Population structure and location choice: A study of London and South East England

Abstract

Many governments have introduced policies aimed at improving social mix, particularly in urban areas. In this article we develop a model of moving and location decisions, which demonstrates how cumulative processes of growth, decline and segregation occur that conflict with the aims of policies aimed at improving social mix. A nested multinomial logit model is estimated, using a micro data set for London and South East England to illustrate the likely outcomes. Copyright (c) 2006 the author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2006 RSAI.

The role of location in residential location choice models: a review of literature

“…Two studies integrate the unemployment rate in their models and show a negative effect on the utility of a residential location for London and Toronto (Andrew and Meen 2006;Habib and Miller 2009). Other studies use jobs density as an explaining variable; Zondag and Pieters (2005) find this significantly positive, but only for non-single, employed households of middle or high income, while Srour et al (2002) ob-       . serve a general attractive potential for high job density locations in Dallas.…”

“…Andrew and Meen (2006) find a relationship between life cycles in their study on London and show that households tend to move toward the city core when they are young and move away from the city later on. De Palma et al (2005Palma et al ( , 2007 show a significant negative value for a variable representing the center of Paris.…”

“…Chen et al (2008) include school quality as interaction variable for households with children and without children and find it to be slightly stronger for households with children, but positive and significant for both. Andrew and Meen (2006) include the GCSE levels and A-level scores (percentage of children obtaining 5+ GCSE grades; percentage of children obtaining 3+ A/AS levels) in their model and find a positive impact of the first variable and a negative impact for the latter. ey conclude that households would send their children to other schools (in an area with poor local neighborhood schools) instead of moving, but also see a correlation to a deprivation index in these situations.…”

“…Also, a further differentiation of household types should be attempted, as young households tend to favor urban areas. As a side note, not only does location choice behavior differ, but also relocation probability changes over a life span and is additionally influenced by life-cycle events such as a change of marital status, a job change, or the birth of a child (Andrew and Meen 2006;Beige 2008;Eluru et al 2009;Kim et al 2005;Lee and Waddell 2010a).        .…”

“…Price captures various location characteristics as seen in hedonic regression models (i.e., models, like Löchl and Axhausen 2010), but any models that include property price mention its significant negative impact. While some studies implement price as untransformed value (Andrew and Meen 2006;Kim et al 2005;Vyvere et al 1998;Zolfaghari et al 2012), others include a logarithmic price transformation (de Palma et al 2005(de Palma et al , 2007Habib and Miller 2009;Lee and Waddell 2010a,b). Several studies interact price with household income (Habib and Miller 2009;Zolfaghari et al 2012).…”