Despite enormous progress made in the resource-efficient housing construction as a result of technical innovation, market share of sustainable new housing development in Germany is still very low. There is a need for a demand-driven research approach to determine and exploit the potential for sustainable housing among private home buyers—the principal consumers of new housing in Germany. This study measures the preferences of German home buyers based on stated preferences survey data through the application of a discrete choice experiment. Using latent class analysis, the article identifies market segments of differing “environmental awareness” and corresponding preference heterogeneity. The results point to a latent demand for sustainable housing alternatives among private home buyers in Germany.
Adamowicz, W.L., P.C. Boxall, M. Williams, and J.J. Louviere.1998. Stated preferences approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics80: 64-75.
2.
Ajzen, I.1991. Attitudes, personality and behavior. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
3.
Andrews, R., and I.S. Currim.2003. Retention of latent segments in regression-based marketing models. International Journal of Research in Marketing (20) 4: 315-321.
4.
Asendorpf, D.2006. Mehr Watt von oben. Die Zeit26:27-28.
5.
Bateman, I.J., B.H. Day, A.P. Jones, and S. Jude.2009. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management58:106-18.
6.
Bauer, H.H., F. Huber, and B. Lingelbach.2000. Das Kaufverhalten bei Ökobekleidung . Wissenschaftliche ArbeitspapiereW32, Mannheim, Germany.
7.
Bavarian Ministry of the Interior.2001. Kosten- und flächensparende Wohngebiete. Arbeitsblätter für die Bauleitplanung16. Munich.
8.
Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, ed. 1998. Bavarian housing development models. http://www.siedlungsmodelle.bayern.de/iew/ind1e.html (accessed January 10, 2009).
Beane, T.P., and D.M. Ennis.1987. Market segmentation: A review. European Journal of Marketing21 (5): 20-41.
11.
Ben-Akiva, M., and S.R. Lerman.1985. Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application in travel demand. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press.
12.
Bennett, J., and W. Adamowicz2001. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. In The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, ed. J. Bennet and R. Blamey, 37-69. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
13.
Bergmann, A., N. Hanley, and R. Wright.2006. Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments. Energy Policy34: 1004-14.
14.
Bhat, C.R.2002. Recent methodological advances relevant to activcity and travel behaviour analysis. In In perpetual motion: Travel behavior research opportunities and appliacation challanges, ed. H. S. Mahmassani, 381-414. New York.
15.
Birol, E., K. Karousakis, and P. Koundouri.2006. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics60:145-56.
16.
Boxall, P.C., and W.L. Adamowicz.2002. Understanding heterogenious preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics23 (1): 421-46.
17.
Bramley, G., and S. Power.2009. Urban form and social responsibility: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36:30-48.
18.
Brandenburg State Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Transport, ed. 2000. Nachhaltiger Wohnungsbau im Land Brandenburg. Potsdam, Germany.
19.
Chen, H.Z., and S.R. Cosslett.1998. Environmental quality preference and benefit estimation in multinomial probit models: A simulation approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics80:512-20.
20.
Costanzo, C.M., W.C. Halperin, N.D. Gale, and G.D. Richardson .1982. An alternative method for assessing goodness-of-fit for logit models. Environment and Planning A14: 963-971.
21.
Dijkstra, J., J.V. Leeuwen, and H. Timmermans.2003. Evaluating design alternatives using conjoint experiments in virtual reality. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30: 357-367.
22.
Dittmann, B.1998. Trendsetter-Schritte zum nachhaltigen Konsumverhalten am Beispiel der privaten Haushalte (64/97). Berlin.
23.
Dröge, R.1997. Werthaltungen und ökologierelevantes Kaufverhalten . In Marketing und Innovationsmanagement, ed. M. Benkenstein.Wiesbaden.
24.
Dutton, W.H., E.J. Helsper, and M.M. Gerber.2009. The Internet in Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
Enquete Commission ‘Schutz des Menschen und der Umwelt’of the 12th German House of Parliament, ed. 1994. Die Industriegesellschaft gestalten: Perspektiven für einen nachhaltigen Umgang mit Stoff- und Materialströmen. Bonn, Germany.
26.
Franz, R.2006. Nachhaltigkeitsmilieus in den Bedürfnisfeldern Ernährung, Wohnen und Mobilität. Consumer Science6. Munich.
27.
Fuchs, O., and T. Schleifnecker .2001. Handbuch ökologische Siedlungsentwicklung. Initiativen zum Umweltschutz32.
28.
