Advertisement

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 16, Issue 3–4, pp 267–284 | Cite as

Analyzing heterogeneity in conjoint estimates of residential preferences

  • Eric J.E. Molin
  • Harmen Oppewal
  • Harry J.P. Timmermans
Article

Abstract

Conjoint estimates of residential preferencesare typically based on aggregate responses. Forreasons of segmentation or to differentiatebetween non-significant housing attributes andattributes that are characterized byconflicting preferences, further analysis isrequired. In this paper, the heterogeneity inthe conjoint estimates of residentialpreferences of families is analyzed. It isexamined how the estimated part-worth utilitiesof the housing attributes are related to thesocio-economic variables and current housingattributes by applying regression analysis.Although the explained variance was rather low,suggesting that residential preferences offamilies are highly idiosyncratic, therelationships that were significant could beinterpreted well.

conjoint analysis group decision-making heterogeneity hierarchical information integration residential preferences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akaah, I.P. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (1983) An Empirical Comparison of the Predictive Validity of Self-Explicated, Huber-Hybrid, Traditional Conjoint, and Hybrid Conjoint Models, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 187–197.Google Scholar
  2. Boag, D.A. and Sarkar, A.K. (1984) Housing Affordability and Acceptability as Influenced by Consumer Trade-off Perceptions, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, H.L. and Rigeaux, B.P. (1974) Perception of Marital Roles in Decision Processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 51–61.Google Scholar
  4. Green, P.E., Goldberg, S.M. and Wiley, J.B. (1982) A Cross-Validation Test of Hybrid Conjoint Models, Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 147–150.Google Scholar
  5. Joseph, A.E., Smit, B. and McIlravey, G.P. (1989) Consumer Preferences for Rural Residences: A Conjoint Analysis in Ontario, Canada, Environment and Planning A, 21, 47–65.Google Scholar
  6. Knight, R.L. and Menchik, M. (1976) Conjoint Preference Estimation for Residential Land Use Policy Evaluation. In: Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior (Eds, Golledge, R.G. and Rushton, G.), Ohio State University Press, Columbus, pp. 135–155.Google Scholar
  7. Louviere, J.J. (1979) Modeling Individual Residential Preferences: A Totally Disaggregate Approach, Transportation Research A, 13, 373–384.Google Scholar
  8. Louviere, J.J. (1984) Hierarchical Information Integration: A New Method for the Design and Analysis of Complex Multi-attribute Judgment Problems. In: Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 11 (Ed, Kinnear, T.C.), Association for Consumer Research, Provo, Utah, pp. 148–155.Google Scholar
  9. Louviere, J.J. and Henley, D.H. (1977) An Empirical Analysis of Student Apartment Selection Decisions, Geographical Analysis, 9, 130–141.Google Scholar
  10. Louviere, J.J. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (1990) Hierarchical Information Integration Applied to Residential Choice Behavior, Geographical Analysis, 22, 127–145.Google Scholar
  11. Molin, E.J.E. (1999) Conjoint Modeling Approaches for Residential Group Preferences, Bouwstenen 53, Faculteit Bouwkunde, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (dissertation).Google Scholar
  12. Molin, E., Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. (1996) Modeling Consumer Response to New Housing: A Stated Choice Experiment, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11, 297–312.Google Scholar
  13. Molin, E., Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. (1997) Modeling Group Preferences Using a Decompositional Preference Approach, Group Decision and Negotiation, 6, 339–350.Google Scholar
  14. Molin, E., Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. (1999) Group-based versus Individual-based Conjoint Preference Models of Residential Preferences: A Comparative Test, Environment and Planning A, 31, 1935–1947.Google Scholar
  15. Molin, E., Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. (2000) A Comparison of Full Profile and Hierarchical Information Integration Conjoint Methods to Modeling Group Preferences, Marketing Letters, 11, 165–175.Google Scholar
  16. Munsinger, G.M., Weber, J.E. and Hansen, R.W. (1975) Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives, Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 60–66.Google Scholar
  17. Oppewal, H., Louviere, J.J. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (1994) Modeling Hierarchical Conjoint Processes with Integrated Choice Experiments, Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 92–105.Google Scholar
  18. Phipps, A.G. (1989) Residential Stress and Consumption Disequilibrium in the Saskatoon Housing Market, Papers of the Regional Science Association, 67, 71–87.Google Scholar
  19. Phipps, A.G. and Carter, J.E. (1984) An Individual Level Analysis of the Stress-Resistence Model of Household Mobility, Geographical Analysis, 16, 176–189.Google Scholar
  20. Phipps, A.G. and Carter, J.E. (1985) Individual Differences in the Residential Preferences of Inner-city Households, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 16, 32–42.Google Scholar
  21. Steenkamp, J. (1985) De Constructie van Profielensets voor het Schatten van Hoofdeffecten en Interacties bij Conjunct Meten. In: Jaarboek van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Marktonderzoekers, pp. 125–155.Google Scholar
  22. Timmermans, H.J.P. (1984) Decompositional Multi-attribute Preference Models in Spatial Choice Analysis, Progress in Human Geography, 8, 189–221.Google Scholar
  23. Timmermans, H.J.P. (1987) Hybrid and Non-Hybrid Evaluation Models for Predicting Outdoor Recreation Behavior: A Test of Predictive Ability, Leisure Sciences, 9, 67–76.Google Scholar
  24. Timmermans, H.J.P., Borgers, A.W.J., van Dijk, J. and Oppewal, H. (1992) Residential Choice Behaviour of Dual-Earner Households: A Decompositional Joint Choice Model, Environment and Planning A, 24, 517–533.Google Scholar
  25. Timmermans, H., Molin, E. and van Noortwijk, L. (1994) Housing Choice Processes: Stated versus Revealed Modeling Approaches, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9, 215–227.Google Scholar
  26. Timmermans, H.J.P. and van Noortwijk, L.E. (1995) Context Dependencies in Housing Choice Behavior, Environment and Planning A, 27, 181–192.Google Scholar
  27. Timmermans, H.J.P. and van Noortwijk, L.E., Oppewal, H. and van der Waerden, P. (1996) Modeling Constrained Choice Behavior in Regulated Housing Markets by Means of Discrete and Universal Logit Models: An Application to the Residential Choice Behavior of Divorcees, Environment and Planning A, 28, 1095–1112.Google Scholar
  28. Veldhuisen, K.J. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (1984) Specification of Individual Residential Utility Functions, Environment and Planning A, 16, 1573–1583.Google Scholar
  29. Vyvere, Y. van de, Oppewal, H. and Timmermans, H. (1998) The Validity of Hierarchical Information Integration Choice Experiments to Model Residential Preference and Choice, Geographical Analysis, 30, 254–272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric J.E. Molin
    • 1
  • Harmen Oppewal
    • 2
  • Harry J.P. Timmermans
    • 3
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Management StudiesUniversity of SurreyU.K
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations