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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Burnett, P. (2008). Variable decision strategies, rational choice, and situation-related travel demand. Environment and Planning A, 40, 2259–2281.
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.
Edwards, W., & Newman, J. R. (1982). Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
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.
Goetgeluk, R. (1997). Bomen over wonen, woningmarktonderzoek met beslissingsbomen (Dissertation, University of Utrecht, Utrecht: Utrecht Geographical Studies), p. 235.
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).
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.
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.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
Maclennan, D. (1977). Information, space and measurement of housing preferences and demand. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 24, 97–115.
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.
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.
Monat, J. P. (2009). The benefits of global scaling in multi-criteria decision analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 492–508.
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.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Raju, K. S., & Vasan, A. (2007). Multi attribute utility theory for irrigation system evaluation. Water Resource Management, 21, 717–728.
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.
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.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vreeker, R. (2006). Evaluating effects of multiple land-use projects: A comparison of methods. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 21, 33–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8894-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8893-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8894-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)