___

• Abdul Hamid b. Hj. M. I., Norhaya bt. K., Seah L. H., (2008) ‘Buyer's conjoint
• preference for the attributes of condominium properties’, International Real Estate Research Symposium. Putra World Trade Center, Kuala Lumpur, 28-30 April.
• http://eprints.utm.my/5220/1/Conjoint_for_Condo.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2014.
• Acosta, L.A., Enano Jr., N.H., Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Engay, K.G., Herrer,
• M.N.Q., Nicopior, O.B..S., Sumilang, M.I.V., Eugenioe, J.M.A., Lucht, W., (2013). How
• sustainable is bioenergy production in the Philippines? A conjoint analysis of knowledge and
• opinions of people with different typologies. Applied Energy, 102, 241–253. Adhikari, A., Basu, A., Raj, S.p., (2013). Pricing of experience products under
• consumer heterogeneity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 6-18.
• Altun, A. & Gök, B., (2010). Determining in-service training programs’ characteristics
• 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
• akademik başarı üzerindeki etkilerinin odak grup görüşmesi ile incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim
• ve Bilim Dergisi, 3 (2), 173-178.
• Borgers, A., Snellen, D., Poelman, J., Timmermans, H. (2008). Preferences for car
• restrained residential areas. Journal of Urban Design, 13, 257–267. Borgers, A., Vosters, C., (2011). Assessing preferences for mega shopping
• centres: A conjoint measurement approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
• Services, 18(4), 322-332.
• Chakrabarty, B.K., (2001). Concepts, principles, techniques and education. Cities, 18(5), 331–345.
• De Jong, P., Rouwendal, J., Van Hattum, P., Brouwer, A., (2012). Housing
• preferences of an ageing population: Investigation in the diversity among Dutch older adults.
• http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=123055. Accessed 10 May 2014. Demir, A., Pala, A., Baytekin, H., (2006). Ziraat fakülteleri öğrencilerinin sosyal
• yapıları, eğilimleri ve sorunları üzerinde bir araştırma. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 3 (3), pp. 259-267.
• Earnhart, D., (2002). Combining revealed and stated data to examine housing decisions
• Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (2), pp. 225-234. Fisher K., Orkin, F., Frazser, C., (2010). Utilizing conjoint analysis to explicate
• health care decision making by emergency department nurses: A feasibility study.
• Applied Nursing Research, 23 (1), pp. 30-35. Green, P.E., Rao, V.R., (1971). Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental
• data, Journal of Marketing Research, 8, pp. 355-363. Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., (2007). ‘Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument
• of Market Research Practice’ In: Gustafsson et al. eds. Conjoint Measurement Methods and
• Applications, New York: Sage. Hassanain, M. A., (2008). On the performance evaluation of sustainable student
• housing facilities. Journal of Facilities Management, 6 (3), pp. 212-225.
• Jansen, S.J.T., Coolen, Henny C.C.H., Goetgeluk, R.W., (2011). ‘Introduction’. In:
• Jansen et al. eds. The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, New York: Springer.
• Katoshevski, R., Timmermans, H., (2001). Using conjoint analysis to formulate user
• centred guidelines for urban design: The example of new residential development in Israel.
• Journal of Urban Design, 6, pp. 37–53. Koç, M., Polat, Ü., (2006). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Ruh Sağlığı, Uluslararası İnsan
• Bilimleri Dergisi, 3 (2), pp. 1-22.
• Kuzmanovic, M., Savic, G., Gusavac, B.A., Nikolic, D.M., Panic, B., (2012). A
• conjoint-based approach to student evaluations of teaching performance. Expert Systems with
• Applications, 40, pp. 4083–4089. Kuzmanovic, M., Martic, M., (2012). An approach to competitive product line design
• using conjoint data. Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (8), pp. 7262–7269. Kuzmanovic, M., Vujosevic, M., Martic, M., (2012). Using conjoint analysis to elicit
• 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
• 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
• 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
• selection decisions. Geographical Analysis, 9, 130–141. Luce, R. D. & Tukey, J.W., (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new scale
• type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1–27. Michalek, J., Feinberg, F.M., Papalambros, P.Y., (2005). Linking marketing and
• engineering product design decisions via analytic target cascading. Journal of Product
• Innovation Management, 22 (1), pp. 42–62.
