Accessibility and uncertainty: An empirical analysis of option value in transport

Authors

  • Anders Bondemark
  • Erik Johansson Lund University
  • Fredrik Kopsch

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1783

Keywords:

Option value;, Accessibility, Substitutability, Hedonic pricing, Transport economics

Abstract

Are there option values for transport services? A few studies have tried to answer this question through various stated preference methods, but we do not know much about its magnitude in different contexts. In this paper, we summarize the theory on option value, present previous empirical work concerning transport, and discuss its links to accessibility. Accessibility can be seen as the end product of the transport system, and the argument we pursue is that option value is a component of accessibility. Therefore, estimations of the option value ought to be connected to the marginal accessibility change of an optional transport mode. The concept of substitutability has the potential to meet this criterion. It is the degree to which an alternative trip can replace an initially preferred trip, or, put differently, how accessibility at a location is composed. We conduct an empirical application to test whether the variation in housing transaction prices is associated with substitutability. We find that housing prices are higher where the accessibility is built up by several transport modes, given any level of total accessibility. We interpret this as households, on average, are willing to pay a risk premium to keep optional transport modes available.

References

Barbier, E. B. (1994). Valuing environmental functions: Tropical wetlands. Land Economics, 70(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146319

Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/discrete-choice-analysis

Beser, M. & Algers, S. (2002). SAMPERS – The new Swedish national travel demand forecasting tool. In L. Lundqvist & L. G. Mattsson (Eds.), National transport models, advances in spatial science (pp.101–118). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04853-5

Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice. London: Pearson.

Bohman, H., & Nilsson, D. (2016). The impact of regional commuter trains on property values: Price segments and income. Journal of Transport Geography, 56,102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.09.003

Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Mitchell, R. C. (2001). The theory and measurement of passive-use value. In I. Bateman & K. G. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries (pp. 97–130). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Chang, J. S. (2010). Estimation of option and non-use values for intercity passenger rail services. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(2), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.06.009

Chang, J. S., Cho, S. Y., Lee, B. S., Kim, Y., & Yun, S. K. (2012). A dichotomous choice survey for quantifying option and non-use values of bus services in Korea. Transportation, 39(1), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9326-0

Chang, J. S., Jung, D., Ross, C. L., & Kim, J. (2017). Evaluating the non-use values of expressways. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 13(5), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2017.1293751

Cicchetti, C. J., & Myrick Freeman III, A. (1971). Option demand and consumer surplus: Further comment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 85(3), 528–539.

Debrezion, G., Pels, E., & Rietveld, P. (2007). The impact of railway stations on residential and commercial property value: A meta-analysis. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35(2),161–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-007-9032-z

Eliasson, J., Kopsch, F., Mandell, S., & Wilhelmsson, M. (2020). Transport mode and the value of accessibility – A potential Input for sustainable investment analysis. Sustainability, 12(5), 2143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052143

Eliasson, J., & Mattsson, L. G. (2000). A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices. Transportation Research Part A, 34(5), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00038-5

Geurs, K, & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005

Geurs, K., Haaijer, R., & Van Wee, B. (2006). Option value of public transport: Methodology for measurement and case study for regional rail links in the Netherlands. Transport Reviews, 26(5), 613–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640600655763

Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring accessibility: An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175–1194. https://doi.org/10.1068/a291175

Humphreys, M., & Fowkes, A. S. (2006). The significance of indirect use and non-use values in transport appraisal. International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 17–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42747776

Johnson, D., Jackson, J., & Nash, C. (2013). The wider value of rural rail provision. Transport Policy, 29, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.04.007

Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston, MA: Hart, Schaffner & Marx, Houghton Mifflin Co.

Krutilla, J. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review, 57(4), 777–876.

Laird, J., Johnson, D., Corso, M., & Tucta, I. (2013). Option values in bus networks. Paper presented at the Scottish Transport Applications and Research (STAR) Conference, April 17, Glasgow.

Laird, J., Geurs, K., & Nash, C. (2009). Option and non-use values and rail project appraisal. Transport Policy, 16(4), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.05.002

Lindsay, C. M. (1969). Option demand and consumer’s surplus. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83(2), 344–346.

Long, M. F. (1967). Collective-consumption services of individual-consumption goods: Comment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 81(2), 351–352.

Mohammad, S. I., Graham, D. J., Melo, P. C., & Anderson, R. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the impact of rail projects on land and property values. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 50, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.013

Parry, I. W. H., & Small, K. A. (2009). Should urban transit subsidies be reduced? The American Economic Review, 99(3), 700–724.

Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82(1), 34–55.

Stanley, J., & Levinson, D. (2016). Workshop 3 report: Sustainable funding sources and related cost benefit measurements. Research in Transportation Economics, 59,143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.10.004

Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin Books.

van Wee, B. (2016). Accessible accessibility research challenges. Journal of Transport Geography, 51, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.018

van Wee, B., van Cranenburgh, S., & Maat, K. (2019). Substitutability as a spatial concept to evaluate travel alternatives. Journal of Transport Geography, 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102469

Wallis, I., & Wignall, D. (2012). The benefits of public transport – option values and non-use values (Research report 471). Wellington, NZ: NZ Transport Agency.

Weisbrod, B. A. (1964). Collective-consumption services of individual-consumption goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78(3), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Downloads

Published

2021-04-24

How to Cite

Bondemark, A., Johansson, E., & Kopsch, F. (2021). Accessibility and uncertainty: An empirical analysis of option value in transport. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 14(1), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1783

Issue

Section

Articles