Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 47–65 | Cite as

Estimation of Bid Functions for Location Choice and Price Modeling with a Latent Variable Approach

  • Ricardo Hurtubia
  • Michel Bierlaire


A new approach for the estimation of bid-rent functions for residential location choice is proposed. The method is based on the bid-auction approach and considers that the expected maximum bid of the auction is a latent variable that can be related to observed price indicators through a measurement equation. The method has the advantage of allowing for the estimation of the parameters of the bid function that explain the heterogeneous preferences of households for location while simultaneously adjusting the expected maximum bid to reproduce realistic values. The model is applied and validated for a case study on the city of Brussels. Results show that the proposed model outperforms other methods for bid-rent estimation, both in terms of real estate prices and spatial distribution of agents, especially when detailed data describing the real estate goods and their prices is not available.


Location choice Bid function Auction Real estate Rent 



Research in this article has been funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme and the Complex Engineering Systems Institute (ICM: P-05-004-F, CONICYT: FBO16). The authors would like to thank the SustainCity team ( for their contribution with data collection and processing.


  1. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anas A (1982) Residential location markets and urban transportation: economic theory, econometrics, and policy analysis with discrete choice models. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer P, Ferreira F, McMillan R (2007) A unified framework for measuring preferences for schools and neighborhoods. J Polit Econ 115(4):588–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayer P, Timmins C (2005) On the equilibrium properties of locational sorting models. J Urban Econ 57(3):462–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Akiva ME, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhat CR, Guo JY (2007) A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transp Res B Methodol 41(5):506–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bierlaire M (2003) Biogeme: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the Swiss transport research conference. Ascona, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Bierlaire M, Fetiarison M (2009) Estimation of discrete choice models: extending biogeme. In: Proceedings of the 9th swiss transport research conference. Ascona, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Chattopadhyay S (1998) An empirical investigation into the performance of Ellickson’s random bidding model, with an application to air quality valuation. J Urban Econ 43(2):292–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark WAV, Deurloo MC, Dieleman FM (1997) Entry to home-ownership in Germany: some comparisons with the United States. Urban Stud 34(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark WAV, Deurloo MC, Dieleman FM (2006) Residential mobility and neighborhood outcomes. Hous Stud 21(3):323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark WAV, Onaka JL (1983) Life cycle and housing adjustment as explanations of residential mobility. Urban Stud 20:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cropper ML, Deck LB, McConnell KE (1988) On the choice of funtional form for hedonic price functions. Rev Econ Stat 70(4):668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiPasquale D, Wheaton W (1996) Urban economics and real-estate markets. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubin JA, McFadden DL (1984) An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica 52(2):345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellickson B (1981) An alternative test of the hedonic theory of housing markets. J Urban Econ 9(1):56–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Epple D (1987) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: estimating demand and supply functions for differentiated products. J Polit Econ 95(1):59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fujita M (1989) Urban economic theory: land use and city size. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujita M, Krugman P, Venables A (1999) The spatial economy: cities, regions and international trade. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabriel S, Rosenthal S (1989) Household location and race: estimates of a multinomial logit model. Rev Econ Stat 71(2):240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gin A, Sonstelie J (1992) The streetcar and residential location in nineteenth century philadelphia. J Urban Econ 32(1):92–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaeser EL (2008) Cities, agglomeration, and spatial equilibrium. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Gross DJ (1988) Estimating willingness to pay for housing characteristics: an application of the Ellickson bid-rent model. J Urban Econ 24(1):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gross DJ, Sirmans C, Benjamin JD (1990) An empirical evaluation of the probabilistic bid-rent model: The case of homogenous households. Reg Sci Urban Econ 20(1):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guevara CA, Ben-Akiva M (2006) Endogeneity in residential location choice models. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1977:60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horner MW (2004) Spatial dimensions of urban commuting: a review of major issues and their implications for future geographic research. Prof Geogr 56:170–173Google Scholar
  27. Jara-Díaz SR, Martínez FJ (1999) On the specification of indirect utility and willingness to pay for discrete residential location models. J Reg Sci 39(4):675–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee L-F (1982) Some approaches to the correction of selectivity bias. Rev Econ Stud 49(3):355–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lerman SR, Kern CR (1983) Hedonic theory, bid rents, and willingness-to-pay: some extensions of Ellickson’s results. J Urban Econ 13(3):358–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levy JP (2003) Population patterns and household trajectories in the residential milieu: the example of the Seine-Saint-Denis. Population-E 58(3):323–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lo AY, Jim CY (2010) Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban For Urban Green 9(2):113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martínez F (1996) Mussa: land use model for Santiago city. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1552(1):126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinez FJ (1995) Access: the transport - land use economic link. Transp Res B Methodo l29:457–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McFadden D (1978) Modeling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist A (ed)Spatial interaction theory and residential location.North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  35. McMillen DP (1997) Multiple regime bid-rent function estimation. J Urban Econ 41(2):301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miyamoto A, Kitazume K (1989) A land-use model based on random utility/rent-bidding analysis (rurban). Transport policy management and technology - towards 2001 selected proceedings of the fifth world conference on transport research, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  37. Muto S (2006) Estimation of the bid rent function with the usage decision model. J Urban Econ 60(1):33–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rieser M, Nagel K, Beuck U, Balmer M, RÃŒmenapp J (2007) Agent-oriented coupling of activity-based demand generation with multiagent traffic simulation. Transp Res Rec 2021:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosen S (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. J Polit Econ 82(1):34–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salvini P, Miller EJ (2005) Ilute: an operational prototype of a comprehensive microsimulation model of urban systems. Netw Spatial Econ 5:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64(5):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waddell P (1993) Exogenous workplace choice in residential location models: is the assumption valid? Geogr Anal 25:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waddell P, Borning A, Noth M, Freier N, Becke M, Ulfarsson G (2003) Microsimulation of urban development and location choices: design and implementation of urbansim. Netw Spatial Econ 3(1):43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walker J, Ben-Akiva M (2002) Generalized random utility model. Math Soc Sci 43(3):303–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walker JL, Li J (2007) Latent lifestyle preferences and household location decisions. J Geogr Syst 9:77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wegener M (2008) The irpud model: overview, Technical report, Spiekermann & Wegener,Urban Reg Res.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urbanism, Facultad de Arquitectura y UrbanismoUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Transport and Mobility Laboratory, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental EngineeringEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations