Advertisement

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 159–176 | Cite as

What makes a location attractive for the housing consumer? Preliminary findings from metropolitan Helsinki and Randstad Holland using the analytical hierarchy process

  • Tom Kauko
Original Paper

Abstract

What determines the attractiveness of a location within a given housing market? The study reports some preliminary cross-country evidence on housing consumer preferences, based on expert elicited preference profiles generated by an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The findings indicate fundamental differences between the two housing market contexts: metropolitan Helsinki (in 1998) and Randstad Holland (in 2003). In Helsinki housing quality and a spacious environment are always taken for granted. Therefore, an important choice criterion is location, particularly two aspects of it: accessibility and ȁ8pleasantnessȁ9. The latter aspect characterises a pluralist consumer preference formation; it is based on various individual and idiosyncratic lifestyles that depend on value orientations. In Randstad Holland the situation is somewhat different. There, for most housing consumers, the functionality and spaciousness of the house matters more than its location. Furthermore, the tangible ȁ8hardȁ9 characteristics have more weight than the intangible ȁ8softȁ9 ones when it comes to evaluating the physical surroundings. The image of the municipality does not matter as much as the neighbourhood factors. The difference is particularly evident for new developments in suburban areas. This has potential implications for the building industry when deciding on the most feasible strategy for production.

