Empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that greater accessibility to opportunities can have a positive impact on real estate values. However, this capitalisation of the benefits of accessibility could vary between different study areas. This research estimates hedonic and spatial hedonic models in two urban areas to compare if differences can be found in the impact accessibility using public transport has on residential property values. The two study areas chosen for comparison are a medium sized city without any major mobility problems (Santander, Spain) and a very large city with major congestion problems (Rome, Italy). The estimated hedonic models have considered the possible presence of spatial effects, a common occurrence with real estate data which may generate dependency in the residuals of hedonic models. Accessibility has been measured using two types of indicators: relative and gravity based. The results confirm that accessibility was a positive factor on property prices in both cities, although in Santander this was only true using the relative indicator to the city centre. These results are relevant for supporting the introduction of value capture policies which provide finance for new projects to extend and encourage greater use of public transport.

Cordera, R., Coppola, P., Dell'Olio, L., Ibeas, A. (2019). The impact of accessibility by public transport on real estate values: A comparison between the cities of Rome and Santander. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH. PART A, POLICY AND PRACTICE, 125, 308-319 [10.1016/j.tra.2018.07.015].

The impact of accessibility by public transport on real estate values: A comparison between the cities of Rome and Santander

Coppola, Pierluigi;
2019-06-01

Abstract

Empirical evidence supports the hypothesis that greater accessibility to opportunities can have a positive impact on real estate values. However, this capitalisation of the benefits of accessibility could vary between different study areas. This research estimates hedonic and spatial hedonic models in two urban areas to compare if differences can be found in the impact accessibility using public transport has on residential property values. The two study areas chosen for comparison are a medium sized city without any major mobility problems (Santander, Spain) and a very large city with major congestion problems (Rome, Italy). The estimated hedonic models have considered the possible presence of spatial effects, a common occurrence with real estate data which may generate dependency in the residuals of hedonic models. Accessibility has been measured using two types of indicators: relative and gravity based. The results confirm that accessibility was a positive factor on property prices in both cities, although in Santander this was only true using the relative indicator to the city centre. These results are relevant for supporting the introduction of value capture policies which provide finance for new projects to extend and encourage greater use of public transport.
giu-2019
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore ICAR/05 - TRASPORTI
English
Accessibility; Hedonic price models; Public transport; Real estate prices; Spatial – econometric models; Civil and Structural Engineering; Transportation; Management Science and Operations Research
www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/5/4/7/
Cordera, R., Coppola, P., Dell'Olio, L., Ibeas, A. (2019). The impact of accessibility by public transport on real estate values: A comparison between the cities of Rome and Santander. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH. PART A, POLICY AND PRACTICE, 125, 308-319 [10.1016/j.tra.2018.07.015].
Cordera, R; Coppola, P; Dell'Olio, L; Ibeas, A
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/204171
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 39
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 35
social impact