• Molin, E.J.E, (2011), ‘Conjoint Analysis’. In: Jansen et al. eds. The Measurementand
• Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, New York: Springer.
• Molin, E. J. E. and Oppewal, H., Timmermans, H. J. P., (2000). A comparison of full
• profile and hierarchical information conjoint methods in modeling group preferences.
• Marketing Letters, 11, pp. 165–172. Moore, W.L., (2004). A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based
• conjoint analysis models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, pp.299–312.
• Natter M., Feurstein, M., (2002). Real world performance of choice
• based conjoint models. European Journal of Operational Research, 137 (2), pp.448-458.
• North, E.J. & de Vos, R.B., (2002). The use of conjoint analysis to determine
• consumer buying preferences: A literature review, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer
• Sciences, 30, pp. 32–39.
• Opoku, R. A. and Abdul-Muhmin, A. G., (2010). Housing preferences and attribute
• importance among low-income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat International, 34, 219- 227. Oppewal, H., Louviere, J.J., Timmermans, H.J.P., (2000).
• Modifying conjoint methods to model managers' reactions to business environmental
• trends: An application to modeling retailer reactions to sales trends. Journal of Business
• Research, 50 (3), pp.245-257. Orzechowski, M. A., Arentze, T. A., Borgers, A. W. J., Timmermans, H. J. P.,
• (2005). Alternate methods of conjoint analysis for estimating housing preference
• functions: Effects of presentation style. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
• 20, pp.349–362. Rao, V.R. & Sattler, H., (2011). ‘Measurement of price effects with conjoint analysis:
• Separating informational and allocative effects of price’. In: Jansen et al. eds. The
• 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
• Applications, New York: Sage. Sohn, S. Y. & Ju, Y. H., (2010). Conjoint analysis for recruiting high quality students
• 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
• intelligent transportation systems on residential location choice. Transportation Planning and
• Technology, 26 (2), pp. 171–193. Theysohn, S., Klein, K., Völckner, F., Spann, M., (2013). Dual effect-based market
• 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:
• Stated versus revealed modeling approaches, Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built
• Environment, 9, pp. 215-227. Tu, Y. & Goldfinch, J., (1996). A two-stage housing choice forecasting model. Urban
• Studies, 33, pp.517–537. Turkish Statistical Institute (2012). Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at:
• http://www.tuik.gov.tr/[Accessed 25 June 2014]. Venkatesh V., Chan, F.K.Y., Thong, J.Y.L., (2012). Designing e-government services:
• Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures, Journal of Operations Management,
• 30, pp.116–133 Vetschera, R., Weitzl, W., Wolfsteiner, E., (2014). Implausible alternatives in eliciting
• 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:
• 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
• 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
• Effect in Conjoint: Where Does It Come From, and Can It Be Eliminated?. Available at:
• http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/general-conjoint-analysis/the
• number-of-levels-effect-in-conjoint-where-does-it-come-from-and-can-it-be-eliminated-1992
• [Accessed: 5 May 2014]. Wu, W. Y., Liao, Y. K., Chatwuthikrai, A., (2014). Applying conjoint analysis to
• evaluate consumer preferences toward subcompact cars. Expert Systems with Applications,
• 41, pp.2782–2792. Yano, C., Dobson, G., (1998). Profit-optimizing product line design, selection and
• pricing with manufacturing cost consideration. In: Ho et al. eds. Product Variety
• Management: Research Advances, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zafer Development Agency (2011). Zafer Development Agency. Available at:
• http://www.zafer.org.tr/[Accessed 16 June 2014]. Zardari, N.H. & Cordery, I., (2007). ‘Modelling water allocation decisions: a conjoint
• analysis approach’, International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Christchurch, New
• Zealand, 10-13 December.