Genis, S.2007. Producing elite localities: The rise of gated communities in Istanbul. Urban Studies44 (4): 771-98.
29.
German Federal Environment Agency, ed. 2000 . Szenarien und Potentiale einer nachhaltig flächensparenden und landschaftsschonenden Siedlungsentwicklung. Berlin.
30.
German Federal Environment Agency, ed. 2004 . Hintergrundpapier: Flächenverbrauch, ein Umweltproblem mit wirtschaftlichen Folgen. Berlin.
31.
German Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, ed. 1999. 24 städtebauliche Strategien zur nachhaltigen Entwicklung. Bonn.
32.
German Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, ed. 2007. Abgrenzungsmethodik der Raumstrukturtypisierung . http://www.bbr.bund.de (accessed July 10, 2007).
33.
German Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, ed. 1999. Städte der Zukunft. Auf der Suche nach der Stadt von morgen. Schriftenreihe Werkstatt: Praxis (4). Bonn.
34.
German Federal Statistical Office, ed. 2007 . Produktion im Baugewerbe. http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/bauwo/bauwotab3.php (accessed May 20, 2009).
35.
German Federal Statistical Office, ed. 2008 . Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland-Indikatorenbericht2008. Wiesbaden.
36.
Gordon, P., and H. Richardson.1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association63:95-106.
37.
Grêt-Regamey, A., I. Bishop, and P. Bepi.2007. Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. Environment and Planning B34:50-67.
38.
Hahn, E., ed. 1982. Siedlungsökologie-ökologische Aspekte einer neuen Stadt- und Siedlungspolitik. Karlsruhe , Germany: C.F. Müller.
39.
Harloff, H.J., K. Christiaanse, H.L. Dienel, G. Wendorf, and K. Zillich.2002. Nachhaltiges Wohnen - Befunde und Konzepte für zukunftsfähige Stadtquartiere: Nachhaltigkeit und Innovation . Heidelberg.
40.
Hartl, J., and E.-H. Lee.2003. Ökosiedlungen. Seoul, South Korea: Eigenverlag.
41.
Hassenpflug, D., ed. 2000. Die Europäische Stadt-Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Münster , Germany: Lit Verlag.
42.
Hensher, D.A., and W.H. Greene.2003. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation30 (2): 133-76.
43.
Hesse, M.1996. Nachhaltige Raumentwicklung. Überlegungen zur Bewertung der räumlichen Entwicklung und Planung in Deutschland im Zeichen der Agenda 21. Raumforschung und Raumordnung2 (3): 103-15.
44.
Hunt, L.M., et al. 2005. Accounting for varying setting preferences among moose hunters. Leisure Sciences27:297-314.
45.
Johnston, R.J., S.K. Swallow, and D.M. Bauer.2002. Spatial factors and stated preference values for public goods: Considerations for rural land use. Land Economics78 (2): 481-500.
46.
Joseph, A.E., B. Smit, and G.P. McIlravey.1989. Consumer preferences for rural residences: A conjoint analysis in Ontario, Canada. Environment and Planning A21:47-65.
47.
Kamakura, W.A., and G.J. Russell.1989. A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research26:379-90.
48.
Kim, S.S., J.H. Kim, and B.W. Ritchie.2008. Segmenting overseas golf tourists by the concept of specialization. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing25 (2): 199-217.
49.
Kuckarts, U.2006. Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2006- Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage. Berlin: Bonifatius, Paderborn.
50.
Lancaster, K.J.1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy74:132-57.
Leisch, H.2002. Gated communities in Indonesia. Cities19 (5): 341-50.
54.
Levine, J., A. Inam, and G.-W. Torng.2005. A choice-based rationale for land use and transportation alternatives: Evidence from Boston and Atlanta. Journal of Planning Education and Research24:317-30.
55.
Lin J.-J., and A.-T. Yang.2006. Does the compact-city paradigm foster sustainability? An empirical study in Taiwan. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33 (3): 365-80.
56.
Lindberg, E., T. Gärling, and H. Montgomery.1988. People’s beliefs and values as determinants of housing preferences and simulated choices. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research5:181-97.
57.
Louviere, J.J.1979. Modelling individual residential preferences: A totally disaggregate approach. Transportation Research A13: 373-84.
58.
Louviere, J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait.2000. Stated choice methods-Analysis and application . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
Louviere, J., and G. Woodworth.1983. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research20: 350-66.
60.
McFadden, D.1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior . In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. P. Zarembka,105-142. New York: Academic Press.
61.
McLachlan, G.J., and D. Peel.2000. Finite mixture models. New York, NY: John Wiley.
