Access-based land value appreciation for assessing project benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional mobility-oriented travel-time saving benefit assessment method has been repeatedly questioned for numerous intrinsic flaws, motivating the search for alternative benefit assessment approaches. Although a wealth of literature confirms the capitalization effect of access benefits induced by transport improvements to land or real estate value, the access-based land value uplift method hasn’t yet been widely recognized and employed as an official tool assisting transport decision-making. The present paper collects 136 empirical studies and aims to disentangle the obstacles hindering the promotion of the access-based assessment method by systematically reviewing methodological design, the access metrics used, and the target real estate sub-markets or land use types upon which access benefits are quantified. First, it was found that almost half of the sampled studies just investigated the general effects of transport operation on real estate prices without incorporating sufficient temporal and locational considerations, thereby failing to isolate project-specific incremental impacts. Second, while the hedonic pricing model remains the most popular model, a trend towards embracing more advanced modelling techniques such as spatial lag, spatial error, and Difference-in-Differences (DID) models to control for bias caused by spatial dependence has been observed. Third, Euclidean distance and distance buffer rings are the most widely used operational measures of access. Primal access measures covering the number of opportunities available at a destination and travel impedance are recommended. Last, over 86% of sampled empirical studies target the residential real estate market. The lack of non-residential land uses in the literature presents a significant research gap that should be addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".