There has been much discussion as to the validity and importance of a disaggregated framework for analysis in the housing market. This paper, with data from a recent survey in Glasgow, is an analysis, first, of the ways in which neighbourhoods are perceived and shows that residents have widely differing perceptions as to the extent and distinctive features of their own neighbourhood. Second, the importance of neighbourhoods in structuring the process of search in the housing market and residential mobility is demonstrated. The paper concludes with suggestions as to ways in which neighbourhoods ought to be incorporated into urban analyses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ S, 1969, “Directional bias in intra-urban migration”Economic Geography45302–323
2.
BibleD SBrownL A, 1981, “Place utility, attribute tradeoff and choice behaviour in an intraurban migration context”Socio-economic Planning Sciences1537–44
3.
BrownL AMooreE G, 1970, “The intra-urban migration process: A perspective”Geografiska Annuler B521–13
4.
CadwalladerM T, 1979, “Neighbourhood evaluation in residential mobility”Environment and Planning A11393–402
5.
ClarkW A V, 1981, “Residential mobility and behavioural geography: Parallelism or independence?” in Behavioural Problems in Geography Revisited Eds CoxK RGolledgeR G (Methuen, Andover, Hants) pp 182–205
6.
DemkoD, 1974, “Cognition of Southern Ontario cities in a potential migration context”Economic Geography5020–33
7.
EverittJ CCadwalladerM T, 1981, “Husband-wife role variation as a factor in home area definition”Geografiska Annaler B6323–34
8.
FordR GSmithG C, 1981, “Spatial aspects of intra-urban migration behaviour in a mixed housing market”Environment and Planning A13355–371
9.
GolledgeR GRushtonG, 1972, “Multidimensional scaling: Review and geographical applications”Commission on College Geography, TP10, Association of American Geographers, Washington DC
10.
HourihanK, 1979, “The evaluation of urban neighbourhoods 1: Perception”Environment and Planning A111337–1353
11.
LueckV M, 1976, “Cognitive and affective components of residential preferences for cities: A pilot study” in Spatial Choice and Spatial Behaviour Eds GolledgeR GRushtonG (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 273–300
12.
LancasterK, 1979Variety, Equity and Efficiency (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
13.
MaclennanDWilliamsN J, 1980, “Revealed-preference theory and spatial choices: Some limitations”Environment and Planning A12909–919
14.
PacioneM, 1983, “Neighbourhood communities in the modern city: Some evidence from Glasgow”Scottish Geographical Magazine99169–181
15.
PollakowskiH O, 1982, Urban Housing Markets and Residential Location (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA)
16.
RothschildM, 1973, “Models of market organisation with imperfect information: A survey”Journal of Political Economy811283–1309
17.
SmithT RClarkWAV, 1982a, “Housing market search behavior and expected utility theory: 1. Measuring preferences for housing”Environment and Planning A14681–698
18.
SmithT RClarkWAV, 1982b, “Housing market search behavior and expected utility theory: 2. The process of search”Environment and Planning A14717–737
19.
SmithT RMertzF, 1980, “An analysis of the effects of information revision on the outcome of housing-market search, with special reference to the influence of realty agents”Environment and Planning A12155–174
20.
WolpertJ, 1965, “Behavioural aspects of the decision to migrate”Papers of the Regional Science Association15159–169
