Reference-Dependent Residential Location Choice Model within a Relocation Context
Abstract
This paper presents a reference-dependent model for residential location choice. The key contribution of the model is its incorporation of reference dependence that explicitly recognizes the role of the status quo and captures asymmetric responses toward gains and losses in making location choice decisions. The study uses a retrospective residential search survey and a dwelling supply data set from the Toronto Real Estate Board in Ontario, Canada, to estimate the model at the elemental level of individual dwelling units. The study applies a mixed logit formulation that captures unobserved heterogeneity and avoids imposing independence of irrelevant alternatives restrictions on the choice probabilities. Several types of variables, including dwelling characteristics, land uses and other zonal attributes, accessibility measures, and household socio-demographics, are tested in the model. Although the current dwelling is assumed to be the reference point in framing evaluation of alternative dwellings, all gains and losses are measured by a comparison of current and prospective dwellings in the modeling framework. The results reveal that households prefer gains in the number of bedrooms, but they are more sensitive to the equal amounts of losses. A similar loss aversion attitude is observed for the percentage of open areas and unemployment rate. It is also found that decision makers are sensitive only to the losses for the level of service attributes. The reference-dependent model performs better than a conventional location choice model in terms of model fit and provides important behavioral insights.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 106, No. 4, 1991, pp. 1039–1061.
2. Hardie B. G. S., Johnson E. J., and Fader P. S. Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice. Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1993, pp. 378–394.
3. Bell D. R., and Lattin J. M. Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity. Marketing Science, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2000, pp. 185–200.
4. Klapper D., Ebling C., and Temme J. Another Look at Loss Aversion in Brand Choice Data: Can We Characterize the Loss Averse Consumer? International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 22, 2005, pp. 239–254.
5. McFadden D. Modeling the Choice of Residential Location. In Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (Karlqvist A.et al., eds.), Elsevier Science Ltd., New York, 1978, pp. 72–77.
6. Friedman J. A Conditional Logit Model of the Role of Local Public Services in Residential Choice. Urban Studies, Vol. 18, 1981, pp. 347–358.
7. Ben-Akiva M., and de Palma A. Analysis of Dynamic Residential Location Choice Model with Transaction Costs. Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1986, pp. 321–341.
8. Gabriel S. A., and Rosenthal S. S. Household Location and Race: Estimates of a Multinomial Logit Model. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1989, pp. 240–249.
9. Timmermans H., Borgers A., Dijk J., and Oppewal H. Residential Choice Behavior of Dual Earner Households: A Decompositional Joint Choice Model. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 517–533.
10. Hunt J. D., McMillan J. D. P., and Abraham J. E. Stated Preference Investigation of Influences on Attractiveness of Residential Locations. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 79–87.
11. Ben-Akiva M., and Bowman J. L. Integration of an Activity-Based Model System and a Residential Location Model. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7, 1998, pp. 1131–1153.
12. Sermons M. W. Influence of Race on Household Residential Utility. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2000, pp. 225–246.
13. Sermons M. W., and Koppelman F. S. Representing the Differences Between Female and Male Commute Behavior in Residential Location Choice Models. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 9, 2001, pp. 101–110.
14. Sermons M. W., and Seredich N. Assessing Traveler Responsiveness to Land and Location Based Accessibility and Mobility Solutions. Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 6, 2001, pp. 417–428.
15. Bhat C. R., and Guo J. Y. A Mixed Spatially Correlated Logit Model: Formulation and Application to Residential Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2004, pp. 147–168.
16. de Palma A., Picard N., and Waddell P. Discrete Choice Models with Capacity Constraints: An Empirical Analysis of the Housing Market of the Greater Paris Region. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 62, 2007, pp. 204–230.
17. Weisbrod G., Lerman S., and Ben-Akiva M. Tradeoffs in Residential Location Decisions: Transportation Versus Other Factors. Transportation Policy and Decision Making, Vol. 1, 1980, pp. 13–26.
