In this paper we propose use of structural equation modelling to validate the assumed classification of attributes necessary in hierarchical information integration approaches to preference formation. The suggested approach is illustrated in a study of residential satisfaction and preference in the Netherlands. The findings emphasise the potential of the approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN H, 1981Foundations of Information Integration Theory (Academic Press, New York).
2.
AndersonN H, 1982Methods of Information Integration Theory (Academic Press, New York).
BoagD ASarkarA K, 1984, “Housing affordability and acceptability as influenced by consumer trade-off perceptions”, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.
5.
BollenK A, 1989Structural Equations with Latent Variables (John Wiley, New York).
6.
BorgersATimmermansH, 1993, “Transport facilities and residential choice behavior: A Model of multi-person choice processes”Papers in Regional Science7245–61.
7.
ClarkW A VDeurlooM CDielemanF M, 1986, “Residential mobility in Dutch housing markets”Environment and Planning A18763–788.
DeurlooM CDielemanF MClarkW A V, 1987, “Tenure choice in the Dutch housing market”Environment and Planning A19763–781.
10.
DeurlooM CDielemanF MClarkW A V, 1988, “Generalized log-linear models of housing choice”Environment and Planning A2055–69.
11.
JosephA ESmitBMcIlraveyG P, 1989, “Consumer preferences for rural residences: A Conjoint analysis in Ontario, Canada”Environment and Planning A2147–63.
12.
KennyD A, 1979Correlation and Causality (John Wiley, New York).
13.
KnightR LMenchikM, 1976, “Conjoint preference estimation for residential land use policy evaluation”, in Spatial Choice and Spatial Behaviour Eds GolledgeR GRushtonG (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH pp 135–155.
14.
LouviereJ J, 1979, “Modeling individual residential preferences: A Totally disaggregate approach”Transportation Research A13373–384.
15.
LouviereJ J, 1984, “Hierarchical information integration: A New method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute judgement problems”, in Advances in Consumer Research,Volume 11 Ed. KinnearT C (Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT pp 148–155.
16.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990, “Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice behavior”Geographical Analysis22127–145.
17.
MolinEOppewalHTimmermansH, 1997, “Modeling group preferences using a decompositional preference approach”Group Decision and Negotiation6339–350.
18.
MolinEOppewalHTimmermansH, 1999, “Group-based versus individual-based conjoint preference models of residential preferences: A Comparative test”Environment and Planning A311935–1947.
19.
PhippsA G, 1989, “Residential stress and consumption disequilibrium in the Saskatoon housing market”Papers of the Regional Science Association6771–87.
20.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1984, “An individual level analysis of the stress-resistence model of household mobility”Geographical Analysis16176–189.
21.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1985, “Individual differences in the residential preferences of inner-city households”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie1632–42.
22.
TimmermansHVan NoortwijkL, 1995, “Context dependencies in housing choice behavior”Environment and Planning A27181–192.
23.
TimmermansHBorgersAVan DijkJOppewalH, 1992, “Residential choice behaviour of dual earner households: A Decompositional joint choice model”Environment and Planning A24517–533.
24.
TimmermansHVan NoortwijkLOppewalHVan der WaerdenP, 1996, “Modeling constrained choice behaviour in regulated housing markets by means of discrete choice experiments and universal logit models: An application to the residential choice behaviour of divorcees”Environment and Planning A281095–1112.
25.
Van de VyvereYOppewalHTimmermansH, 1998, “The validity of hierarchical information integration choice experiments to model residential preference and choice”Geographical Analysis30254–272.
26.
VeldhuisenK JTimmermansH J P, 1984, “Specification of individual residential utility functions: A Comparative analysis of three measurement procedures”Environment and Planning A161573–1582.
