Effects of transport accessibility on residential real estate prices (case study of Saratov)

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат ақылы немесе тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация

The deepening spatial inequality is observed in Russia at many territorial levels, including within large cities. A vivid manifestation of the depth of social stratification of urban areas is the differences in residential real estate prices, which are often considered as an indicator of spatial inequality due to the lack of other open data. In this paper, we investigated the effects of transport accessibility for spatial inequality, expressed through the average cost of residential real estate, on the example of the city of Saratov. We aggregated data from 80 thousand advertisements on the sale of apartments in the city in 2021. Using the methods of network analysis, we estimated transport accessibility by car and by public transport, to the city center and relative to the transport network of the whole city (integral accessibility). According to the results of regression modeling, transport accessibility (together with the age of buildings) statistically explained up to half of the differences between Saratov districts in the average offer price of residential real estate. Despite our expectations, the best predictor of apartment prices was accessibility by public transport to the city center. Each minute away from the historical city center by public transport reduced the average price of a residential property by 455 rubles per m2. Saratov’s public transport network is highly centralized, which does not allow to fully utilize the potential of the three transport hubs revealed in the study. One possible step towards mitigating the territorial contrasts in transport accessibility in the city is to transform the bus network by introducing new trunk and feeder (to the hubs outside the center) routes.

Авторлар туралы

P. Gonyukhov

HSE University

Email: pogonyukhov@edu.hse.ru
Moscow, Russia

A. Sheludkov

HSE University; Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: asheludkov@hse.ru
Moscow, Russia; Moscow, Russia

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Балаш В.А., Балаш О.С., Харламов А.В. Эконометрический анализ геокодированных данных о ценах на жилую недвижимость // Прикладная эконометрика. 2011. T. 2. № 22. С. 62–77.
  2. Бугроменко В.Н. Транспорт в территориальных системах. 1987. 110 С.
  3. Бугроменко В.Н. Современная география транспорта и транспортная доступность // Изв. РАН. Сер. геогр. 2010. № 4. С. 7–16.
  4. Вендина И.О., Панин А.Н., Тикунов В.С. Социальное пространство Москвы: особенности и структура // Изв. РАН. Сер. геогр. 2019. № 6. С. 3–17.
  5. Дохов Р.А., Синицын Н.А. Спрол в России: рост и структурная трансформация пригородов Белгорода // Изв. РАН. Сер. геогр. 2020. Т. 84. № 2. С. 191–206.
  6. Дубовик В.О. Методы оценки транспортной доступности территории // Рег. исслед. 2013. № 4. С. 11–18.
  7. Леонтьев Е.В., Майбуров И.А. Оценка влияния доступности общественного транспорта на стоимость городской жилой недвижимости // J. Appl. Econ. Res. 2021. Vol. 20. № 1. С. 62–83.
  8. Лубкова М.А., Федюнина Т.В. Анализ рынка жилой недвижимости в г. Саратов // Традиционная и инновационная наука: история, современное состояние, перспективы: сб. статей Международ. науч.-практич. конф. 2018. № 5. С. 160–162.
  9. Махрова А.Г., Голубчиков О.Ю. Российский город в условиях капитализма: социальная трансформация внутригородского пространства // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Серия 5. География. 2012. № 2. С. 26–31.
  10. Попов А.А. Пространственно-временной анализ факторов ценообразования на рынке жилой недвижимости Москвы // Рег. исслед. 2014. № 4. С. 70–80.
  11. Преображенский Ю.В., Арутюнян Н.А., Галстян Г.А. Вернакулярные районы Еревана и Саратова: морфологические различия городских пространств // Социология города. 2018. № 2. С. 46–54.
  12. Сидоровых А.С. Оценка влияния транспортной доступности на цены недвижимости // Прикладная эконометрика. 2015. № 1 (37). С. 43–56.
  13. Сомов Э.В. Геоинформационное картографирование обеспеченности населения общественным транспортом на примере г. Москвы. Дис. … канд. геогр. наук. М.: МГУ, 2015. 126 с.
  14. Beirão G., Cabral J.A.S. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study // Transp. Policy. 2007. Vol. 14. № 6. P. 478–489.
  15. Benenson I., Martens K., Rofé Y., Kwartler A. Public transport versus private car GIS-based estimation of accessibility applied to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area // Ann. Reg. Sci. 2011. Vol. 47. P. 499–515.
  16. Biosca O., Spiekermann K., Stępniak M. Transport accessibility at regional scale // Europa XXI. 2013. Vol. 24. P. 5–17.
  17. Brade I., Axenov K., Bondarchuk E. The transformation of urban space in post-Soviet Russia. Taylor & Francis, 2007. 216 p.
  18. Burdziej J. Using hexagonal grids and network analysis for spatial accessibility assessment in urban environments–a case study of public amenities in Toruń // Misc. Geogr. 2019. Vol. 23. № 2. P. 99–110.
  19. Cervero R. Transit-oriented development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. 2004.
  20. Duranton G., Puga D. Urban land use // Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Elsevier, 2015. Vol. 5. P. 467–560.
  21. Efthymiou D., Antoniou C. How do transport infrastructure and policies affect house prices and rents? Evidence from Athens, Greece // Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2013. Vol. 52. P. 1–22.
  22. Glaeser E.L., Kahn M.E. Sprawl and urban growth // Handbook of Regional and Urban economics. Elsevier, 2004. Vol. 4. P. 2481–2527.
  23. Glaeser E.L., Resseger M., Tobio K. Urban inequality / Justice for All. Routledge, 2015. P. 98–121.
  24. Henneberry J. Transport investment and house prices // J. Prop. Valuat. Investm. 1998. Vol. 16. № 2. P. 144–158.
  25. Hitge G., Vanderschuren M. Comparison of travel time between private car and public transport in Cape Town // J. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 2015. Vol. 57. № 3. P. 35–43.
  26. Jayantha W.M., Lam T.I., Chong M.L. The impact of anticipated transport improvement on property prices: A case study in Hong Kong // Habitat Int. 2015. Vol. 49. P. 148–156.
  27. Ibraeva A., de Almeida Correia G.H., Silva C., Antunes A.P. Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and challenges // Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2020. Vol. 132. P. 110–130.
  28. Kim K., Lahr M.L. The impact of Hudson-Bergen Light Rail on residential property appreciation // Pap. Reg. Sci. 2014. Vol. 93. P. 79–97.
  29. Lucas K., Jones P. Social impacts and equity issues in transport: an introduction // J. Transp. Geogr. 2012. Vol. 21. P. 1–3.
  30. Mohammad S.I., Graham D.J., Melo P.C., Anderson R.J. A meta-analysis of the impact of rail projects on land and property values // Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 2013. Vol. 50. P. 158–170.
  31. Nefedova T.G., Treivish A.I., Sheludkov A.V. Spatially uneven development in Russia // Reg. Res. Rus. 2022. Vol. 12. № 1. P. 4–19.
  32. Saif M.A., Zefreh M.M., Torok A. Public transport accessibility: A literature review // Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 2019. Vol. 47. № 1. P. 36–43.
  33. Salonen M., Toivonen T. Modelling travel time in urban networks: comparable measures for private car and public transport // J. Transp. Geogr. 2013. Vol. 31. P. 143–153.
  34. Yang L., Zhou J., Shyr O.F. Does bus accessibility affect property prices? // Cities. 2019. Vol. 84. P. 56–65.

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу

© Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025