International Journal of Urban Sciences

ISSN: 1226-5934 (Print) 2161-6779 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjus20

Benefits of rerouting railways to tunnels in urban areas: a case study of the Yongsan line in Seoul Justin S. Chang, Sangjin Han, Dongjae Jung & Daejin Kim To cite this article: Justin S. Chang, Sangjin Han, Dongjae Jung & Daejin Kim (2014) Benefits of rerouting railways to tunnels in urban areas: a case study of the Yongsan line in Seoul, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18:3, 404-415, DOI: 10.1080/12265934.2014.934270 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.934270

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

Published online: 07 Jul 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 864

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjus20 Download by: [37.44.207.67]

Date: 26 January 2017, At: 20:19

International Journal of Urban Sciences, 2014 Vol. 18, No. 3, 404–415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.934270

Benefits of rerouting railways to tunnels in urban areas: a case study of the Yongsan line in Seoul Justin S. Changa∗ , Sangjin Hanb , Dongjae Junga and Daejin Kima a Department of Environmental Planning, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; b Korea Transport Institute, Goyang, Geonggi, Korea

(Received 15 October 2013; accepted 10 June 2014 )

As ground transport infrastructure causes diverse externalities such as noise and urban separation, the rerouting of such facilities to tunnels is one practical option to resolve the problem of social costs. Although such a mega-project is normally associated with huge budgets, this solution can also generate useful benefits for society. This paper explores these benefits using theYongsan line in Seoul, Korea, as a case study. Four representative values are considered. Noise reduction benefits are represented by two cost components: annoyance and health risk. Railway crossings are evaluated by operating and accident costs. Excess travel time for pedestrians is used as the key index to measure urban separation. Finally, the value of the landscape is quantified based on an anthropocentric method in the form of the transfer of benefits. In the calculation of these benefits, the local parameters of Korea are applied for realistic estimates while a universal methodology for each component is adopted for securing theoretical validities. There are also some other components that are not included in this appraisal such as congestion and scarcity costs, air pollution, climate change, and land reuse. These excluded elements are either not directly related to the purpose of this study or are related to the problem of double counting, which should be avoided.A sensitivity analysis about the catchment area shows drastic changes in benefit estimates, which signifies the need for careful interpretation of the appraisal. The concluding section suggests a direction for future studies, including a cost–benefit analysis and an ex-post investigation. Keywords: reroute; externality; noise; crossing; urban separation; landscape

1. Introduction There is growing interest in urban regeneration around the world. The purpose of this redevelopment is to reverse the decline of cities and to revitalize economic competitiveness, environmental quality, and social equity. As a part of urban renewal, many people often propose that transport infrastructure (railways or motorways) should be rerouted underground. Transport facilities can be redirected underground or covered to open up grade-level space for other purposes. The Big Dig project in Boston and the redevelopment of Rive Gauche in Paris are good examples of road- and rail-redirect schemes, respectively. The background of this innovative idea is associated with people’s altered views on transport facilities. People have become increasingly aware that such infrastructures are barriers that physically divide a city. Environmental concerns, including noise and landscape degradation, are other reasons for this changed notion. In particular, nearby residents desire the removal of matte concrete structures. ∗ Corresponding

author. Email: [email protected]

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.

International Journal of Urban Sciences

405

The redirection normally refurbishes the transport facility and reroutes major sections of it through tunnels under urban areas. Thus, it requires a huge budget. Experience shows that such mega-projects involve large landfills, including the replacement of innumerable pipes and utility lines, and encounter geological and archaeological barriers. The scheme, however, generates diverse benefits in return. Surface areas previously used for transport can be redeveloped into open space, footpaths, cycle routes, and new affordable housing and offices, for example. The project can also reduce noise, mechanical vibration, and traffic accidents close to the facility. Moreover, it is helpful in reuniting the urban area. This paper considers these benefits based on the redirection scheme of the Yongsan rail line in Seoul, Korea. In the next section, the Yongsan reroute plan is briefly explained. Subsequently, four representative benefits involving noise, crossings, urban separation, and landscape are discussed and measured. Some comments on the excluded components and issues of sensitivity analyses are provided, followed by concluding remarks.

2. The reroute plan The Yongsan line connects Yongsan with Gajwa, as shown in Figure 1. The line was originally built in 1905 as a sub-link of the Gyeongui line that connects Seoul to Sinuiju in North Korea. The railway used to transport both passengers and goods, but the line has only been used for freight since 1943. The surface railway started to be demolished in 2004, and as of now, a double-track underground railway is under construction, as shown in Figure 2. After the completion of this mega-project, the surface area will be used for stations, public parks, and other

Figure 1. The route of Yongsan line.

