Journal of Cadastre & Land InformatiX (지적과 국토정보)

LX Spatial Information Research Institute (한국국토정보공사 공간정보연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Non-linear effects of demand-supply based metro accessibility on land prices in Seoul, Republic of Korea: Using G2SFCA Approach

서울시 수요-공급 기반 지하철 접근성이 토지가격에 미치는 비선형적 영향: G2SFCA 적용을 중심으로

  • Kang, Chang-Deok (Department of Urban Planning and Real Estate, Chung-Ang University)
  • 강창덕 (중앙대학교 도시계획부동산학과)
  • Received : 2022.08.31
  • Accepted : 2022.11.22
  • Published : 2022.12.10
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Cities around the world have paid attention to public transportation as an alternative to reducing traffic congestion caused by automobile usage, excessive energy consumption, and environmental pollution. This study measures accessibility to subway stations in Seoul using a supply-demand-based accessibility technique. Then, the impacts were analyzed through land prices by use and segment. As a result of analysis using the multilevel hedonic price models, accessibility considering both supply and demand for the subway had a positive effect on both residential and non-residential land prices. The effect was stronger for residential than for non-residential. Further, among the accessibility measured by the three functions, the accessibility by the Exponential function was most suitable for the residential land price, and the accessibility measured by the Power function for the non-residential land price had the highest explanatory power. Also, looking at the impacts by land price segments, it was found that higher access to metro stations had the greatest positive impacts on the most expensive segment of residential and non-residential land prices. The results of this study can be applied not only to identify the impacts of public investment on neighborhoods, but also to support real estate valuation.

세계 주요 도시는 자동차로 인한 교통 정체, 에너지 과소비, 환경오염 등을 해결하는 대안으로 대중교통을 주목하고 있다. 아울러 대중교통에 대한 쉬운 접근성이 그 이용을 높인다는 점에서 여러 연구는 대중교통에 대한 접근성을 개선하는 것이 중요함을 강조하였다. 이러한 대중교통은 부동산 가치 평가와 투자 결정에도 중요한 변수로 작용한다. 이 연구는 대중교통 접근성에 대한 기존 접근방법을 비판적으로 검토한 후 수요-공급 기반 접근성 기법으로 서울시 지하철역에 대한 접근성을 측정한다. 그 다음 그 영향을 용도별, 분위별 토지가격을 통해 분석하였다. 다층헤도닉모형으로 분석한 결과, 첫째, 지하철에 대한 수요와 공급을 모두 고려한 접근성은 주거용과 비주거용 토지가격에 모두 긍정적 영향을 주었다. 영향은 비주거용보다 주거용에 보다 강하게 나타났다. 둘째, 총 세 개의 함수로 측정한 접근성 가운데 Exponential 함수에 의한 접근성은 주거용 토지가격에 가장 적합했으며, 비주거용 토지가격에는 Power 함수로 측정한 접근성이 가장 설명력이 높았다. 셋째, 토지 가격 분위별 영향을 보면, 주거용과 비주거용 토지가격 모두 가장 비싼 분위에 가장 큰 영향을 준 것으로 나타났다. 아울러 분위별 가격에서도 모형적합도 측면에서 주거용은 Exponential 함수로 측정한 접근성, 비주거용은 Power 함수로 측정한 접근성이 상대적으로 적합한 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 연구 결과는 공공투자가 인근지역에 미치는 영향을 이해할 뿐만 아니라 부동산 가치평가, 대중교통 서비스로 인한 우발이익의 회수 방안 모색, 대중교통 투자로 인한 주거비 상승 대책 마련에 활용할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Kang SJ, Seo WS. 2016. Investigating Impacts of Subway Line and Station Features on Apartment Resale Prices. The Korea Spatial Planning Review. 89: 149-162. https://doi.org/10.15793/KSPR.2016.89..009
  2. Kang CD, 2021. A Study of Effects of Accessibility of Street Networks to Seoul Subway System on Land Price. Journal of Real Estate Analysis. 7(2): 1-24. https://doi.org/10.30902/jrea.2021.7.2.1
  3. Kim HJ, Lee CM, Lee, JS, Kim MY, Ryu, TH, Shin, HY, Kim, JY. 2012, The Dynamic Effects of Subway Network Expansion on Housing Rental Prices Using a Modified Repeat Sales Model. Journal of Cadastre and Land InformatiX.
