The housing-consumption preferences of a sample of inner-city owner-occupants in Saskatoon are recovered from their unconstrained residential preferences for housing and neighbourhood types. These unconstrained utilities are quantitatively compared with implicit prices for the same housing and neighborhood types, computed from a hedonic housing price model. A first finding is that the households preferred the levels of eight of the twelve residential attributes that were also the higher priced. In contrast, a second finding was that their unconstrained utilities were negatively monotonically related to the hedonic price scales for four attributes, neighborhood housing, renovation/basement, age of construction, and family life cycle of the neighborhood people. The salience of these four divergences between the scales of value, in terms of future land-use and social change in inner-city neighborhoods, is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenI, 1980, “The ideology of dense neighborhood development: Cultural diversity and transcendent community experience”Urban Affairs Quarterly15409–428
2.
AnasAEumSJ, 1984, “Hedonic analysis of a housing market in disequilbrium”Journal of Urban Economics1587–106
3.
AndersonAE, 1978, “Structural and functional approaches to consumption theory”, in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models Eds KarlqvistALindqvistLSnickarsFWeibullJW, (North-Holland, Amsterdam) pp 25–46
4.
AndreasC, 1984Hedonic Price Modeling of the Saskatoon Housing Market, with particular emphasis on the Core Neighborhoods, 1980–83 unpublished MA thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
5.
BallMJKirwanRM, 1977, “Urban housing demand: Some evidence from cross-sectional data”Applied Economics9343–366
6.
BenjaminJPaaswellRE, 1981, “A psychometric analysis of residential location”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences15305–319
7.
BerryBJL, 1980, “Inner city futures: An American dilemma revisited”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series51–28
8.
BibleDSBrownLA, 1981, “Place utility, attribute tradeoff, and choice behavior in an intra-urban migration context”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences1537–44
9.
BourneLS, 1981The Geography of Housing (Edward Arnold, London)
10.
BradfordCRubinowitzL, 1975, “The urban – suburban investment – disinvestment process: Consequences for older neighborhoods”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science42277–86
11.
BrummellAC, 1981, “A method for measuring residential stress”Geographical Analysis13248–261
12.
ButlerRV, 1982, “The specification of hedonic indices for urban housing”Land Economics5896–108
City of Saskatoon Planning Department, 1978, “Core neighborhood study” City Hall, Saskatoon S7K 0J5, Saskatchewan
15.
ClarkT, 1985, “The interdependence among gentrifying neighborhoods: Central Denver since 1970”Urban Geography6246–273
16.
ClayPL, 1980, “The rediscovery of city neighborhoods: Reinvestment by long-time residents and newcomers”, in Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation Eds LaskaSBSpainD, (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY) pp 13–26
17.
ForrestRWilliamsP, 1984, “Commodification and housing: Emerging issues and contradictions”Environment and Planning A161163–1180
18.
FreemanMR, 1979, “The hedonic price approach to measuring demand for neighborhood characteristics” in The Economics of Neighborhood Ed. SegalD, (Academic Press, New York) pp 191–217
19.
GaleDE, 1979, “Middle class resettlement in older urban neighborhoods”Journal of the American Planning Association45293–304
20.
GoldfieldDR, 1980, “Private neighborhood redevelopment and displacement: The case of Washington, DC”Urban Affairs Quarterly15453–468
21.
HamnettCR, 1984, “Gentrification and residential location theory”, in Geography and the Urban Environment: Progress in Research and Applications, volume VI Eds HerbertDTJohnstonRJ, (John Wiley, New York) pp 283–319
22.
HamnettCRRandolphW, 1984, “The role of landlord disinvestment in housing market transformation: An analysis of the flat break-up market in central London”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 9 259–279
23.
HanushekEAQuigleyJM, 1978, “An explicit model of intrametropolitan mobility”Land Economics54411–429
24.
HanushekEAQuigleyJM, 1979, “The dynamics of the housing market: A stock adjustment model of housing consumption”Journal of Urban Economics690–111
25.
HarloeM, 1981, “The recommodification of housing”, in City, Class and Capital Eds HarloeMLeBasE, (Edward Arnold, London) pp 17–50
26.
HarveyD, 1973Social Justice and the City (Edward Arnold, London)
27.
HarveyD, 1982The Limits to Capital (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
28.
KernCR, 1981, “Upper-income renaissance in the city: Its sources and implications for the city's future”Journal of Urban Economics9106–124
29.
