AN EVALUATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ APARTMENT PREFERENCES: A REAL WORLD STUDY IN A NEWLY URBANIZED CITY

Abstract

This paper presents an evaluation of higher education students’ apartment preferences with respect to multiple criteria. In order to find out the importance rankings of these criteria and determine the optimum apartment option conjoint analysis method is used. Location, renter, room, price, floor, age were identified as attributes. 343 students participated in the study by rating sixteen apartment profiles with different combinations of above mentioned six attributes. According to the results, number of rooms, price and location attributes have the greatest influence on students’ decisions and these are followed by age, floor and renter attributes. Additionally the optimum apartment option is a central, 0-5 years aged, 3 bedroom and 1 living room apartment, rented by the householder with a price of 300-400 Turkish Liras. As an evaluation of a real world decision problem, the outcomes will help real estate agencies, householders and constructing firms in probable future decisions. Researchers who will perform a study in this field will be able take advantage of the results as well. disadvantages. While some of the students prefer to study in their hometowns, others leave their family homes for HE

Keywords

• Conjoint analysis, Apartment preferences, Housing, Higher education students, Urbanization, Decision-making

AN EVALUATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ APARTMENT PREFERENCES: A REAL WORLD STUDY IN A NEWLY URBANIZED CITY

Abstract

References

1. Abdul Hamid b. Hj. M. I., Norhaya bt. K., Seah L. H., (2008) ‘Buyer's conjoint
2. preference for the attributes of condominium properties’, International Real Estate Research Symposium. Putra World Trade Center, Kuala Lumpur, 28-30 April.
3. http://eprints.utm.my/5220/1/Conjoint_for_Condo.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014.
4. Acosta, L.A., Enano Jr., N.H., Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Engay, K.G., Herrer,
5. M.N.Q., Nicopior, O.B..S., Sumilang, M.I.V., Eugenioe, J.M.A., Lucht, W., (2013). How
6. sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and
7. opinions of people with different typologies. Applied Energy, 102, 241–253. Adhikari, A., Basu, A., Raj, S.p., (2013). Pricing of experience products under
8. consumer heterogeneity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 6-18.