  4. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. 2019, Assessed Land Prices Data.
  5. Do, SG., Kim, EJ., Lee KT. 2015. A Study on the Relationship between Subway Station Areas and Apartment Price: Focusing on Apartment Price Fluctuation by the Construction of the Daegu Subway Line 3. Korean Public Administration Quarterly. 27(2): 543-567.
  6. Park, YR, Kang, YO. 2019, Estimation of Flow Population of Seoul Walking Tour Courses Using Telecommunications Data. Journal of Cadastre and Land InformatiX. 49(1):181-195. https://doi.org/10.22640/LXSIRI.2019.49.1.181
  7. Seoul Open Data Plaza. 2019, Data for Seoul De Facto Population.
  8. Seoul TOPIS. 2019. Data for Bus-stops Location.
  9. Seoul Statics. 2019. Data for Operation Frequency per Metro Stations.
  10. Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2006. Urban Master Plan 2020.
  11. Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2019, Geographical Information of Retail Areas, and Parks.
  12. Won YB. 2018. Estimations for De Facto Population in Seoul. 35th Conference for Regional Informatization.
  13. Won, SH., Hwang, CS. 2017. A Study on the Change of Urban Land Use According to the Change of Transportation Accessibility. Journal of Cadastre and Land InformatiX. 47(1): 127-142. https://doi.org/10.22640/LXSIRI.2017.47.1.127
  14. Lee KS, Kim KM, Song YN. 2010. Impacts of Mixed-Use Development and Transportation on Housing Value. Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea. 13(4):515-528. https://doi.org/10.23841/egsk.2010.13.4.515
  15. Lee JM, Kim JY. 2014. Negative Impact of a Subway Station on Neighboring Apartment Price - Focused on Differential Effects Depending on the Structure and Function of the Station. Housing Studies. 22(2): 53-75.
  16. Jang CY, Rho TU. 2015. A Study on Determinants of Single Family Housing Prices in Seoul. Appraisal Studies. 14(1): 55-71.
  17. Chun HJ. 2016. The Study of Comparison of Housing Price Models by Using Spatial Econometrics and GIS. Korea Real Estate Academy Review. 64: 46-56.
  18. Jeong MO, Lee SY. 2013. A Study on the Changes in Housing Prices Depending on the Accessibility of the Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit. Korea Real Estate Review. 23(3): 51-77.
  19. Korean Contents Media, 2019, School database.
  20. Ministry of Interior and Safety, 2019, Building Registry for Seoul.
  21. Ministry of Interior and Safety, 2019, Road Name Address Maps for Seoul.
  22. Statistics Korea, 2019, Jipgyegu Data for Seoul Population and Employment.
  23. Albacete, X., Olaru, D., Paul, V., Biermann, S. 2017. Measuring the Accessibility of Public Transport: A Critical Comparison between Methods in Helsinki. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy. 10(2): 161-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-015-9177-8
  24. Bae, C., Jun, M., Park, H. 2003. The Impact of Seoul's Subway Line 5 on Residential Property Values. Transport Policy. 10(2): 85-94 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00048-3
  25. Biba, S., Curtin, K. M., Manca, G. 2010. A New Method for Determining the Population with Walking Access to Transit. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 24(3): 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810802646679
  26. 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
  27. Bohman, H. 2021. Same, Same but Different? Neighbourhood Effects of Accessibility on Housing Prices. Transport Policy. 107: 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.04.016
  28. Bowes, D. R., Ihlanfeldt, K. R. 2001. Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on Residential Property Values. Journal of Urban Economics. 50(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2214
  29. Cervero, R., Duncan, M. 2002. Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets: Experiences in Santa Clara County. Journal of Public Transportation. 5(1): 1-18 https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.5.1.1
  30. Cervero, R., Susantono, B. 1999. Rent Capitalization and Transportation Infrastructure Development in Jakarta. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies. 11(1): 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-940X.00002