406

J.S. Chang et al.

Figure 2. The past, present (under construction), and future of the Yongsan line.

Figure 3.

Land use plans for the area previously occupied by the Yongsan line.

amenities, represented in Figure 3 by the colours blue, green, and pink, respectively. In each section of the park, a bar and restaurant will be built for visitors’ convenience.

3. Externalities The benefits of a project can be measured either by the cost savings that are induced by the project or by the willingness of the public to pay (or willingness to accept) for the changes in welfare that result from the project. This research seeks to quantify the external costs generated by surface-running railways. Rerouting can remove these adverse impacts, which are ultimately counted as benefits of redirecting the line into an underground tunnel. This paper considers four types of benefits. First, noise creates undesirable disturbances in people’s daily lives, causing both physiological and psychological harm to human beings. Broadly, two cost elements can be listed: annoyance and health. Annoyance cost is measured using depreciation in property values, while health risk is represented by quantifying the medical costs of acute myocardial infarction. The two components are assumed in this study to be independent – that is, potential long-term health risks are not taken into account in people’s perceived noise annoyance. Second, this paper addresses the opportunity costs of railroad crossings. The crossings are associated with several expenses. Obviously, roadwayrail crossings cause vehicle delays. Queuing directly increases travel time on roads, the costs of operating cars, and environmental concerns such as air pollution and carbon emissions. There are also traffic accidents at crossings. Two typical cases are train-to-pedestrian and train-to-car accidents. Spending for crossing management is another cost component. Delayrelated external costs, however, are not addressed in this study because there are trade-offs in social costs. The majority of land-use plans propose the creation of public parks on the surface area that was originally used for railways. This means that vehicles should also be controlled by signals when they pass through the area after the completion of the project. Thus, the net-reduced delay is minimized. Third, this paper considers urban separation. Ground transport facilities affect non-motorized travellers. Pedestrians, for instance, only go across a track at a designated crossing, which incurs excess travel time. The problem of scarcity also has an impact for bike users because an at-grade railway can bring about a loss

International Journal of Urban Sciences

407

of space for bike lanes. However, this scarcity issue is only relevant when bike lanes are considered real options for dealing with travel demand. A common approach to quantifying the effect of urban separation is thus to value the additional travel time for pedestrians due to at-grade railways (Bein, 1997; Schreyer et al., 2004). Finally, this paper quantifies landscape damage. The term ‘landscape’ is not easy to define. It is, however, related to the aesthetic satisfaction that people have with the natural and man-made features of their environment. Thus, the landscape cost can be defined in this study as the urban visual intrusion due to surface-running railways. This value is estimated based on the anthropocentric method in the form of a benefit transfer. The following sections elaborate on each component. Two key principles for the valuation are the choice of universal methodology and the application of localized parameters. For example, decreases in asset values by noise are estimated based on the hedonic pricing method that is applied in Korea. This design intends to satisfy the theoretical validities and to secure realistic estimates. It is also noted that the benefits are converted into 2011 constant values by applying the Korean consumer price index. 3.1. Noise 3.1.1. Annoyance costs This discomfort can be monetized based either on revealed preference (RP) or on stated preference (SP) data. Within the SP group, contingent valuation methods (Lera-López, Faulin, & Sánchez, 2012; Martín, Tarrero, González, & Machimbarrena, 2006; Nijland, Van Kempen, Van Wee, & Jabben, 2003) and choice experiments (Arsenio, Bristow, & Wardman, 2006; Galilea & Ortúzar, 2005) are commonly applied. A hedonic pricing model represents the approach of the RP method. This framework normally uses the real estate market as a surrogate to reveal the value of noise (Blanco & Flindell, 2011; Brandt & Maenning, 2012; Dekkers & van der Straaten, 2009; Lijesen, Straaten, Dekkers, Elk, & Blokdijk, 2010; Pope, 2008; Rehdanz & Maddison, 2008). In principle, both the RP and SP approaches can be considered, but the results of the study by Chang and Kim (2013), which was conducted as part of the sub-research to this work, are applied in this paper. The study, based on the hedonic pricing model, proposed a formulation for computing annual annoyance costs of noise as  CN × δ × (Ph × (Eh − 55)) h

s.t.

