Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Multi-attribute Utility Method

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice

Abstract

In this chapter the methodology and techniques behind Multi-Attribute Utility Theory are introduced. The basic assumption underlying this theory is that a decision-maker chooses the alternative (for example, a particular dwelling) that yields the greatest multi-attribute utility from a number of possible alternatives. An alternative is seen as a bundle of attributes, such as dwelling type and number of rooms. The decision-maker is assumed to evaluate every alternative on each of its salient attributes. Furthermore, the importance of each attribute is determined. Finally, the attribute values are combined with the importance weights and aggregated into a multi-attribute utility for each alternative. The alternative with the highest multi-attribute utility is expected to be preferred. In terms of the main dimensions for distinguishing between methods and techniques for measuring housing preference and choice the multi-Attribute utility method can be characterized as measuring stated preferences and providing an outcome in the form of utilities. The approach is attribute-based (compositional) and mathematical. Often, the simple-additive combination rule is applied (compensatory rule), but non-compensatory rules (such as multiplicative rules) are also possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, M. (2002). Human values and product symbolism: Do consumers form product preference by comparing the human values symbolized by a product to the human values that they endorse? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2475–2501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Gómez-Limón, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering heterogeneity and aggregation issues in environmental valuation: A multi-attribute approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40, 551–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (2006). Constructive consumer choice processes. In S. Lichtenstein & P. Slovic (Eds.), The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumeester, H. J. F. M., Hoekstra, J. S. C. M., Meesters, J., & Coolen, H. C. C. H. (2005). Woonwensen nader in kaart: de woonbeleving van bewoners. Voorburg: NVB Vereniging voor ontwikkelaars en bouwondernemers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumeester, H. J. F. M., Coolen, H. C. C. H., Dol, C. P., Goetgeluk, R. W., Jansen, S. J. T., Mariën, A. A. A., & Molin, E. (2008a). Module Consumentengedrag WoON 2006, Hoofdrapport. Delft: Onderzoeksinstituut OTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumeester, H. J. F. M., Mariën, A. A. A., Rietdijk, N., & Nuss, F. A. H. (2008b). Huizenkopers in Profiel. Onderzoek naar wensen van potentiële huizenkopers. Voorburg: NVB Vereniging voor ontwikkelaars en bouwondernemers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breij, I., de Hoog, R., & Zandvliet, L. (1989). Computer ondersteund onderzoek naar woonvoorkeuren. In S. Musterd (Ed.), Methoden voor woning-en woonmilieubehoefte onderzoek. Amsterdam: SISWO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, P. (2008). Variable decision strategies, rational choice, and situation-related travel demand. Environment and Planning A, 40, 2259–2281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canbolat, Y. B., Chelst, K., & Garg, N. (2007). Combining decision tree and MAUT for selecting a country for a global manufacturing facility. Omega, 35, 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W., & Newman, J. R. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floor, H., & van Kempen, R. (1994). Wonen op maat. In I. Smid & H. Priemus (Eds.), Bewonerspreferenties: Richtsnoer voor Investeringen in Nieuwbouw en de Woningvoorraad (pp. 13–32). Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetgeluk, R. (1997). Bomen over wonen, woningmarktonderzoek met beslissingsbomen (Dissertation, University of Utrecht, Utrecht: Utrecht Geographical Studies), p. 235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heins, S. (2002). Rural residential environments in city and countryside: Countryside images, demand for and supply of rural residential environments. (Dissertation, University of Utrecht, Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, S., Boumeester, H., Coolen, H., Goetgeluk, R., & Molin, E. (2009). The impact of including images in a conjoint measurement task: Results of two small-scale studies. Housing and the Built Environment, 24(3), 271–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, J., Fischer, G. W., & Dyer, J. S. (1998). Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latinopoulos, D. (2008). Estimating the potential impacts of irrigation water pricing using multicriteria decision making modelling. An application to Northern Greece. Water Resource Management, 22, 1761–1782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, E., Garling, T., & Montgomery, H. (1989). Belief-value structures as determinants of consumer-behavior – A study of housing preferences and choices. Journal of Consumer Policy, 12, 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F. K., Kiker, G., Batchelor, C., Bridges, T., & Ferguson, E. (2006). From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications. Environment International, 32, 1072–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maclennan, D. (1977). Information, space and measurement of housing preferences and demand. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 24, 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, V., Scheuer, S., & Haase, D. (2009). A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany. National Hazards, 48, 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molin, E., Oppewal, H., & Timmermans, H. (1996). Predicting consumer response to new housing: A stated choice experiment. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11(3), 197–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monat, J. P. (2009). The benefits of global scaling in multi-criteria decision analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 492–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. C., Hughes, R. W., Thukral, V., & Friedmann, R. (1981). Consumers’ decision plans and subsequent choice behavior. Journal of Marketing, 45(Spring), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raju, K. S., & Vasan, A. (2007). Multi attribute utility theory for irrigation system evaluation. Water Resource Management, 21, 717–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans, H., Molin, E., & van Noortwijk, L. (1994). Housing choice processes: Stated versus revealed modelling approaches. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9, 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldhuisen, K. J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (1984). Specification of individual residential utility functions: A comparative analysis of three measurement procedures. Environment and Planning A, 16, 1573–1582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vreeker, R. (2006). Evaluating effects of multiple land-use projects: A comparison of methods. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 21, 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sylvia J. T. Jansen

Authors
  1. Sylvia J. T. Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia J. T. Jansen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. OTB Research Institute for Housing,, Urban & Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, Delft, 2628 BX, Netherlands

    Sylvia J.T. Jansen

  2. OTB Research Institute for Housing,, Urban & Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, Delft, 2628 BX, Netherlands

    Henny C.C.H. Coolen

  3. ABF Research B.V., Verwersdijk 8, Delft, 2611 NH, Netherlands

    Roland W. Goetgeluk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jansen, S.J.T. (2011). The Multi-attribute Utility Method. In: Jansen, S., Coolen, H., Goetgeluk, R. (eds) The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8894-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation