Forms of Utility Function for Residential Behavior Analysis and Neighborhood Benefits Estimation

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to answer the question of what form of utility function is best for forecasting residential behavior and estimating the benefits of various neighborhood changes. This question is a key factor when consistently analyzing the impacts of residential environmental changes on residential behavior and measuring the benefits, because the magnitude and sensitivity of such impacts and benefits vary with the specified utility function forms. In this paper, first, residential behavior is formulated and then benefits of residential environmental changes are rigorously defined emphasizing the importance of estimating the utility function. Second, four utility function forms, namely, linear, log-linear, CES (constant elasticity of substitution), and VES (variable elasticity of substitution), are adopted, and a method for estimating the parameters of the specified utility functions is proposed. Based on a case study, it is concluded that the CES form is best in terms both of analyzing residential behavior and of estimating the benefits of various neighborhood changes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anas

, 1982 Residential Location Markets and Urban Transportation (Academic Press, New York)

Boadway

R W

, 1974, “The welfare foundations of cost — benefit analysis” Economic Journal 84 926–939

Domencich

McFadden

, 1975 Urban Travel Demand (North-Holland, Amsterdam)

Freeman

A M

, 1979 The Benefits of Environmental Improvement Theory and Practice (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)

King

M A

, 1983, “Welfare analysis of tax reforms using household data” Journal of Public Economics 21 183–214

Mäler

K G

, 1974 Environment Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)

McFadden

, 1979, “Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of individuals” in Some Recent Developments in Behavioural Travel Modelling Eds Hensher

D A

Stopher

P R

(Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent) pp 279–318

Morisugi

, 1982, “Measurement of noise damage cost by means of a multiattribute utility function—a comparison of compensating and equivalent variation” Modeling and Simulation 13 1193–1198

Morisugi

, 1983, “Welfare implications of cost — benefit analysis” in International and Regional Conflict Eds Isard

Nagao

(Ballinger, Cambridge, MA) pp 161–185

10.

Morisugi

, 1984, “A basic definition of transport benefits—advocating equivalent variation” Proceedings of the World Conference on Transport Research, pp 1143–1157; copy available from S N V Studiengesellschaft Nahverkehr mbH, Hamburg

11.

Morisugi

Miyatake

Yoshida

, 1980, “A study on measurement of social cost of noise” (in Japanese) Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, number 302, pp 113–123; copy available from the first author

12.

MRI, 1979 A Study on the Social Damage Cost of the Deterioration of Environments (in Japanese)

13.

Mitsubishi Research Institute, 3–6, Otemachi 2-Chome, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 100

14.

Varian

H R

, 1978 Microeconomic Analysis (W W Norton, Boston, MA)