Keywords

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Attractiveness of a location Metropolitan Helsinki Randstad Holland Stated choice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adair, A. S., Berry, J. N., & McGreal, W. S. (1996). Hedonic modelling, housing submarkets and residential valuation. Journal of Property Research, 13(2), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, M. J. (1973). Recent empirical work on the determinants of relative house prices. Urban Studies, 10, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, J., & Srinivasan, V. C. (1994). Using the analytic hierarchy process in house selection. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender, A., Din, A., Favarger, P., Hoesli, M., & Laakso, J. (1997). An analysis of perceptions concerning the environmental quality of housing in Geneva. Urban Studies, 34, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender, A., Din, A., Hoesli, M., & Laakso, J. (1999). Environmental quality perceptions of urban commercial real estate. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 17, 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, W. A., & Cadwallader, M. (1973). Residential preferences: an alternate view of intraurban space. Environment and Planning A, 5, 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coolen, H. (2004). The meaning of preferences for features of a dwelling: A study exploring several aspects of the conceptual framework. Paper presented at the 18th IAPS Conference, Vienna, July 7–10, 19 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Dieleman, F. M., Clark, W. A. V., & Deurloo, M. C. (2000). The geography of residential turnover in twenty-seven large US metropolitan housing markets, 1985–95. Urban Studies, 37(2), 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dignum, K. (2004). Stedelijke dynamiek bij stagnerende woningmarkt. Amsterdamse woonmilieus 2003. Gemeente Amsterdam: Dienst Wonen.Google Scholar
  10. Doling, J. (1978). The use of content analysis in identifying the determinants of house prices. Urban Studies, 15, 89–90.Google Scholar
  11. Dubin, R. A., & Sung, C.-H. (1987). Spatial variation in the price of housing: Rent gradients in non-monocentric cities. Urban Studies, 24(June), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubin, R. A., & Sung, C.-H. (1990). Specification of hedonic regressions: Non-nested tests on measures of neighborhood quality. Journal of Urban Economics, 27(1 Jan), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregory R., Flynn, J., Johnson, S. M., Satterfield, T. A., Slovic, P., & Wagner, R. (1997). Decision-pathway surveys: A tool for resource managers. Land Economics, 73(2), 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoesli, M., Thion, B., & Watkins, C. (1997). A hedonic investigation of the rental value of apartments in central Bordeaux. Journal of Property Research, 14, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hourihan, K. (1979a). The evaluation of urban neighbourhoods 1: Perception. Environment and Planning A, 11(12), 1337–1353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hourihan, K. (1979b). The evaluation of urban neighbourhoods 2: Preference. Environment and Planning A, 11(12), 1355–1366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janssen, J. (1992). De prijsforming van bestaande koopwoningen (The price structure of existing private sector housing, in Dutch). Proefschrift: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 204 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Kauko, T. (2002). Modelling locational determinants of house prices: Neural network and value tree approaches. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht, 2002. (accessible also via Internet: http://www.library.uu.nl/decollectie/proefschriften/11688main.html).Google Scholar
  19. Kauko, T. (2003). Residential property value and locational externalities: On the complementarity and substitutability of approaches. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 21(3), 250–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laakso, S. (1997) Urban housing prices and the demand for housing characteristics. Helsinki: The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA) A 27.Google Scholar
  21. Laakso, J., Bender, A., Din, A., Favarger, P., & Hoesli, M. (1995). An analysis of perceptions concerning the environmental quality of residential real estate in Geneva. 1st International Real Estate Conference, Stockholm, June 28–July 1.Google Scholar
  22. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., & Montgomery, H. (1988). Peopleȁ9s beliefs and values as determinants of housing preferences and simulated choices. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 5, 181–197.Google Scholar
  23. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., Montgomery, H., & Waara, R. (1987). Peopleȁ9s evaluation of housing attributes. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 4(2), 81–103.Google Scholar
  24. Maclennan, D. (1977). Some thoughts on the nature and purpose of house price studies. Urban Studies, 14, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meen, G. (2001). Modelling spatial housing markets: Theory, analysis and policy (advances in urban and regional economics, v.2). USA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Menchik, M. (1972). Residential environmental preferences and choice: empirically validating preference measures. Environment and Planning, 4, 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miettinen, P., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (1996) Ympäristön arvottaminen – Taloustieteelliset ja monitavoitteiset menetelmät (in Finnish). Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory B19.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, N. G. (1982). Residential property hedonic pricing models: A review. In C. F. Sirmans (Ed.), Urban housing markets and property valuation. Research in real estate, vol. 2 (pp. 31–56). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Morrison, P. S., & McMurray, S. (1999). The inner-city apartments versus the suburb: Housing sub-markets in a New Zealand City. Urban Studies, 36(2), 377–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morrow-Jones, H. A., Irwin, E. G., & Roe, B. (2004). Consumer preference for neotraditional neighbourhood characteristics. Housing Policy Debate, 15(1), 171–202.Google Scholar
  31. Needham, B., Franke, M., & Bosma, P. (1998). How the city of Amsterdam is using econometric modelling to value real estate. Journal of Property Tax Assessment and Administration, 3(2), 25–46.Google Scholar
  32. Nevalainen, R., Staffans, A., & Vuorela, P. (1990). Asumisen laadun arviointi ja tutkiminen. (Evaluating and studying the quality of housing, in Finnish). Helsinki: YTK B 60.Google Scholar
  33. Ong, S. E., & Chew, T. I. (1996). Singapore residential market: an expert judgemental forecast incorporating the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 14, 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Powe, N. A., Garrod, G. D., & Willis, K. G. (1995). Valuation of urban amenities using an hedonic price model. Journal of Property Research, 12, 137–147.Google Scholar
  35. Preston, V. (1986). A case study of context effects and residential area evaluation in Hamilton, Canada. Environment and Planning A, 18, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rietveld, P., & Wagtendonk, A. J. (2004). The location of new residential areas and the preservation of open space: experiences in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning A, 36, 2047–2063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spit, T., & Needham, B. (1987). A model of house prices in a Dutch city. Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, 2(1), 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uuskallio, I. (2001). Arvostetut asuinsijat. Asuntoalueiden arvostuksen sosiokulttuurinen analyysi 1900-luvun Helsingissä ja Tehtaankadulta etelään (in Finnish). Helsinki: City of Helsinki Urban Facts Research series 2001: 8.Google Scholar
  40. Vainio, M. (1995). Traffic noise and air pollution. A-102, Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration. Google Scholar
  41. van der Vlist, A. J., Gorter, C., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2002). Residential mobility and local housing market differences. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper TI 2002–003/3.Google Scholar
  42. Whitbread, M. (1978). Two trade-off experiments to evaluate the quality of residential environment. Urban Studies, 15, 149–166.Google Scholar
  43. Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process – a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16(4 July–August), 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility StudiesDelft University of TechnologyGA DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations