Residential choice behaviour is a complex process underpinned by both housing market restrictions and individual preferences, which are partly conscious and partly tacit knowledge. Due to several limitations, common survey methods cannot sufficiently tap into such tacit knowledge. Thus, this paper introduces an advanced knowledge elicitation process called SilverKnETs and combines it with data mining using random forests to elicit and operationalize this type of knowledge. For the application case of the city of Leipzig, Germany, our findings indicate that rent, location and type of housing form the three predictors strongly influencing the decision making in residential choices. Other explanatory variables appear to have a much lower influence. Random forests have proven to be a promising tool for the prediction of residential choices, although the design and scope of the study govern the explanatory power of these models.
AlrikssonSÖbergT (2008) Conjoint analysis: A useful tool for assessing preferences for environmental issues. Environmental Science and Pollution Research15(2): 119.
2.
AngeliniVLaferrèreA (2012) Residential mobility of the European elderly. CESifo Economic Studies58(3): 544–569.
3.
AntipovEAPokryshevskayaEB (2012) Mass appraisal of residential apartments: An application of Random forest for valuation and a CART-based approach for model diagnostics. Expert Systems with Applications39(2): 1772–1778.
4.
BajariPChanPKruegerD, et al. (2013) A dynamic model of housing demand: Estimation and policy implications. International Economic Review54(2): 409–442.
5.
BartkowskiBLienhoopNHansjürgensB (2015) Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecological Economics113: 1–14.
6.
BelgiuMDrăguţL (2016) Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing114: 24–31.
7.
BharwaniS (2006) Understanding complex behavior and decision making using ethnographic knowledge elicitation tools (KnETs). Social Science Computer Review24(1): 78–105.
8.
BharwaniSBithellMDowningTE, et al. (2005) Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences360(1463): 2183–2194.
9.
BharwaniSColl BesaMTaylorR, et al. (2015) Identifying salient drivers of livelihood decision-making in the forest communities of Cameroon: Adding value to social simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation18(1): 3.
10.
BhatCRGuoJ (2004) A mixed spatially correlated logit model: Formulation and application to residential choice modeling. Transportation Research Part B38: 147–168.
11.
BreimanL (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning45: 5–32.
12.
Brett HauberAGonzálezJGroothuis-OudshoornC, et al. (2016) Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: A report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis good research practices task force. Value in Health19(4): 300–315.
13.
Chen C, Liaw A and Breiman L (2004) Using Random Forest to Learn Imbalanced Data. Report, Report no. 666, July. Berkeley: University of California.
14.
ClarkWAVHuangY (2003) The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets. Environment and Planning A35: 323–339.
15.
EinavLLevinJ (2014) Economics in the age of big data. Science346(6210): 1243089.
16.
EttemaD (2010) The impact of telecommuting on residential relocation and residential preferences. Journal of Transport and Land Use3(1): 7–24.
17.
Grossmann K, Kabisch N and Kabisch S (2015) Understanding the social development of a post-socialist large housing estate: The case of Leipzig-Grünau in eastern Germany in long-term perspective. European Urban and Regional Studies. 24(2): 142–161.
18.
GustafssonAHerrmannAHuberF (2001) Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In: GustafssonAHerrmannAHuberF (eds) Conjoint Measurement – Methods and Applications, Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–30.
19.
HaaseAHerfertGKabischS, et al. (2012a) Reurbanizing Leipzig (Germany): Context conditions and residential actors (2000–2007). European Planning Studies20(7): 1173–1196.
20.
HaaseDKabischNHaaseA, et al. (2012b) Actors and factors in land use simulation – the challenge of urban shrinkage. Environmental Modelling and Software35: 92–103.
21.
HaaseDLautenbachSSeppeltR (2010) Applying social science concepts: Modelling and simulating residential mobility in a shrinking city. Environmental Modelling and Software25: 1225–1240.
22.
HaaseARinkD (2015) Inner-city transformation between reurbanization and gentrification: Leipzig, eastern Germany. Geografie15(2): 226–250.
23.
HastieTTibshiraniRFriedmanJ (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
24.
HothornTHornikKZeileisA (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15(3): 651–674.
25.
IbraimovicTMasieroL (2012) Do birds of a feather flock together? The impact of ethnic segregation preferences on neighbourhood choice. Urban Studies51(4): 693–711.
26.
IshwaranHKogalurUBBlackstoneEH, et al. (2008) Random survival forests. The Annals of Applied Statistics2(3): 841–860.
27.
IshwaranHKogalurUBChenX, et al. (2011) Random survival forests for high-dimensional data. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining4: 115–132.
28.
KabischNHaaseDHaaseA (2010) Evolving reurbanisation? Spatio-temporal dynamics exemplified at the eastern German city of Leipzig. Urban Studies47(5): 967–990.
