them, such as the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) property in the Multinomial Logit model, the need to assume specific structures and high calibration times, depending on the complexity of the case being evaluated. However, some of these mentioned constraints could be mitigated using Mixed Models or Nested Logit. Therefore, this paper proposes a comparative analysis between the Artificial Neural Network (ANNs), the Multinomial and Nested Logit models for disaggregated forecasting of urban trip distribution. A case study was conducted in a medium-sized Brazilian city, Santa Maria (RS), Brazil. The data used come from a household survey, prepared for the Urban Mobility Master Plan. For the sake of comparison, hit rates and frequency of trip distribution distances were analyzed, showing that ANNs can be as efficient as the Discrete Choice models for disaggregated forecasting of urban trip destination without, however, assuming some constraints. Finally, based on the results obtained, the efficiency of ANNs is observed for predicting alternatives with a low number of observations. They are important tools for obtaining Origin-Destination matrices from incomplete sample matrices or with a low number of observations. However, it is important to mention that discrete choice models can provide important information for the analyst, such as statistical significance of parameters, elasticities, subjective value of attributes, etc.
Downloads
References
Ben-Akiva, M., D. Bolduc, J. Walker (2003) Specification, Identification, and Estimation of the Logit Kernel (Or Continuous Mixed Logit) Model. Working Paper, 5th Invitational Choice Symposium, Asilomar, California.
Ben-Akiva, M.; Lerman, S. R. (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bishop, Christopher M. (1995) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Black, W. R. (1995) Spatial interaction modeling using artificial neural networks. Journal of Transport Geography, v. 3, n. 3, p. 159–166. DOI: 10.1016/0966-6923(95)00013-S.
Caldas, M. U. C.; Pitombo, C. S.; Assirati, L. (2021) Strategy to reduce the number of parameters to be estimated in discrete choice models: an approach to large choice sets. Travel Behaviour and Society, v. 25, p. 1-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.tbs.2021.05.001.
Cantarella, G. E.; De Luca, S. (2005) Multilayer feed forward networks fortransportation mode choice analysis: An analysis and a comparison with random utility models. Transportation Research Part C, v. 13, p. 121-155. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2005.04.002.
Carvalho, M. C. M.; Dougherty, M. S.; Fowkes, A. S.; Wardman, M. R. (1998) Forecasting travel demand: A comparison of logit and artificial neural network methods, Journal of the Operational Research Society, v. 49, p. 717-772. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600590.
Cascetta, E.; Pagliara, F.; Papola, A. (2007) Alternative approaches to trip distribution modelling: A retrospective review and suggestions for combining different approaches, Papers in Regional Science, v. 86, n. 4, p. 597-620. DOI: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00135.x.
Casey, H. J. (1955) Applications to traffic engineering of the law of retail gravitation. Traffic Quartely IX, p. 23-35.
Chow, L., Zhao, F., Li, M., Li, S. (2005) Development and evaluation of aggregate destination choice models for trip distribution in Florida, Transportation Research Record, v. 1931, n. 1, p. 18-27. DOI: 10.3141/1931-03.
Daly, A.J., Zachary, S., (1978) Improved multiple choice models. In: Hensher, D.A., Dalvi, M.Q. (Eds.), Determinants of Travel Choice. Saxon House, Westmead.
Dougherty, Mark. (1995). A review of neural networks applied to transport. Transportation Research Part C, v. 3, n. 4, p. 247-260. DOI: 10.1016/0968-090X(95)00009-8.
Evans, A.W. (1970) Some Properties of Trip Distribution Methods. Transportation Research, v. 4, n. 1, p. 19-36. DOI: 10.1016/0041-1647(70)90072-9.
Evans, S.P., Kirby, H.R. (1974) A three-dimensional furness procedure for calibrating gravity models. Transportation Research, v. 8, n. 2, p. 105-122. DOI: 10.1016/0041-1647(74)90037-9.
Faghri, A., Hua, J. (1992) Evaluation of Artificial Neural Network Applications in Transportation Engineering, Transportation Research Record, v. 1358, p. 71-80.
Fotheringham, A.S. (1983) Some theoretical aspects of destination choice and their relevance to production-constrained gravity models. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, v. 15, n. 8, p. 1121-1132. DOI: 10.1068/a151121.
Guerrero, E., Laguna, R., Damián, M., Ortíz, J., Zárate, R. (2020). Basic considerations for the application of discrete choice experiments: a review. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales, v. 11, n. 59, p. 4-30. DOI: 10.29298/rmcf.v11i59.676.
Hess, S., D. Palma (2019) Apollo: A Flexible, Powerful and Customisable Freeware Package for Choice Model Estimation and Application. Journal of Choice Modelling, v. 32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2019.100170.
IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2010. Censo Demográfico 2010.
IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
IPLAN (2013) Plano Diretor de Mobilidade Urbana de Santa Maria (1ª Edição). Santa Maria: Prefeitura Municipal de Santa Maria.