62.
Mehtan, V.2007. Lively streets determining environmental characteristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research27:165-87.
63.
Myers, D., and E. Gearin.2001. Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate (12) 4: 633-664.
64.
Ministry of the Environment Baden-Württemberg et al., ed. 2005. Leitfaden-Indikatoren im Rahmen einer lokalen Agenda 21. Heidelberg, Germany.
65.
Morey, E., J. Thacher, and W. Breffle2006. Using angler characteristics and attitudinal data to identify environmental preference classes: A latent-class model. Environmental and Resource Economics34:91-115.
66.
Morrow-Jones, H.A., E.G. Irwin, and Brian Roe2004. Consumer preference for neotraditional neighborhood characteristics . Housing Policy Debate15 (1): 171-202.
67.
Opaschowski, H.W.2005. Besser leben, schöner wohnen? Leben in der Stadt der Zukunft. Bonn, Germany: Primus Verlag.
68.
Palmeri, C.2007. Green homes: The price still isn’t right. Business Week4021:67.
69.
Prehal, A., and H. Poppe.2003. SIP-Siedlungsmodelle in Passivhausqualität . Berichte aus Energie und Umweltforschung12. Vienna.
70.
Purcel, A.T., and J.L. Nasar.1992. Experiencing other people’s houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology12: 199-211.
71.
Rohr-Zänker, R.2005. Gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen einer nachhaltigen Siedlungsentwicklung. In Tagungsdokumentation zur Tagung ’Ökologische Siedlungsentwicklung im Spiegel aktueller Trends undPraxis erfahrungen,’ ed. Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt.Osnabrück, Germany.
72.
Schahn, J., et al. 1999. Konstruktion und Evaluation der dritten Version des Skalensystems zur Erfassung des Umweltbewusstseins (SEU-3). Diskussionspapiere des psychologischen Instituts derUniversität Heidelberg84.
73.
Schürt, A., M. Spangenberg, and T. Pütz.2005. Raumstrukturtypen Konzept-Ergebnisse-Anwendungsmöglichkeiten- Perspektiven. Arbeitspapiere des Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung . Bonn, Germany: BBSR.
74.
Siedentop, S., G. Schiller, M. Koziol, J. Walther, and J.-M. Gutsche.2006. Siedlungsentwicklung und Infrastrukturfolgekosten- Bilanzierung und Strategieentwicklung. Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (BBR) (ed.). BBR Online Publikation. Bonn, Germany.
75.
Sieverts, T., ed. 2005. Zwischenstadt: zwischen Ort und Welt, Raum und Zeit, Stadt und Land. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
76.
Smith, W.R.1956. Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing21: 3-8.
77.
Timmermans, H.J.P., and R.G. Golledge.1990. Applications of behavioural research on spatial problems 2: Preference and choice. Progress of Human Geography14 (3): 311-54.
78.
Timmermans, H.J.P., E. Molin, and L. v. Noortwijk .1994. Housing choice processes: Stated versus revealed modelling approaches. Netherland Journal of Housing and the Built Environment9 (3): 215-27.
79.
Train, K.1998. Recreation demand models with taste variation. Land Economics74:230-39.
80.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ed. 1992. Agenda 21. Chapter7.5a, pp. 47ff. http://www.un.org/Depts/german/conf/agenda21/agenda_21.pdf (accessed October 15, 2008).
81.
Venugopal, V., and W. Baets.1994. Neural networks and statistical techniques in marketing research: A conceptual comparison. Marketing Intelligence and Planning12 (7): 30-38.
82.
Vogt, K.1999. Verzerrungen in elektronischen Befragungen? In Online Research, ed. B. Batinic, A. Werner, L. Gräf , and W. Bandilla Hogrefe, Göttingen: 127-144.
83.
Wedel, M., and W.A. Kamakura.1998. Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. International Series in Quantitative Marketing . Doredecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
84.
Williams, K., and C. Dair.2007. What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustainable Development15:135-47.
85.
Wolpensinger, H.2002. Ökobilanzierung von Siedlungen unter Berücksichtigung von Lebensstilaspekten. PhD diss., Universität Karlsruhe , Karlsruhe, Germany.
86.
Wolpensinger, H., and W. Rid.2010. Environmentally sustainable housing: Standards and innovation. DETAILl (English Edition)3:222-28.
87.
World Commission on Environment Development.1987. Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
88.
Zhang, L., T. Herzog, and G. Hauser.2006. Transparent thermal insulating multi-layer membrane structure for building envelope. Presented at International Conference on Adaptable Building Structures, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