29.
Kemp-BenedictEJBharwaniSFischerMD (2010) Methods for linking social and physical analysis for sustainability planning. Ecology and Society15(3): 4.
30.
KimJ-HPagliaraFPrestonJ (2003) An analysis of residential location choice behaviour in Oxfordshire, UK: A combined stated preference approach. International Review of Public Administration8(1): 103–114.
31.
LaufSHaaseDSeppeltR, et al. (2012) Simulating demography and housing demand in an urban region under scenarios of growth and shrinkage. Environment and Planning B39: 229–246.
32.
LauschASchmidtATischendorfL (2015) Data mining and linked open data – New perspectives for data analysis in environmental research. Use of Ecological Indicators in Models295: 5–17.
33.
LiawAWienerM (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News2(3): 18–22.
34.
López-OspinaHAMartínezFJCortésCE (2016) Microeconomic model of residential location incorporating life cycle and social expectations. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems55: 33–43.
35.
McFaddenD (1978) Modeling the choice of residential location. Transportation Research Record673: 72–77.
36.
ParkJKimK (2016) The residential location choice of the elderly in Korea: A multilevel logit model. Journal of Rural Studies44: 261–271.
37.
PriceJIJanmaatJSugdenF, et al. (2016) Water storage systems and preference heterogeneity in water-scarce environments: A choice experiment in Nepal’s Koshi River Basin. Water Resources and Economics13: 6–18.
38.
RaymondCMFazeyIReedMS, et al. (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environment management. Journal of Environmental Management91: 1766–1777.
39.
Rodriguez-GalianoVFGhimireBRoganJ, et al. (2012) An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing67: 93–104.
40.
RokachLMaimonO (2015) Data Mining With Decision Trees: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific.
41.
SenerINPendyalaRMBhatCR (2011) Accommodating spatial correlation across choice alternatives in discrete choice models: An application to modeling residential location choice behavior. Journal of Transport Geography19: 294–303.
42.
Stadt Leipzig, Amt für Wahlen und Statistik (2016) Kommunale Bürgerumfrage 2015. Report, Leipzig, June. Leipzig: Stadt Leipzig, Amt für Statistik und Wahlen.
43.
Stokenberga A (2019) How family networks drive residential location choices: Evidence from a stated preference field experiment in Bogotá, Colombia. Urban Studies. 56(2): 368–384.
44.
StroblCBoulesteixA-LKneibT, et al. (2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics9: 307.
45.
TimmermansHBorgersAvan DijkJ, et al. (1992) Residential choice behaviour of dual earner households: A decompositional joint choice model. Environment and Planning A24: 517–533.
46.
TuGAbildtrupJGarciaS (2016) Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices. Landscape and Urban Planning148: 120–131.
47.
VollmerDRyffelANDjajaK, et al. (2016) Examining demand for urban river rehabilitation in Indonesia: Insights from a spatially explicit discrete choice experiment. Land Use Policy57: 514–525.
48.
WalkerJLLiJ (2007) Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions. Journal of Geographical Systems9(1): 77–101.
49.
WelzJHaaseAKabischS (2014) Meine Entscheidung für Leipzig. Ergebnisse der Wanderungsbefragung 2014. In: Leipzig Stadtfür Wahlen und Statistik Amt (ed.) Statistischer Quartalsbericht II/2014, Leipzig: Stadt Leipzig, pp. 19–24.
WittenIHFrankEHallMA (2011) Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 3rd ed. Burlington: Elsevier.
52.
WolffMHaaseA (2015) Stadtregion Leipzig-Halle jenseits der Schrumpfung: neues Wachstum und Stabilisierung. In: Leipzig Stadtfür Wahlen und Statistik Amt (ed.) Statistischer Quartalsbericht I/2015, Leipzig: Stadt Leipzig, pp. 36–42.
53.
Wolff M, Haase A, Haase D, et al. (2016) The impact of urban regrowth on the built environment. Urban Studies. 54(12): 2683–2700.
54.
WoodLEFordJM (1993) Structuring interviews with experts during knowledge elicitation. International Journal of Intelligent Systems8(1): 71–90.
55.
WootenTCRowleyTH (1995) Using anthropological interview strategies to enhance knowledge acquisition. Expert Systems with Applications9(4): 469–482.
56.
WrightMNZieglerAKönigIR (2016) Do little interactions get lost in dark random forests?BMC BioInformatics17: 145.
57.
YatesJMackayDF (2006) Discrete choice modelling of urban housing markets: A critical review and an application. Urban Studies43(3): 559–581.
58.
YuBZhangJLiX (2017) Dynamic life course analysis on residential location choice. Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice104: 281–292.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
