Conjoint measurement is introduced as an appropriate method for characterising the nature of consumer preferences for various types of rural residence. After a review of the major conceptual and technical issues in conjoint analysis, a study involving twenty-two potential homebuyers in southern Ontario is described. The results indicate that potential buyers are seeking privacy (medium-size or large lots in isolated locations) above all other things, which translates into a behavioural push for sprawling, low-density development. Further examination of the utilities attached to the various attributes of potential residences suggests a limited but real opportunity for the use of controls on lot and house size and on municipal service provision to increase the attractivenss of high-density, village locations to consumers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BibleD SBrownL A, 1981, “Place utility, attribute tradeoff, and choice behavior in an intra-urban migration context”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences1537–44
2.
BoagD ASarkarA K, 1984Housing Affordability and Acceptability as Influenced by Consumer Trade-off PerceptionsCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 682 Montreal Road, Ottawa K1A 0P7
BurnettP K, 1982, “Data problems and the application of conjoint measurement to recurrent urban travel”, Proximity and Preference: Problems in the Multi-dimensional Analysis of Large Data Sets Eds GolledgeR GRaynerJ N (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) pp 169–190
5.
CattinPWittinkD R, 1982, “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey”The Journal of Marketing4645–53
6.
EngelJ FBlackwellR DKollatD T, 1978Consumer Behavior (Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL)
7.
ErmuthH F, 1974Residential Satisfaction and Urban Environmental Preferences Geographical Monograph 3, Atkinson College, York University, Toronto
8.
GreenP E, 1984, “Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: an expository review”Journal of Marketing Research21155–169
9.
GreenP ERaoV R, 1971, “Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgemental data”Journal of Marketing Research8355–363
10.
GreenP ESrinivasanV, 1978, “Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook”Journal of Consumer Research5103–123
11.
HodgeG, 1974, “The city in the periphery”, Urban Futures for Central Canada Eds MacKinnonR DSiegelJSimmonsJ W (University of Toronto Press, Toronto) pp 281–301
12.
JohnsonR M, 1973, “Pairwise nonmetric multidimensional scaling”Psychometrika3811–18
13.
JohnsonR M, 1974, “Trade-off analysis of consumer values”Journal of Marketing Research11121–127
14.
JosephA ESmitB, 1981, “Implications of exurban residential development: a review”Canadian Journal of Regional Science4207–224
15.
JosephA ESmitB, 1985, “Rural residential development and municipal service provision: a Canadian case study”Journal of Rural Studies1321–337
16.
JosephA ESmitBPoynerA, 1980, “The provision of municipal public services in Wellington County”, Studies in Rural Adjustment Number 10, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
17.
KnightR LMenchikM D, 1974, “Residential environmental attitudes and preferences: Report of a questionnaire survey”, Report 24, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
18.
LancasterK, 1971Consumer Demand: A New Approach (Columbia University Press, New York)
19.
LouviereJ J, 1981, “A conceptual and analytical framework for understanding spatial choice”Economic Geography57304–314
20.
McIlraveyG P, 1985, “Sources of satisfaction in a rural nonfarm residential environment: an empirical example”, MA thesis, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
21.
NehlsLSeamanBMontgomeryD B, 1975, “A PL1 program for tradeoff analysis”, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
22.
PhippsA G, 1983, “Utility function switching during residential search”Geografiska Annaler B6523–38
23.
PhippsA G, 1987, “Households' utilities and hedonic prices for inner-city homes”Environment and Planning A1959–80
24.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1984, “An individual-level analysis of the stress-resistance model of household mobility”Geographical Analysis16176–189
25.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1985, “Individual differences in the residential preferences of inner-city homeowners”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie7632–42
26.
PrestonV, 1982, “A multidimensional scaling analysis of individual differences in residential area evaluation”Geografiska Annaler B6417–26
27.
SchnoreL F, 1954, “The separation of home and work”Social Forces32336–343
28.
SchulerH JProsperiD C, 1978, “A conjoint measurement model of consumer spatial behavior”Regional Science Perspectives8122–134
29.
SegalM N, 1982, “Reliability of conjoint analysis: contrasting data collection procedures”Journal of Marketing Research19139–144
30.
SmitBFlahertyM S, 1980, “Preferences for rural land severance policies: an empirical analysis”Canadian Geographer24165–176
31.
TaylorS MAikensM, 1983, “The effects of life cycle and length of residence on residential stress”Ontario Geography2149–66
32.
TimmermansH J P, 1984, “Decompositional multi-attribute preference models in spatial choice analyses: a review of some recent developments”Progress in Human Geography8189–221
33.
TimmermansH J Pvan der HeijdenRWesterveldV H, 1984, “Decisionmaking between multiattribute choice alternatives: a model of spatial shopping-behaviour using conjoint measurements”Environment and Planning A16377–387
34.
VeldhuisenK JTimmermansH J P, 1984, “Specification of individual residential utility functions: a comparative analysis of three measurement procedures”Environment and Planning A161573–1582
35.
WilliamsJSofrankoA J, 1979, “Motivations for the in-migration component of population turnaround in non-metropolitan areas”Demography16239–255
36.
WittinkD RMontgomeryD B, 1979, “Predictive validity of trade-off analysis for alternative segmentation schemes”, A.M.A. Educators Conference Proceeding Ed. BeckwithN (American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL) pp 69–73