18. Habib K. M. N., and Kockelman K. M. Modeling Choice of Residential Location and Home Type: Recent Movers in Austin, Texas. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
19. Quigley J. M. Consumer Choice of Dwelling, Neighborhood and Public Services. Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 15, 1985, pp. 41–63.
20. Lerman S. R. Random Utility Models of Spatial Choice. In Optimization and Discrete Choice in Urban Systems: Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Directions in Urban Systems Modelling (Hutchinson B. G., Nijkamp P., and Batty M., eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
21. Guo J. Y. Addressing Spatial Complexities in Residential Location Choice Models. PhD thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 2004.
22. Axhausen K. W., Scott D. M., König A., and Jürgens C. Locations, Commitments and Activity Spaces. Presented at the Survive Workshop, Bonn, Germany, Dec. 2001. www.ivt.ethz.ch/vpl/publications/reports/ab96.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2008.
23. Zhou B., and Kockelman K. M. Microsimulation of Residential Land Development and Household Location Choices: Bidding for Land in Austin, Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2077, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 106–112.
24. Porell F. W. Models of Intraurban Residential Relocation. Kluwer–Nijhoff, Boston, Mass., 1982.
25. Clark W. A. V. Comparing Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis of Residential Mobility and Migration. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 24, 1992, pp. 1291–1302.
26. Dieleman F. M. Modeling Residential Mobility; A Review of Recent Trends in Research. Journal of Housing and Built Environment, Vol. 16, 2001, pp. 249–265.
27. Habib M. A., and Miller E. J. Microbehavioural Location Choice Process: Estimation of a Random Parameter Model for Residential Mobility. Reviewed proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Transportation Research, Berkeley, Calif., 2007.
28. Habib M. A., and Miller E. J. Microsimulating Residential Mobility and Spatial Search Behavior: Estimation of Continuous-Time Hazard and Discrete-Time Panel Logit Models for Residential Mobility. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
29. Scheiner J. Housing Mobility and Travel Behaviour: A Process-Oriented Approach to Spatial Mobility, Evidence from a New Research Field in Germany. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2006, pp. 287–298.
30. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, Econometrica, Vol. 47, 1979, pp. 263–291.
31. Avineri E., and Prashker J. N. Sensitivity to Uncertainty: Need for a Paradigm Shift. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1854, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 90–98.
32. Senbil M., and Kitamura R. Reference Points in Commuter Departure Time Choice: A Prospect Theoretic Test of Alternative Decision Frames. Intelligent Transportation System, Vol. 8, 2004, pp. 19–31.
33. de Palma A., and Picard N. Equilibria and Information Provision in Risky Networks with Risk Averse Drivers. Transportation Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2006, pp. 393–408.
34. Masatlioglu Y., and Uler N. Contrasting Reference-Dependent Choice Models. Working paper. Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2007. www-personal.umich.edu/∼neslihan/Uler_referencedependent.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2008.
35. Odean T. Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses? Journal of Finance, Vol. 53, No. 5, 1998, pp. 1775–1798.
36. Genesove D., and Mayer C. Loss Aversion and Seller Behavior: Evidence From the Housing Market. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, No. 4, 2001, pp. 1233–1260.
37. Bell D. E. Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Operations Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1985, pp. 1–27.
38. Gul F. A Theory of Disappointment Aversion. Econometrica, Vol. 95, No. 3, 1991, pp. 667–686.
39. Koszegi B., and Rabin M. A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 121, No. 4, 2006, pp. 1133–1165.
40. Masatlioglu Y., and Ok. E. A. Rational Choice with Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 121, 2005, pp. 1–29.
41. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
42. Revelt D., and Train K. Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households’ Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 80, 1998, pp. 1–11.
43. Mehndiratta S. Time-of-Day Effects in Inter-City Business Travel. PhD thesis. University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
44. Ben-Akiva M., and Bolduc D. Multinomial Probit with a Logit Kernel and a General Parametric Specification of the Covariance Structure. Working paper. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1996.