9. Altun, A. & Gök, B., (2010). Determining in-service training programs’ characteristics
10. given to teachers by conjoint analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1709- 1714. Arlı, E., (2013). Barınma yerinin üniversite öğrencilerinin kişisel ve sosyal gelişim ve
11. akademik başarı üzerindeki etkilerinin odak grup görüşmesi ile incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim
12. ve Bilim Dergisi, 3 (2), 173-178.
13. Borgers, A., Snellen, D., Poelman, J., Timmermans, H. (2008). Preferences for car
14. restrained residential areas. Journal of Urban Design, 13, 257–267. Borgers, A., Vosters, C., (2011). Assessing preferences for mega shopping
15. centres: A conjoint measurement approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
16. Services, 18(4), 322-332.
17. Chakrabarty, B.K., (2001). Concepts, principles, techniques and education. Cities, 18(5), 331–345.
18. De Jong, P., Rouwendal, J., Van Hattum, P., Brouwer, A., (2012). Housing
19. preferences of an ageing population: Investigation in the diversity among Dutch older adults.
20. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=123055. Accessed 10 May 2014. Demir, A., Pala, A., Baytekin, H., (2006). Ziraat fakülteleri öğrencilerinin sosyal
21. yapıları, eğilimleri ve sorunları üzerinde bir araştırma. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3 (3), pp. 259-267.
22. Earnhart, D., (2002). Combining revealed and stated data to examine housing decisions
23. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (2), pp. 225-234. Fisher K., Orkin, F., Frazser, C., (2010). Utilizing conjoint analysis to explicate
24. health care decision making by emergency department nurses: A feasibility study.
25. Applied Nursing Research, 23 (1), pp. 30-35. Green, P.E., Rao, V.R., (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental
26. data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, pp. 355-363. Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., (2007). ‘Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument
27. of Market Research Practice’ In: Gustafsson et al. eds. Conjoint Measurement Methods and
28. Applications, New York: Sage. Hassanain, M. A., (2008). On the performance evaluation of sustainable student
29. housing facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 6 (3), pp. 212-225.
30. Jansen, S.J.T., Coolen, Henny C.C.H., Goetgeluk, R.W., (2011). ‘Introduction’. In:
31. Jansen et al. eds. The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, New York: Springer.
32. Katoshevski, R., Timmermans, H., (2001). Using conjoint analysis to formulate user
33. centred guidelines for urban design: The example of new residential development in Israel.
34. Journal of Urban Design, 6, pp. 37–53. Koç, M., Polat, Ü., (2006). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Ruh Sağlığı, Uluslararası İnsan
35. Bilimleri Dergisi, 3 (2), pp. 1-22.
36. Kuzmanovic, M., Savic, G., Gusavac, B.A., Nikolic, D.M., Panic, B., (2012). A
37. conjoint-based approach to student evaluations of teaching performance. Expert Systems with
38. Applications, 40, pp. 4083–4089. Kuzmanovic, M., Martic, M., (2012). An approach to competitive product line design
39. using conjoint data. Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (8), pp. 7262–7269. Kuzmanovic, M., Vujosevic, M., Martic, M., (2012). Using conjoint analysis to elicit
40. patients’ preferences for public primary care service in Serbia. HealthMED, 6 (2), pp. 496– 504. Lee, J. K., Lee, J. H., Sohn, S. Y., (2009). Designing a business model for the content
41. service of portable multimedia players, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, pp. 6735–6739. Liu, J., Deng, W., Zhang, B., (2011). Conjoint analysis based transit service quality
42. research. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 11 (4), pp. 97-102. Louviere, J. J., and Henley, D. H., (1977). An empirical analysis of student apartment
43. selection decisions. Geographical Analysis, 9, 130–141. Luce, R. D. & Tukey, J.W., (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new scale
44. type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27. Michalek, J., Feinberg, F.M., Papalambros, P.Y., (2005). Linking marketing and
45. engineering product design decisions via analytic target cascading. Journal of Product
46. Innovation Management, 22 (1), pp. 42–62.
47. Molin, E.J.E, (2011), ‘Conjoint Analysis’. In: Jansen et al. eds. The Measurementand
48. Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, New York: Springer.
49. Molin, E. J. E. and Oppewal, H., Timmermans, H. J. P., (2000). A comparison of full
50. profile and hierarchical information conjoint methods in modeling group preferences.
51. Marketing Letters, 11, pp. 165–172. Moore, W.L., (2004). A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based
52. conjoint analysis models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, pp.299–312.
53. Natter M., Feurstein, M., (2002). Real world performance of choice
54. based conjoint models. European Journal of Operational Research, 137 (2), pp.448-458.
55. North, E.J. & de Vos, R.B., (2002). The use of conjoint analysis to determine
56. consumer buying preferences: A literature review, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer
57. Sciences, 30, pp. 32–39.
58. Opoku, R. A. and Abdul-Muhmin, A. G., (2010). Housing preferences and attribute
59. importance among low-income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat International, 34, 219- 227. Oppewal, H., Louviere, J.J., Timmermans, H.J.P., (2000).
60. Modifying conjoint methods to model managers' reactions to business environmental
61. trends: An application to modeling retailer reactions to sales trends. Journal of Business
62. Research, 50 (3), pp.245-257. Orzechowski, M. A., Arentze, T. A., Borgers, A. W. J., Timmermans, H. J. P.,
63. (2005). Alternate methods of conjoint analysis for estimating housing preference
64. functions: Effects of presentation style. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
65. 20, pp.349–362. Rao, V.R. & Sattler, H., (2011). ‘Measurement of price effects with conjoint analysis:
66. Separating informational and allocative effects of price’. In: Jansen et al. eds. The
67. Measurementand Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, New York: Springer. Sattler, H., Hensel-Börner, S., (2007). ‘A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches’ In: Gustafsson et al. eds. Conjoint Measurement Methods and
68. Applications, New York: Sage. Sohn, S. Y. & Ju, Y. H., (2010). Conjoint analysis for recruiting high quality students
69. for college education. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(5), 3777-3783. Tayyaran, M.R., Kahn, A.M., Anderson, D.A., (2003). Impact of telecommuting and
70. intelligent transportation systems on residential location choice. Transportation Planning and
71. Technology, 26 (2), pp. 171–193. Theysohn, S., Klein, K., Völckner, F., Spann, M., (2013). Dual effect-based market
72. segmentation and price optimization. Journal of Business Research, 66 (4), pp.480-488. Timmermans, H., Molin, E. and Noortwijk, L.V., (1994). Housing choice processes:
73. Stated versus revealed modeling approaches, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built
74. Environment, 9, pp. 215-227. Tu, Y. & Goldfinch, J., (1996). A two-stage housing choice forecasting model. Urban
75. Studies, 33, pp.517–537. Turkish Statistical Institute (2012). Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at:
76. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/[Accessed 25 June 2014]. Venkatesh V., Chan, F.K.Y., Thong, J.Y.L., (2012). Designing e-government services:
77. Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures, Journal of Operations Management,
78. 30, pp.116–133 Vetschera, R., Weitzl, W., Wolfsteiner, E., (2014). Implausible alternatives in eliciting
79. multi-attribute value functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 234, pp.221–230. Wang, D. & Li, S.M., (2004). Housing preferences in a transitional housing system:
80. The case of Beijing, China, Environment and Planning A, 36, pp.69–87. Ween, B., Kristoffersen, D.T., Hamilton, G.A., Olsen D.R., (2005). Image quality
81. preferences among radiographers and radiologists. A conjoint analysis. Radiography, 11 (3), pp.191-197. Wittink, D.R., Huber, J.C., Zandan, P., Johnson, R.M., (1992). The Number of Levels
82. Effect in Conjoint: Where Does It Come From, and Can It Be Eliminated?. Available at:
83. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/general-conjoint-analysis/the
84. number-of-levels-effect-in-conjoint-where-does-it-come-from-and-can-it-be-eliminated-1992
85. [Accessed: 5 May 2014]. Wu, W. Y., Liao, Y. K., Chatwuthikrai, A., (2014). Applying conjoint analysis to
86. evaluate consumer preferences toward subcompact cars. Expert Systems with Applications,
87. 41, pp.2782–2792. Yano, C., Dobson, G., (1998). Profit-optimizing product line design, selection and
88. pricing with manufacturing cost consideration. In: Ho et al. eds. Product Variety
89. Management: Research Advances, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zafer Development Agency (2011). Zafer Development Agency. Available at:
90. http://www.zafer.org.tr/[Accessed 16 June 2014]. Zardari, N.H. & Cordery, I., (2007). ‘Modelling water allocation decisions: a conjoint
91. analysis approach’, International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Christchurch, New
92. Zealand, 10-13 December.