Abstract
The deconcentration of urban population is a widespread phenomenon in Western societies. Whatever the reasons for residential deconcentration, an inevitable consequence is that an increasing number of people will choose to reside on the outskirts of urban regions. In this paper, the relationship between residential preferences and housing choices is examined using questionnaire data from 1,137 residents of the Turku urban region. This study examines how congruent their stated and revealed residential preferences are in the urban region and to what extent residential preferences affect residential mobility within the urban region. The results show that the stated residential preferences of the respondents correspond closely with their housing choices but the relation of residential preferences to changing population distribution is not straightforward. Although preference for low-density housing is the most important factor describing population decentralisation, the population flow towards the central city is predominantly determined by demographic factors. The results emphasise the latent nature of residential preferences, as the preferred residential environment does not necessarily correspond with the chosen housing. The results stress the importance of gaining thorough knowledge of the subjective values given to housing in order to understand what aspects of housing are important for people and what kind of influence residential preferences actually have on housing choices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The random selection method ensured a more equal distribution of the respondents than other available methods offered by the Population Registration Centre, i.e., selecting the oldest household member or the household member having the highest income. However, the random selection included a small number of young respondents still living in their parental home in the sample. Although the housing choice of these respondents was most likely made by their parents, their stated residential preferences are still relevant for the purposes of this study.
The number of municipalities refers to a situation prior to the year 2009, when several municipal mergers reduced their number to thirteen.
The level of misclassification was 9% for respondents who stated to live in the core urban area and 7% for those who stated to live on the urban fringe. The respondents misclassified as core urban area dwellers lived predominantly in the central areas of the larger sub-centres on the urban fringe whereas the respondents misclassified as urban fringe dwellers lived on the edges of the core urban area. Therefore, possible misclassification-related biases in the results are presumably minimal.
References
Ærø, T. (2006). Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 23, 109–130.
Åslund, O. (2005). Now and forever? Initial and subsequent location choices of immigrants. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 141–165.
Bayoh, I., Irwin, E. G., & Haab, T. (2006). Determinants of residential location choice: How important are local public goods in attracting homeowners to central city locations? Journal of Regional Science, 46, 97–120.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Site effects. In P. Bourdieu, et al. (Eds.), The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society (pp. 123–129). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bouzarovski, S., Haase, A., Hall, R., Steinführer, A., Kabisch, S., & Odgen, P. E. (2010). Household structure, migration trends, and residential preferences in inner-city León, Spain: Unpacking the demographies of reurbanization. Urban Geography, 31, 211–235.
Clark, W. A. V. (1989). Revealed preferences and neighborhood transitions in a multi-ethnic setting. Urban Geography, 10, 434–448.
Clark, W. A. V. (2009). Changing residential preferences across income, education, and age: Findings from the multi-city study of urban inequality. Urban Affairs Review, 44, 334–355.
Coolen, H., & Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preference for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 285–306.
Dempsey, N. (2010). Revisiting the compact city? Built Environment, 36, 5–8.
Dieleman, F. M., & Mulder, C. H. (2002). The geography of residential choice. In J. I. Aragonés, G. Francescato, & T. Gärling (Eds.), Residential environments: Choice, satisfaction, and behavior (pp. 35–54). Westport: Bergin & Garvey.
Dökmeci, V., & Berköz, L. (2000). Residential-location preferences according to demographic characteristics in Istanbul. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 45–55.
Feijten, P. (2005). Life events and the housing career: A retrospective analysis of timed effects. Delft: Eburon.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fielding, A. J. (1992). Migration and social mobility: South East England as an escalator region. Regional Studies, 26, 1–15.
George, D. (2001). Preference pollution: How markets create the desires we dislike. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R., & Scafidi, B. (2002). Black self-segregation as a cause of housing segregation: Evidence from the multi-city study of urban inequality. Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 366–390.
Juntto, A. (2007). Suomalaisten asumistoiveet ja mahdollisuudet. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
Karsten, L. (2007). Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of middle-class families’ preference for an urban residential location. Housing Studies, 22, 83–98.
Kim, J. H., Pagliara, F., & Preston, J. (2005a). The intention to move and residential location choice behaviour. Urban Studies, 42, 1621–1636.
Kim, T.-J., Horner, M. W., & Marans, R. W. (2005b). Life cycle and environmental factors in selecting residential and job location. Housing Studies, 20, 457–473.
Kortteinen, M., Tuominen, M., & Vaattovaara, M. (2005). Asumistoiveet, sosiaalinen epäjärjestys ja kaupunkisuunnittelu pääkaupunkiseudulla [Housing desires, social disorder and urban planning in the Helsinki region]. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 70, 121–131.
Mulder, C. H. (1996). Housing choice: Assumptions and approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11, 209–232.
Mulder, C. H., & Cooke, T. J. (2009). Family ties and residential locations. Population, Space and Place, 15, 299–304.
Myers, D., & Gearin, E. (2001). Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate, 12, 633–659.
Niedomysl, T. (2008). Residential preferences for interregional migration in Sweden: Demographic, socioeconomic, and geographical determinants. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1109–1131.
Pérez, P. E., Martínez, F. J., & de Dios Ortúzar, J. (2003). Microeconomic formulation and estimation of a residential location choice model: Implications for the value of time. Journal of Regional Science, 43, 771–789.
Rossi, P. H. (1980). Why families move (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 759–784.
Skifter Andersen, H. (2008). Why do residents want to leave deprived neighbourhoods? The importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of their neighbourhood and its reputation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23, 79–101.
South, S. J., & Crowder, K. D. (1998). Housing discrimination and residential impacts for blacks and whites. Population Research and Policy Review, 17, 369–387.
Storper, M., & Manville, M. (2006). Behaviour, preference and cities: Urban theory and urban resurgence. Urban Studies, 43, 1247–1274.
Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 147–167.
Strandell, A. (2005). Asukasbarometri 2004. Asukaskysely suomalaisista asuinympäristöistä [The residents’ barometer 2004. Residents’ survey on residential environments in Finland]. The Finnish Environment, 746, 1–145.
Timmermans, H., Molin, E., & van Noortwijk, L. (1994). Housing choice process: Stated versus revealed modelling approached. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9, 215–227.
van Diepen, A. M. L., & Musterd, S. (2009). Lifestyles and the city: Connecting daily life to urbanity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 331–345.
van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2008). Who wants to leave the neighbourhood? The effect of being different from the neighbourhood population on the wishes to move. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1151–1170.
Vasanen, A. (2009). Deconcentration versus spatial clustering: Changing population distribution in the Turku urban region, 1980–2005. Fennia, 187, 115–127.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank three anonymous referees whose valuable comments helped to improve this paper considerably. I would also like to acknowledge the Turku University Foundation and the Real Estate Foundation for financing this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vasanen, A. Beyond stated and revealed preferences: the relationship between residential preferences and housing choices in the urban region of Turku, Finland. J Hous and the Built Environ 27, 301–315 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9267-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9267-8