Conjoint models of housing preferences typically derive preference functions from consumer responses to profiles of housing attributes generated experimentally. It is not readily evident how such housing preferences can be used to simulate actual housing choice. In this paper we provide conceptual considerations to link conjoint preferences to actual behaviour and discuss the principles of a simulation model. We illustrate the approach using as our example the effects of a rental subsidy on potential mobility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenjaminJPaaswellR E, 1981, “A psychometric analysis of residential location”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences15305–319
2.
BibleD SBrownL A, 1981, “Place utility, attribute tradeoff, and choice behavior in an intra-urban migration context”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences1537–44
3.
JosephA ESmitBMcIlraveyG P, 1989, “Consumer preferences for rural residences: a conjoint analysis in Ontario, Canada”Environment and Planning A2147–63
4.
KnightR LMenchikM D, 1976, “Conjoint preference estimation for residential land use policy evaluation”, in Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior Eds GolledgeR GRushtonG (Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH) pp 135–155
5.
LouviereJ J, 1979, “Modeling individual residential preferences: a totally disaggregate approach”Transportation Research A13373–384
6.
LouviereJ JHenleyD A, 1977, “Information integration theory applied to student apartment selection decisions”Geographical Analysis9130–141
7.
LouviereJ JMeyerR J, 1976, “A model for residential impression formation”Geographical Analysis8479–486
8.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990, “Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice behavior”Geographical Analysis22127–144
9.
MolinE J EOppewalHTimmermansH J P, 1997, “Modeling group preferences using a decompositional preference approach”, in Special Issue Group Decision and Negotiation6 forthcoming
10.
PhippsA G, 1987, “Households' utilities and hedonic prices for inner-city homes”Environment and Planning A1959–80
11.
PhippsA G, 1989a, “Residential stress and consumption disequilibrium in the Saskatoon housing market”Papers of the Regional Science Association6771–87
12.
PhippsA G, 1989b, “Intended mobility responses to possible neighborhood change in an American, a British and a Canadian inner-urban area”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie8043–58
13.
PhippsA GCarterJ E, 1985, “Individual differences in the residential preferences of inner-city households”Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie7632–42
14.
PhippsA GClarkW A V, 1988, “Interactive recovery and validation of households' residential utility functions”, in Behavioral Modelling in Geography and Planning Eds GolledgeR GTimmermansH J P (Croom Helm, London) pp 245–271
SchellekensM P GTimmermansH J P, 1995, “Hierarchical conjoint preference models of residential mobility: some validity tests”, forthcoming
17.
TimmermansH J Pvan der HeijdenR E C M, 1984, “The predictive ability of alternative decision rules in decompositional multi-attribute preference models”Sistemi urbani189–101
18.
TimmermansH J Pvan NoortwijkL E, 1996, “Context dependencies in housing choice behavior”Environment and Planning A27181–192
19.
TimmermansH J PBorgersA W Jvan DijkJOppewalH, 1992, “Residential choice behaviour of dual earner households: a decompositional joint choice model”Environment and Planning A24517–533
20.
TimmermansH J Pvan NoortwijkL EOppewalHvan der WaerdenP J H J, 1996, “Modeling constrained choice behaviour in regulated housing markets by means of discrete choice experiments and universal logit models: an application to the residential choice behaviour of divorcees”Environment and Planning A281095–1112
21.
Van de VyvereYOppewalHTimmermansH J P, 1997, “The validity of hierarchical information integration choice experiments to model residential preference and choice”, forthcoming
22.
VeldhuisenK JTimmermansH J P, 1984, “Specification of individual residential utility functions: a comparative analysis of three measurement procedures”Environment and Planning A161573–1582
