This paper aims to quantify the extent to which transport and other factors impact on residential decisions using Oxfordshire, UK, as a case study. It investigates the impacts of the current dwelling, household characteristics and alternative properties on the probability of moving. It also highlights the trade-off between access, space and other attributes in residential location choice. Particular emphasis is placed on assessing the impact of transport and location-embedded amenities. A nested logit model is applied to estimate the indirect random utility functions of the intention to move and residential location choice based on stated preference data. The estimation results of the intentions to move model illustrate the impact of housing and household characteristics on the probability of moving. The estimation results of the residential location choice model quantify the trade-offs between transport, amenities and other factors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adair, A., McGreal, S. and Smyth, A. (2000) House price and accessibility: the testing of relationships within the Belfast urban area, Housing Studies, 15(5), pp. 699-716.
2.
Alonso, W. (1964) Location and Land-Use. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
Andrew, M. and Meen, G.P. (1999) Housing market choice and unemployment: empirical evidence for London and the South East. Discussion Paper in Urban and Regional Economics, Series C, XII, 139, University of Reading.
4.
Bates, J. (1988) Econometric issues in SP analysis, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22(1), pp. 59-69.
5.
Bates, J. and Terzis, G. (2000) Stated preference and the ecological fallacy, in: J. de D. Ortuzar (Ed.) Stated Preference Modelling Techniques, pp. 173-190. London: PTRC.
6.
Brasington, D.M. (2002) The demand for local public goods: the case of public school quality, Public Finance Review, 30, pp. 163-187.
7.
Champion, T. (2002) Migration, residential preferences and the changing environment of cities: ESRC Cities Programme project end of award report. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
8.
Cheshire, P. and Sheppard, S. (2004) Capitalising the value of free schools: the impact of supply characteristics and uncertainty. Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics (mimeograph).
9.
Cirillo, C., Daly, A. and Lindveld, K. (2000) Eliminating bias due to the repeated measurements problem in SP data, in: J. de D. Ortuzar (Ed.) Stated Preference Modelling Techniques, pp. 137-154. London : PTRC.
10.
Clark, W.A.V. and Huang, Y. (2003) The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 323-339.
11.
Cooper, J., Ryley, T. and Smith, A. (2001) Energy trade-offs and market responses in transport and residential land-use patterns: promoting sustainable development policy and pitfalls, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 1573-1588.
12.
Croft, J. (2004) Gating communities for children? The perennial problem of school choice, residential location and their (continuing) relationship with neighbourhood. Paper presented at the 2004 Education and the Neighbourhood Conference, Bristol, January.
13.
Dtlr (Department Of Transport, Local Government And Regions) (1998) Transport Economics Note. London: DTLR.
14.
Earnhart, E. (2002) Combining revealed and stated data to examine housing decisions using discrete choice analysis, Journal of Urban Economics, 51, pp. 143-169.
15.
Fotheringham, A.S. (1986) Modelling hierarchical destination choice, Environment and Planning A, 18, pp. 401-418.
16.
Gayda, S. (1998) Stated preference survey on residential location choice in Brussels, in: Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp.
17.
Gibbons, S. and Machin, S. (2003) Valuing primary schools, Journal of Urban Economics, 53(2), pp. 197-219.
18.
Greene, M. (1998) Limdep Version 7.0 User's Manual. New York: Economic Software, Inc.
19.
Greene, M. and Ortuzar, J. de D. (2002) Willingness-to-pay for social housing attributes: a case study from Chile, International Planning Studies, 7, pp. 56-87.
20.
Henneberry, J. (1998) Transport investment and house prices, Journal of Property, Valuation and Investment,16(2), pp. 144-158.
21.
Hensher, D.A. (1994) Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice, Transportation, 21, pp. 107-133.
22.
Hoang, H.P. and Wakely, P. (2000) Status, quality and the other trade-off towards a new theory of urban residential location, UrbanStudies , 37(1), pp. 7-35.
23.
Jarvis, H. (2003) Dispelling the myth that preference makes practice in residential location and transport behaviour, Housing Studies , 18(4), pp. 587-606.
24.
Kim, J.-H. (1993) Divided metropolis: intra-metropolitan spatial segmentation of the labor market. Unpublished PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
25.
