Specifications of accessibility indices range from simple minimum-travel-time indices, to measures of cumulative opportunities within specified distance or time thresholds, to maximum utility measures. Models are presented that relate a variety of general accessibility indices for the Dallas–Fort Worth region of Texas to property valuations for single-family dwelling units and commercial units, and to household residential location choices. Hedonic models are used to assess how important access is to property valuations, while controlling for improvement attributes and parcel size. Multinomial logit models are used to derive logsum measures of accessibility as well as to assess the effect of access on location choices, while controlling for household demographics. Three functional specifications of access measures were used. Job accessibility (a proxy for work and other opportunities) was estimated to affect residential land values positively in statistically and economically significant ways, suggesting—as hypothesized here—that land rents track property owners’ assessments of accessibility, whereas other common accessibility measures do not perform as well. After controlling for this measure, access to park space (proxy for availability of outdoor recreational activities) and access to retail jobs (proxy for shopping opportunities) were not valued in the land market. Distances to regional central business districts and household heads’ workplace locations played important roles in location predictions, often in the presence of the more general access measures. Residential location choice model results suggested which indices are better measures of accessibility. Different functional specifications appeared useful here. Cumulative opportunities access measures were most helpful in predicting residence location, but differences in predictive power were relatively small.
[1]
David Gillen,et al.
An Extension of the Hedonic Approach for Estimating the Value of Quiet
,
1980
.
[2]
I. S. Lowry.
A model of metropolis
,
1964
.
[3]
A. Anas.
Residential location markets and urban transportation : economic theory, econometrics, and policy analysis with discrete choice models
,
1982
.
[4]
D. McFadden.
Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior
,
1972
.
[5]
R. Voith,et al.
TRANSPORTATION, SORTING AND HOUSE VALUES
,
1991
.
[6]
W. Alonso.
Location And Land Use
,
1964
.
[7]
G R Leake,et al.
ACCESSIBILITY MEASURES AND THEIR SUITABILITY FOR USE IN TRIP GENERATION MODELS
,
1979
.
[8]
Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.
Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand
,
1985
.
[9]
Kara M. Kockelman,et al.
Effects of Location Elements on Home Purchase Prices and Rents in San Francisco Bay Area
,
1997
.
[10]
E. Mills.
Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy
,
1972
.
[11]
Steven R Lerman,et al.
LOCATION, HOUSING, AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP, AND MODE TO WORK: A JOINT CHOICE MODEL
,
1976
.
[12]
M. Wachs,et al.
PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY AS A SOCIAL INDICATOR
,
1973
.
[13]
Debbie A. Niemeier,et al.
Accessibility: an evaluation using consumer welfare
,
1997
.
[14]
H. Mohring,et al.
Land Values and the Measurement of Highway Benefits
,
1961,
Journal of Political Economy.
[15]
K. Small,et al.
Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models
,
1981
.
[16]
M.William Sermons,et al.
ASSESSING TRAVELER RESPONSIVENESS TO LAND AND LOCATION BASED ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY SOLUTIONS
,
2001
.
[17]
Daniel McFadden,et al.
Modelling the Choice of Residential Location
,
1977
.