KnightRLMenchikMD, 1976, “Conjoint preference estimation for residential land use policy evaluation”, in Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior Eds GolledgeRGRushtonG, (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 135–156
30.
LaskaSBSeamonJMMcSeveneyDR, 1982, “Inner city reinvestment: Neighborhood characteristics and spatial patterns over time”Urban Studies19155–165
31.
LauriaM, 1982, “Selective urban redevelopment: A political economic perspective”Urban Geography3224–239
32.
LauriaM, 1984, “The implications of Marxian rent theory for community-controlled redeveloment”Journal of Planning Education and Research416–24
33.
LeGatesRTMurphyK, 1981, “Austerity, shelter, and social conflict in the United States”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research5255–275
34.
LeyD, 1981, “Inner-city revitalization in Canada: A Vancouver case study”The Canadian Geographer25124–148
35.
LiptonSG, 1977, “Evidence of central city revival”Journal of the American Institute of Planners43136–147
36.
LongLH, 1980, “Back to the countryside and back to the city in the same decade”, in Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation Eds LaskaSBSpainD, (Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY) pp 61–76
MaclennanD, 1977, “Some thoughts on the nature and purpose of house price studies”Urban Studies1459–71
39.
MaclennanD, 1982Housing Economics: An Applied Approach (Longman, Harlow, Essex)
40.
MarkJHGoldbergMA, 1985, “Revisiting change from a Canadian perspective: Some supporting evidence from Vancouver”The Annals of Regional Science1929–46
41.
MerrillSR, 1983, “The use of hedonic indices”, in Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, Volume 24. The Great Housing Experiment Eds FriedmanJWeinbergDH, (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA) pp 144–162
42.
MichelsonW, 1977Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential Satisfaction (Oxford University Press, New York)
43.
NaroffJLLiroJR, 1982, “Factors influencing the actions of recent movers into and within metropolitan areas”Urban Geography3300–314
44.
OnakaJClarkWAV, 1983, “A disaggregate model of residential mobility and housing choice”Geographical Analysis15287–304
45.
PhippsAG, 1983, “Housing renovation by recent movers into the Core Neighborhoods of Saskatoon”The Canadian Geographer27240–262
46.
PhippsAG, 1986, “Intended-mobility responses to possible neighborhood change in an American, a British, and a Canadian inner-urban area” unpublished paper; copy available from the author
47.
PhippsAGCarterJE, 1984, “An individual-level analysis of the stress-resistance model of household mobility”Geographical Analysis16176–189
48.
PhippsAGCarterJE, 1985, “Individual differences in the residential preferences of inner-city homeowners”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Social Geografie7632–42
49.
PhippsAGHoldenWJ, 1985, “Intended-mobility responses to inner-city school closure”Environment and Planning A171169–1183
50.
QuigleyJM, 1976, “Housing demand in the short run: An analysis of polytomous choice”Explorations in Economic Research376–102
51.
QuigleyJMWeinbergDH, 1977, “Intra-metropolitan residential mobility: A review and synthesis”International Regional Science Review241–66
RoseD, 1984, “Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the uneven development of marxist urban theory”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space247–74
54.
ScottAJ, 1980The Urban Land Nexus and the State (Pion, London)
55.
SheferD, 1986, “Utility changes in housing and neighborhood services for households moving into and out of distressed neighborhoods”Journal of Urban Economics19107–124
56.
SheppardES, 1980, “The ideology of spatial choice”Papers of the Regional Science Association45197–213
57.
SmithN, 1979a, “Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital not people”Journal of the American Planning Association54538–548
58.
SmithN, 1979b, “Gentrification and capital: Practice and ideology in Society Hill”Antipode1124–35
59.
SmithN, 1982, “Gentrification and uneven development”Economic Geography58139–155
60.
SmithPJMcCannLD, 1981, “Residential land use change in inner Edmonton”Annals of the Association of American Geographers71536–551
61.
TakaneYYoungFWde LeeuwJ, 1980, “An individual differences additive model: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features”Psychometrika45183–209
62.
ThornsDC, 1980, “Constraints vs. choices in the analysis of housing allocation and residential mobility”, in The Consumer Experience of Housing: Cross-national Perspectives Eds UngersonCKarnV, (Gower, Aldershot, Hants) pp 32–52
63.
WeinbergDHFriedmanJMayoSK, 1981, “Intraurban residential mobility: The role of transactions costs, market imperfections, and household disequilibrium”Journal of Urban Economics9332–348
64.
WekerleGR, 1984, “A woman's place is in the city”Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography1611–20
