The residential location decision process has been studied for several decades with use of different approaches. One such approach that has received considerable attention in urban planning is the decompositional approach. This approach involves measuring individual preferences. Residential choice behaviour is, however, often the result of a joint decisionmaking process, especially in the case of dual earner households. In the present paper, the original modelling approach is therefore extended to a model of joint decisionmaking. The results of an empirical application in the context of residential choice behaviour in the Netherlands are described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkaahIKorgaonkarP K, 1983, “An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, Huber hybrid, traditional conjoint and hybrid conjoint models”Journal of Marketing Research20187–198
2.
AndersonN H, 1974, “Information integration theory: A brief survey”, in Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology Eds KrantzDAtkinsonRLuceDSuppesP (W H Freeman, San Francisco, CA) pp 236–305
3.
AndersonN H, 1981Foundations of Information Integration Theory (Academic Press, New York)
4.
AndersonN H, 1982Methods of Information Integration (Academic Press, New York)
5.
BillingsR SShererL, 1988, “The effects of response mode and importance on decision-making strategies: Judgement versus choice”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance411–19
6.
ClarkW A Vvan LieropW F J, 1986, “Residential mobility and household location modelling”, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume I Ed. NijkampPElsevier, Amsterdam) pp 97–132
7.
JenrichR IMooreR H, 1975, “Maximum likelihood by means of nonlinear least squares”ASA Proceedings of the Statistical Computing SectionAnerican Statistical Association, 1429 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, pp 57–65
8.
KnightR LMenchikM D, 1976, “Conjoint preference estimation for residential land use policy evaluation”, in Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior Eds GolledgeR GRushtonGOhio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 135–155
9.
KrishnamurthiL, 1988, “Conjoint models of family decision making”International Journal of Research in Marketing5185–198
10.
LindbergEGärlingTMontgomeryH, 1988, “People beliefs and values as determinants of housing preferences and simulated choices”Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research5181–197
11.
LindbergEGärlingTMontgomeryH, 1989a, “Belief-value structures as determinants of consumer behavior: A study of housing preferences and choices”Journal of Consumer Policy12119–137
12.
LindbergEGärlingTMontgomeryH, 1989b, “Differential predictability of preferences and choice”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making2205–219
13.
LouviereJ J, 1979, “Modeling individual residential preferences: A totally disaggregate approach”Transportation Research A13373–384
14.
LouviereJ J, 1984, “Hierarchical information integration: A new method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute judgment problems”, in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume XI Ed. KinnearTh CAssociation for Consumer Research, Provo, UT) pp 148–155
15.
LouviereJ J, 1988aAnalyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 67 (Sage, Beverley Hills, CA)
16.
LouviereJ J, 1988b, “Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences: A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy22, 93–112
LouviereJ JMeyerR J, 1976, “A model for residential impression formation”Geographical Analysis8479–486
19.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990a, “Using hierarchical information integration to model consumer responses to possible planning actions: Recreation destination choice illustration”Environment and Planning A22291–309
20.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990b, “Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice processes”Geographical Analysis22127–145
21.
LouviereJ JWoodworthG G, 1983, “Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data”Journal of Marketing Research20350–367
22.
OppewalHTimmermansH J P, 1991, “Context effects and decompositional choice modelling”Papers in Regional Science70113–131
23.
PhippsA G, 1989, “Intended mobility responses to possible neighborhood change in an American, a British and a Canadian inner-urban area”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie8043–58
24.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1984, “An individual-level analysis of the stress-resistance model of household mobility”Geographical Analysis16176–189
25.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1985, “Individual differences in the residential preferences of inner-city households”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie7632–42
26.
PhippsA GClarkW A V, 1988, “Interactive recovery and validation of households' residential utility functions”, in Behavioural Modelling in Geography and Planning Eds GolledgeR GTimmermansH J PCroom Helm, Andover, Hants) pp 245–271
27.
RohrmanBBorcherdingK, 1988, “The cognitive structure of residential decisions”, paper presented at the XXIV International Congress of Psychology, Sydney; copy available from Dr Borcherding, Institut für Psychologie der THD, Steubenplatz 12, D-6100 Darmstadt, Germany
28.
TimmermansH J P, 1984, “Decompositional multiattribute preference models in spatial choice analysis”Progress in Human Geography8189–221
29.
TimmermansH J P, 1987, “Hybrid and non-hybrid evaluation models for predicting outdoor recreation behavior: A test of predictive ability”Leisure Sciences967–76
30.
TimmermansH J P, 1989, “Een Decompositioneel Hierarchisch Model voor Woningkeuze: Theorie en Illustratie”, in Methoden voor Woning- en Woonmilieubehoefte Onderzoek Ed. MusterdS, Stichting Interuniversitair Instituut voor Sociaal-Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Amsterdam, pp 46–72
31.
TverskyASattahSSlovicP, 1988, “Contingent weighting in judgement and choice”Psychological Review95371–384
32.
VeldhuisenK JTimmermansH J P, 1984, “Specification of individual residential utility functions: A comparative analysis of three measurement procedures”Environment and Planning A161573–1582
