Existing experimentally based decompositional models of housing preferences and choice behavior do not account for possible substitution or context dependencies among choice alternatives. These authors seek to extend existing models by demonstrating how discrete choice experiments may be used to develop housing choice models that allow one to test for possible context dependencies. The design strategy and model specification are discussed. The modelling approach is illustrated in the context of simulated housing choices of divorcees. The results indicate that context dependencies play a significant role in the understanding of these people's housing preferences and choices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AufhauserEFischerM MSchonhoferM, 1986, “A disaggregated probabilistic approach to a regulated housing market with emphasis on the demand side: The Vienna case”Papers of the Regional Science Association60133–153
2.
BoagD ASarkarA K, 1984, “Housing affordability and acceptability as influenced by consumer trade-off perceptions”Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1565 Carling Avenue, Suite 300, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4G1, Canada
3.
ClarkW A Vvan LieropJ, 1986, “Residential mobility and household location modelling”, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economcs Ed. NijkampP (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 97–132
4.
ClarkW A VOnakaJ C, 1985, “An empirical test of a joint model of residential mobility and housing choice”Environment and Planning A17915–930
5.
DeurlooM CDielemanF MClarkW A V, 1987, “Tenure choice in the Dutch housing market”Environment and Planning A19763–781
6.
DeurlooM CDielemanF MClarkW A V, 1988, “Generalised loglinear models of housing choice”Environment and Planning A2055–69
7.
ElrodTLouviereJ JKumarK S D, 1991, “A comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models in terms of predictive ability and managerial inference”, working paper, Faculty of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
8.
FischerM MAufhauserE, 1988, “Housing choice in a regulated market: A nested multinomial logit analysis”Geographical Analysis2047–69
9.
HourihanK, 1979, “The evaluation of urban neighbourhoods”Environment and Planning A111355–1367
10.
HuffJ OWaldorfB, 1988, “A predictive model of residential mobility and residential segregation”Papers of the Regional Science Association6559–77
11.
JosephA ESmitBMcLlraveyG P, 1989, “Consumer preferences for rural residences: A conjoint analysis in Ontario, Canada”Environment and Planning A2147–65
12.
KnightR LMenchikM, 1976, “Conjoint preference estimation for residential land use policy evaluation”, in Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior Eds GolledgeR GRushtonG (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 135–155
13.
LindbergEGarlingTMontgomeryH, 1988, “People beliefs and values as determinants of housing preferences and simulated choices”Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research5181–197
14.
LindbergEGarlingTMontgomeryH, 1989, “Belief-value structures as determinants of consumer choice: A study of housing preferences and choices”Journal of Consumer Policy12119–137
15.
LouviereJ J, 1979, “Modeling individual residential preferences: A totally disaggregate approach”Transportation Research A13373–384
16.
LouviereJ J, 1988Analyzing Decision Making (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
LouviereJ JMeyerR J, 1976, “A model for residential preference formation”Geographical Analysis8479–486
19.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990a, “Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice behavior”Geographical Analysis22127–145
20.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990b, “Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: A review”Leisure Sciences129–32
21.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990c, “A review of recent advances in decompositional preference and choice models”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie81214–225
22.
McFaddenD, 1978, “Modelling the choice of residential location”, in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models Eds KarlqvistALundqvistLSnickarsFWeibullJ W (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 75–96
23.
McFaddenDTrainKTyeW B, 1977, “An application of diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevant alternatives property of the multinomial logit model”Transportation Research Record63739–46
24.
NoortwijkL EHooimeijerPDielemanF M, 1987, “Woningmarktgedrag van huishoudens ontstaan door echtscheiding”, Stepro-rapport 63b, Faculteit Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, Utrecht
25.
OnakaJ CClarkW A V, 1983, “A disaggregate model of residential mobility and housing choice”Geographical Analysis15287–304
26.
OppewalHTimmermansH J P, 1991, “Context effects and decompositional choice modelling”Papers in Regional Science70113–131
27.
PhippsA G, 1989, “Residential stress and consumption disequilibrium in the Saskatoon housing market”Papers of the Regional Science Association6771–87
28.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1984, “An individual level analysis of the stress-resistance model of household mobility”Geographical Analysis16176–189
29.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1985, “Individual differences in the residential preferences of inner-city households”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie1632–42
30.
QuigleyJ M, 1985, “Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services”Regional Science and Urban Economics1541–63
31.
RohrmanBBorcherdingK, 1988, “The cognitive structure of residential decisions”, paper presented at the XXIV International Congress of Psychology, Sydney; copy available from the authors
32.
TimmermansH J P, 1984, “Decompositional multiattribute preference models in spatial choice analysis”Progress in Human Geography8189–221
33.
TimmermansH J P, 1989, “Een decompositioneel hierarchisch model voor woningkeuze: Theorie en illustratie”, in Methoden voor Woning- en Woonmilieubehoeften Onderzoek Ed. MusterdS (SISWO, Amsterdam) pp 46–72
34.
TimmermansH J PBorgersA W Jvan der WaerdenP J H J, 1991, “Mother logit analysis of substitution effects in consumer shopping destination choice”Journal of Business Research23311–323
35.
TimmermansH J PBorgersA W Jvan DijkJOppewalH, 1992, “Residential choice behaviour of dual-earner households: A decompositional joint choice model”Environment and Planning A24517–533
36.
TimmermansH J PBorgersA W JVeldhuisenK J, 1986, “A hybrid compensatory—noncompensatory model of residential preference structures”The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research1227–233
37.
VeldhuisenK JTimmermansH J P, 1984, “Specification of individual residential utility functions”Environment and Planning A161573–1583