Kim, J.-H. (1994) Residential mobility intention by tenure type in Korea, Journal of Social Science, 4(2), pp. 1-22.
26.
Kim, J.-H., Pagliara, F. and Preston, J. (2003) An analysis of residential location choice behaviour in Oxfordshire, UK: a combined stated preference approach, International Review of Public Administration, 8(1), pp. 103-114.
27.
Knox, P. and Pinch, S. (2000) Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28.
Kockelman, K.M. (1997) Effects of location elements on home purchase prices and rents in San Francisco Bay Area, Transportation Research Record, 1606, pp. 40-50.
29.
Kocur, G., Alder, T., Hyman, W. and Audet, B. (1982) Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct utility assessment. Report UMTA-NH-11-0001-82-1, US Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Washington, DC.
30.
Leech, D. and Campos, E. (2003) Is comprehensive education really free? A case study of the effects of secondary school admission policies on house prices in one local area, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 166, pp. 135-154.
31.
Li, S. and Wu, F. (2004) Contextualizing residential mobility and housing choice: evidence from urban China, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 1-6.
32.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A. and Swait, J.D. (2000) Stated Preference Methods: Analysis And Application . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Mandič, S. (2001) Residential mobility versus in-place adjustments in Slovenia: viewpoint from a society in transition, Housing Studies, 16(1), pp. 53-73.
34.
Martinez, F.J. (2000) Towards a land-use and transport interaction framework , in: D. A. Hensher and K. J. Button (Eds) Transport Modelling , pp. 145-164. Oxford : Pergamon.
35.
Meen, D. and Meen, G. (2003) Social behaviour as a basis for modelling the urban housing market: a review, UrbanStudies, 40(5), pp. 917-935.
36.
Morikawa, T. (1989). Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis. PhD Thesis , MIT.
37.
Murphy, J.J. and Stevens, T.H. (2004) Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias and experimental economics. Paper presented at the NAREA-CAES Conference , Halifax, Nova Scotia.
38.
Ortuzar, J. de D., Martinez, F.J. and Varela, F.J. (2000) Stated preference in modelling accessibility, International Planning Studies, 5, pp. 65-85.
39.
Pagliara, F. and Preston, J. (2003) The impact of transport on residential location. Final report (TN6), Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford.
40.
Pearmain, D., Swanson, J., Kroes, E. and Bradley, M. (1991) Stated Preference Techniques: A Guide to Practice . London: Steer Davies Gleave and Hague Consulting Group.
41.
Perez, P.E., Martinez, F.J. and Ortuzar, J. de D. (2003) Microeconomic formulation and estimation of a residential location choice model: implications for the value of time, Journal of Regional Science, 43(4), pp. 771-789.
42.
Rex, J. and Moore, R. (1967) Race, Community and Conflict: A Study of Sparkbrook . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
43.
Venables, A. (2004) Evaluating urban transport improvements: cost-benefits analysis in the presence of agglomeration (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=11289&1=1; accessed 22 September 2004).
44.
van de Vijvere, Y., Oppewal, H. and Timmer-Mans, H.J.P. (1997) The validity of hierarchical information integration choice experiments to model residential preferences and choice, Geographical Analysis, 30, pp. 254-272.
45.
Vlist, A. J. Van Der, Gorter, C., Nijkamp, P. and Rietveld, P. (2002) Residential mobility and local housing-market differences , Environment and Planning A, 34, pp. 1147-1164.
46.
Walker, B., Marsh, A., Wardman, M. and Niner, P. (2002) Modelling tenants' choices in the public rented sector: a stated preference approach, UrbanStudies, 39(4), pp. 665-688.
47.
Wang, D. and Li, S.-M. (2004) Housing preferences in a transitional housing system: the case of Beijing, China, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 69-87.
48.
Wardman, M. (1988) A comparison of revealed and stated preference models of travel behaviour, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 22, pp. 71-92.
49.
Wardman, M. (1998) The value of time: a review of British evidence , Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 32, pp. 285-316.
50.
Wong, G.K.M. (2002) A conceptual model of the household's housing decision-making process: the economic perspective, Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 14(3), pp. 217-234.
51.
Wu, F. (2004) Intraurban residential relocation in Shanghai: modes and stratification, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp. 7-25.