  31. Cromley, E. K., McLafferty, S. L. 2012. GIS and Public Health. Guilford Press.
  32. Dube, J., Theriault, M., Des Rosiers, F. 2013. Commuter Rail Accessibility and House Values: The Case of the Montreal South Shore, Canada, 1992-2009. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 54: 49-66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.07.015
  33. Ewing, R., Cervero, R. 2010. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-analysis", Journal of the American Planning Association. 76(3): 265-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766
  34. Feng, C., Li, W., Zhao, F. 2011. Influence of Rail Transit on Nearby Commodity Housing Prices: A Case Study of Beijing Subway Line Five. Acta Geographica Sinica. 66(8):1055-1062
  35. Fransen, K., Neutens, T., Farber, S., De Maeyer, P., Deruyter, G., Witlox, F. 2015. Identifying Public Transport Gaps Using Time-dependent Accessibility Levels. Journal of Transport Geography. 48: 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.09.008
  36. Gatzlaff, D.H. Smith, M.T. 1993. The Impact of the Miami Metrorail on The Value of Residences near Station Locations. Land Economics. 69: 54-66. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146278
  37. Glaeser, E.L., Kahn, M.E., Rappaport, J. 2008. Why Do the Poor Live in Cities? The Role of Public Transportation. Journal of Urban Economics. 63: 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.12.004
  38. Guagliardo, M. F. 2004. Spatial Accessibility of Primary Care: Concepts, Methods and Challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics. 3(1): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-3-3
  39. Gutierrez, J., Garcia-Palomares, J. C. 2008. Distance-measure Impacts on the Calculation of Transport Service Areas Using GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 35(3): 480-503. https://doi.org/10.1068/b33043
  40. Handy, S. 2005. Planning for Accessibility: In Theory and In Practice. Levinson and Krizek (eds.) Access to Destinations. 131-147.
  41. Hansen, W. 1959. How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 25(2): 73-76 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307
  42. Hess, D.B., Almeida, T.M. 2007. Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit on Station Area Property Values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Studies. 44: 1041-1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701256005
  43. Higgins, C. D. 2019. Accessibility toolbox for R and ArcGIS. Transport Findings. 24(6): 435-36.
  44. Hook, W., Replogle, M. 1996. Motorization and Non-motorized Transport in Asia Transport System Evolution in China, Japan and Indonesia. Land Use Policy. 13(1): 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8377(95)00025-9
  45. Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., Schoot, R. 2018. The Basic Two-Level Regression Model: Introduction. Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. 8-26.
  46. Immergluck, D. 2009. Large Redevelopment Initiatives, Housing Values and Gentrification: The Case of the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Studies. 46(8): 1723-1745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009105500
  47. Isaacman, S., Becker, R., Caceres, R., Martonosi, M., Rowland, J., Varshavsky, A., Willinger, W. 2012. Human Mobility Modeling at Metropolitan Scales. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. 239-252.
