Table 2 Estimated Discrete Choice Functions
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Table 2
Estimated Discrete Choice Functions
| MNL | NMNL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tree1 | Tree2 | Tree3 | Tree4 | ||
| Performance statistics | |||||
| Log likelihood | -3,326.46 | -3,326.10 | -3,272.11 | -3,325.52 | -3,325.71 |
| McFadden Rho-squared | 0.4040 | 0.4041 | 0.4038 | 0.4042 | 0.4042 |
| Correctly predicted (%) | 58.746 | 58.746 | 58.705 | 58.746 | 58.746 |
| Alternative specific variables | |||||
| Distance | -0.37(-37.0) | -0.80(-40.3) | -0.37(-36.8) | -0.35(-16.9) | -0.38(-31.8) |
| TEUs per berth | -2.05(-4.5) | -4.37(-9.4) | -1.55(-3.3) | -1.95(-4.2) | -2.09(-4.6) |
| TEUs per crane | 4.01(6.5) | 8.57(13.1) | 3.70(5.5) | 3.80(5.8) | 4.08(6.5) |
| Ship calls | -0.91(-7.0) | -1.95(-14.0) | -0.72(-5.0) | -0.86(-6.2) | -0.93(-7.1) |
| Usage factor | -3.27(-3.7) | -7.09(-8.0) | -2.82(-3.2) | -3.09(-3.5) | -3.33(-3.8) |
| Routes | 0.10(6.6) | 0.22(13.2) | 0.07(4.1) | 0.10(5.9) | 0.11(6.6) |
| Constant variables | |||||
| Chinese | 1.13(23.9) | 1.07(13.3) | 11.33(12.8) | 1.19(17.3) | 1.18(17.7) |
| Dalian, Qingdao, other ports | 0.74(0.8) | 1.50(1.5) | 0.69(0.7) | 0.71(0.7) | 0.76(0.8) |
| Tianjin, Qingdao | -1.41(-1.4) | -3.15(-3.2) | -1.23(-1.3) | -1.33(-1.4) | -1.44(-1.5) |
| Shanghai, other ports | 3.75(4.4) | 7.91(9.0) | 3.30(3.7) | 3.55(4.1) | 3.81(4.4) |
| Dissimilarity parameters | |||||
| Chinese | 1.00 | 2.16(49.7) | 0.93(1.2) | 1.00 | |
| Non-Chinese | 1.00 | 2.08(18.2) | 1.00 | 1.06(1.2) | |
| Dalian | 9.10(7.6) | ||||
| Tianjin | 12.20(7.0) | ||||
| Qingdao | 3.82(7.0) | ||||
| Shanghai | 12.7(30.0) | ||||
| Other ports | 12.56(7.6) | ||||
Note: Numbers in parentheses are t-statistics.