45. Revelt D., and Train K. Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households’ Choice of Electricity Supplier. Working Paper E00-274. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 2000.
46. Hensher D., and Greene W. H. The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice and Warning for the Unwary. Working paper. Department of Economics, New York University, 2001. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼wgreene/. Accessed July 15, 2007.
47. Train K. A Comparison of Hierarchical Bayes and Maximum Simulated Likelihood for Mixed Logit. Working paper. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 2001.
48. Hajivassiliou V., and Ruud P. Classical Estimation Methods for LDV Models Using Simulation. In Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. IV (Engle R., and McFadden D., eds.), Elsevier, New York, 1994, pp. 2383–2441.
49. McFadden D., and Train K. Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2000, pp. 447–470.
50. Greene W. H. Interpreting Estimated Parameters and Measuring Individual Heterogeneity in Random Coefficient Models. Working paper. Department of Economics, New York University, New York, 2004. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼wgreene/. Accessed July 15, 2007.
51. Bhat C. R. Simulation Estimation of Mixed Discrete Choice Models Using Randomized and Scrambled Halton Sequences. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 37, No. 9, 2003, pp. 837–855.
52. Pushkar A. O. Modelling Household Residential Search Processes: Methodology and Preliminary Results of an Original Survey. MASc thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada, 1998.
53. Haider M. A Spatial Hedonic Price Index for Freehold Properties in the Greater Toronto Area—Application of Spatial Autoregressive Techniques. MASc thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada, 1999.
54. Bhat C. R., and Guo J. Y. A Comprehensive Analysis of Built Environment Characteristics on Household Residential Choice and Auto Ownership Levels. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2007, pp. 506–526.
55. Guevara C. A., and Ben-Akiva M. E. Endogeneity in Residential Location Choice Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No 1977, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 60–66.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2009
Issue published: January 2009
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 245
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 34
- How does heterogeneity in dwelling type preferences relate to housing ...
- A residential location search model based on the reasons for moving ou...
- Application of survival model to reveal influential objective and subj...
- “To leave or not to leave” is the crucial question of authority for ho...
- Contributing Factors and Trend Prediction of Urban-Settled Population ...
- Behavioral response to online pricing: empirical and managerial insigh...
- Asymmetric price effects on food demand of rural households: Panel evi...
- Heterogeneous residential distribution changes and spillover effects b...
- Carsharing-facilitating neighbourhood choice: a mixed logit model
- Residential Location Choice in the Era of Shared Autonomous Vehicles
- Residential Location Choice in Istanbul, Tehran, and Cairo: The Import...
- Modelling effects of changes in travel time and costs of toll road usa...
- Gap analysis in decision support systems for real-estate in the era of...
- Determining heterogeneity of residential location preferences of house...
- Understanding differences in residential location preferences between ...
- Modeling co-dependent choice of workplace, residence and commuting mod...
- Migration résidentielle et croissance locale de l’emploi : une analyse...
- Who has more say on your daily time use? A quantitative intra-househol...
- Intention to move in renovated historical blocks in China
- The ILUTE Demographic Microsimulation Model for the Greater Toronto-Ha...
- Life history-oriented residential location choice model: A stress-base...
- How do individual-level sociodemographics and neighbourhood-level char...
- Residential relocation dynamics: A microeconomic model based on agents...
- Modeling Travel Tool Ownership of the Elderly Population: Latent Segme...
- Life-Oriented Approach of Modeling Commute Mode Loyalty and Transition...
- Microeconomic model of residential location incorporating life cycle a...
- Changes in the ethnic composition of neighbourhoods: Analysis of house...
- The effect of attitudes on reference-dependent preferences: Estimation...
- A comprehensive dwelling unit choice model accommodating psychological...
- A Meta-analysis of Loss Aversion in Product Choice
- Agent-based Housing Market Microsimulation for Integrated Land Use, Tr...
- Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory model with a flexibl...
- Choice set pruning in residential location choice modelling: a compari...
- Modeling of Job Mobility and Location Choice Decisions
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