  48. Jin, T., Cheng, L., Liu, Z., Cao, J., Huang, H., Witlox, F. 2022. Nonlinear Public Transit Accessibility Effects on Housing Prices: Heterogeneity across Price Segments. Transport Policy. 117: 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.01.004
  49. Kwan, M. P. 1998. Space-time and Integral Measures of Individual Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis Using a Point-based Framework. Geographical Analysis. 30(3): 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1998.tb00396.x
  50. Kwan, M. P. 2013. Beyond Space: Toward Temporally Integrated Geographies of Segregation, Health, and Accessibility: Space-time Integration in Geography and GIScience. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 103(5): 1078-1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.792177
  51. Langford, M., Fry, R., Higgs, G. 2012. Measuring Transit System Accessibility Using a Modified Two-step Floating Catchment Technique. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 26(2): 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.574140
  52. Lee, W. K., Sohn, S. Y., Heo, J. 2018. Utilizing Mobile Phone-based Floating Population Data to Measure the Spatial Accessibility to Public Transit. Applied geography. 92: 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.02.003
  53. Lei, T., Chen, Y., Goulias, K. 2012. Opportunity-based Dynamic Transit Accessibility in Southern California: Measurement, Findings, and Comparison with Automobile Accessibility. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2276: 26-37. https://doi.org/10.3141/2276-04
  54. Li, S., Zhao, P. 2015. The Determinants of Commuting Mode Choice among School Children in Beijing. Journal of Transport Geography. 46: 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.010
  55. Lin, J., Cromley, G. 2022. A Narative Analysis of the 2SFCA and i2SFCA Methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 36(5): 943-967. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2021.1986831
  56. Lin, T. G., Xia, J. C., Robinson, T. P., Goulias, K. G., Church, R. L., Olaru, D., Tapin, J., Han, R. 2014. Spatial Analysis of Access to and Accessibility Surrounding Train Stations: A Case Study of Accessibility for the Elderly in Perth, Western Australia. Journal of Transport Geography. 39: 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.022
  57. Luo, W., Qi, Y. 2009. An Enhanced Two-step Floating Catchment Area (E2SFCA) Method for Measuring Spatial Accessibility to Primary Care Physicians. Health & Place. 15(4): 1100-1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.06.002
  58. Mathur, S. 2020. Impact of Transit Stations on House Prices across Entire Price Spectrum: A Quantile Regression Approach. Land Use Policy. 99: 104828.
  59. Neutens, T. 2015. Accessibility, Equity and Health Care: Review and Research Directions for Transport Geographers. Journal of Transport Geography. 43: 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.12.006
  60. Neutens, T., Delafontaine, M., Scott, D. M., De Maeyer, P. 2012. An Analysis of Day-to-day Variations in Individual Space-time Accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography. 23: 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.001
  61. Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A. 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. STATA Press.
  62. Ryan, R. L. 2011. The Social Landscape of Planning: Integrating Social and Perceptual Research with Spatial Planning Information. Landscape and Urban Planning. 100(4): 361-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.015
  63. Sen, A., Smith, T. E. 2012. Gravity Models of Spatial Interaction Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
  64. Sieg, H. 2020. Urban Economics and Fiscal Policy. Princeton University Press.
  65. Song, Y., Knaap, G. 2004. Measuring the Effects of Mixed Land Uses on Housing Values. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 34(6): 663-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2004.02.003
  66. Sun, S. 2013. SNS (social network service) Usage. KISDI STAT Report. 13(4): 11-15
  67. Sung, H., Lee, S. 2015. Residential Built Environment and Walking Activity: Empirical Evidence of Jane Jacobs' Urban Vitality. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 41: 318-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.009
  68. Suzuki, H., Cervero, R., Iuchi, K. 2013. Transforming Cities with Transit: Transit and Land-use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development. World Bank Publications.
  69. Tribby, C. P., Zandbergen, P. A. 2012. High-resolution Spatio-temporal Modeling of Public Transit Accessibility. Applied Geography. 34: 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.008
  70. Wang, F. 2015. Quantitative Methods and Socioeconomic Applications in GIS. CRC Press.
  71. Xu, W., Ding, Y., Zhou, J., Li, Y. 2015. Transit Accessibility Measures Incorporating the Temporal Dimension. Cities. 46: 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.002
  72. Yang, L., Chu, X., Gou, Z., Yang, H., Lu, Y., Huang, W. 2020. Accessibility and Proximity Effects of Bus Rapid Transit on Housing Prices: Heterogeneity across Price Quantiles and Space. Journal of Transport Geography. 88: 102850.
  73. Zhang, M., Meng, X., Wang, L., Xu, T. 2014. Transit Development Shaping Urbanization: Evidence from the Housing Market in Beijing. Habitat International. 44: 545-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.10.012
  74. Zhang, X., Liu, X., Hang, J., Yao, D., Shi, G. 2016. Do Urban Rail Transit Facilities Affect Housing Prices? Evidence from China. Sustainability. 8(4): 380.
  75. Zhu, Y., Diao, M. 2016. The Impacts of Urban Mass Rapid Transit Lines on the Density and Mobility of High-income Households: A Case Study of Singapore. Transport Policy. 51: 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.03.013