Luce, R. D., Suppes, P. (1965) Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R. D. Lute, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Fds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, v. 111, p. 249-410.
McFadden, D. (1973) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics, p. 105-142.
Mcfadden, D. (1974) The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand. Journal of Public Economics, v. 3, n. 4, p. 303-328. DOI: 10.1016/0047-2727(74)90003-6.
Mishra, S., Yanli, W., Xiaoyu, Z., Rolf, M, Subrat, M. (2013) Comparison between Gravity and Destination Choice Models for Trip Distribution in Maryland, Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting, p. 1-22.
Mozolin, M. J. C., Thilland, E. L. (2000) Trip distribution forecasting with multilayer perceptron neural networks: A critical evaluation. Transportation Research Part B, v. 34, n. 1, p. 53-73. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-2615(99)00014-4.
Ortúzar, J. D., Willumsen, L. G. (2011) Modelling Transport. Wiley, London.
Plaza, C.V., Rodrigues da Silva, A.N. (2021). Estimating intrazonal trip distances in a Brazilian medium-sized city. Case Studies on Transport Policy, v. 9, n. 2, p. 626-636. DOI: 10.1016/j.cstp.2021.03.001.
Pitombo, C. S., de Souza, A. D., Lindner, A. (2017) Comparing decision tree algorithms to estimate intercity trip distribution, Transportation Research Part C, v. 17, p. 16-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.009.
Pitombo, C. S.; Sousa, A. J.; Filipe, L. M. N. (2009) Classification and regression tree, principal components analysis and multiple linear regression to summarize data and understand travel behavior. Transportation Letters, v. 1, p. 295-308. DOI: 10.3328/TL.2009.01.04.295-308.
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rasouli, M., Nikraz, H. (2013). Trip Distribution Modelling Using Neural Network. Transport Research Forum, Brisbane, Australia.
Schneider, M. (1959). Gravity model and trip distribution theory, Papers in Regional Science, v. 5, n. 1, p. 51-56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1959.tb01665.x.
Shmueli, D., Salomon, I., Shefer, D. (1996) Neural network analysis of travel behavior: Evaluating tools for prediction, Transportation Research Part C, v. 4, p. 151–166. DOI: 10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00007-1.
Smith, M. (1996) Neural Networks for Statistical Modeling. International Thomson Computer Press, Londres, Inglaterra.
Stouffer, S. A. (1940) Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance, American Sociological Review, v. 5, p. 845-867. DOI: 10.1016/S1003-6326(10)60620-6.
Subba Rao, P. V., Sikdar, P. K., Krishna Rao, K. V., Dhingra, S. L. (1998) Another insight into artificial neural networks through behavioural analysis of access mode choice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, v. 22, n. 5, p. 485-496. DOI: 10.1016/S0198-9715(98)00036-2.
Tavasszy, L.; De Jong, G. (2014) Modelling Freight Transport. 1ª. ed. London: Elsevier.
Thomas, R.W., Hugget, R.J. (1980) Modeling in Geography: A Mathematical Approach. Barnes and Noble, Totowa.
Tillema, F., Van Zuilekom, K. M., Van Maarseveen, M. F. (2006) Comparison of neural networks and gravity models in trip distribution. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, v. 21, n. 2, p. 104-119. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8667.2005.00421.x.
Williams, H.C.W.L. (1977) On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, v. 9, n. 3, 285–344. DOI: 10.1068/a090285.
Williams, I. (1976) A comparison of some calibration techniques for doubly constrained models with an exponential cost function, Transportation Research, v. 10, n. 2, p. 91-104. DOI: 10.1016/0041-1647(76)90045-9.
Wilson, A. G. (1967) A statistical theory of spatial distribution models, Transportation Research, v. 1, n. 3, p. 253–269. DOI: 10.1016/0041-1647(67)90035-4.
Zhao X, Yan X, Yu A, Van Hentenryck P. (2020) Prediction and behavioral analysis of travelmode choice: A comparison of machine learning and logit models. Travel Behaviour and Society, v. 20, p. 22-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.tbs.2020.02.003.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Marina Urano de Carvalho Caldas, Cira Souza Pitombo, Felipe Lobo Umbelino de Souza, Renan Favero
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit papers for publication by TRANSPORTES agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant TRANSPORTES the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of this journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in TRANSPORTES.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after publication of the article. Authors are encouraged to use links to TRANSPORTES (e.g., DOIs or direct links) when posting the article online, as TRANSPORTES is freely available to all readers.
- Authors have secured all necessary clearances and written permissions to published the work and grant copyright under the terms of this agreement. Furthermore, the authors assume full responsibility for any copyright infringements related to the article, exonerating ANPET and TRANSPORTES of any responsibility regarding copyright infringement.
- Authors assume full responsibility for the contents of the article submitted for review, including all necessary clearances for divulgation of data and results, exonerating ANPET and TRANSPORTES of any responsibility regarding to this aspect.