Eh ≥ 55,

where CN denotes the unit value for annoyance costs representing the noise depreciation index, δ is a social discount rate, Ph means the housing price of household h, and Eh is the equivalent continuous sound pressure level to which household h is exposed. Some comments are required to explain the formula. First, since human beings are more sensitive to some frequencies of sound pressure as opposed to other animals, a frequency weighting is applied to the calculation. The most common method is the ‘A weighting’ or dB(A). This study also adopted the weighting approach. Second, not all the properties exposed by rail noise are included in the appraisal. To set the threshold, background noise in urban areas should be considered. Morrison, Winston, and Watson (1999) report that the background noise is around 44–55 dB(A) during the day. Nelson (2004) also supplies similar values of 50–60 dB(A) during the day and 40 dB(A) at night. Generally, over 55 dB(A) can cause annoyance, which eventually drops real estate values (Hurtley, 2009); this is why

408

J.S. Chang et al.

Equivalent noise level (dB(A))

75 70 65 60 55 50 10

Figure 4.

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 Distances from the Yongsan line (m)

90

100

Equivalent noise level in dB(A).

Table 1. Annual annoyance costs. Values Number of households exposed to over 55 dB(A) Noise depreciation index Social discount rate Annual annoyance costs

3566 households 0.53% per decibel 5.5% 2,755,360,115 wons (2011 prices)

Note: 1,000 wons are approximately one US dollar.

the equation has an inequality constraint. Third, the basic unit that monetizes the noise annoyance represents an approximate percentage decrease in dwelling values. Chang and Kim (2013) supplied 0.53% per decibel as the index. Finally, a discount rate is required to estimate the annual external costs. Normally, the persisting period of housing does not match the appraisal term. Thus, the annual costs are usually multiplied by the evaluation period to calculate the total negative costs of noise for appraisal. The Korean standard is 5.5% per year. In order to apply the hedonic pricing method, the number of households exposed to noise exceeding 55 dB(A) is required. The noise level of each property due to rail operations was estimated using the formula from the Korean national guidance for transport appraisal (Korea Development Institute, 2008). Several factors such as headways, speeds, and the passing time of trains by the Yongsan line were surveyed as the input for this complex algebraic calculation. Figure 4 shows the resulting equivalent sound level versus the distances from the Yongsan line. The yearly benefit is then provided in Table 1.

3.1.2. Health costs Health costs quantify physical damage by noise. There are diverse health risks due to noise exposure. Regular exposure to loud noise can inflict hearing damage. It can also result in nervous stress reactions such as changes in the frequency of heart beats, increases in blood pressure, and hormonal imbalance. In addition, it escalates the chance of cardiovascular diseases; namely, noise can give rise to problems with heart and blood circulation. Sleep

International Journal of Urban Sciences

409

Table 2. Annual medical costs. Values Occurrence rate of acute myocardial infarction Unit value for medical costs Annual medical costs

118.4 cases per 100,000 people 2,493,262 wons per patient per year (2008 prices) 62,410,240 wons (2011 prices)

quality is another concern. However, the most representative indicator of health risks is the increase in heart attacks. There are several ways to value the health damages. The calculation of medical costs is a straightforward approach. Alternatively, increased mortality can be estimated. The costs of the loss of productivity can also be measured. However, only one of them should be selected to value the cost in order not to double count the externalities. In this study, the health damages are evaluated by estimating the medical expenses of acute myocardial infarction. Cardiac infarction also occurs in people who are not exposed to rail noise. Thus, it is important to reasonably estimate the rate of increase for the risk due to the exposure. This paper applies the recommendation of Schreyer et al. (2004) that was conducted for the International Union of Railways. The study reports that the possibility of suffering from cardiac infarction rises by 20% when people are exposed to 65–70 decibels, and by 30% when exposed to over 70 decibels. The annual health costs can then be estimated by CM × θ OM × ηHM , where CM is the unit value for medical costs associated with heart attacks, OM is the occurrence rate of acute myocardial infarction, θ denotes the multiplier of which figures are 1.2 and 1.3 when Eh ranges 65–70 and is over 70 decibels, respectively, HM is the total number of households affected by health risks from noise, and η refers to the average household size. The occurrence rate and the unit medical costs were collected from Hong, Kim, and Lee (2009) that was commissioned by the Korea Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. This public agency is responsible for reviewing medical fees as well as evaluating the appropriateness of health care services provided to health insurance beneficiaries. By applying the equivalent noise level in Figure 4, 19,215 people were estimated to have been exposed to over 65 dB(A). The resulting annual medical costs are shown in Table 2. 3.2. Crossings This component is addressed by estimating the operating and accident expenses associated with grade crossings. Historical cost data are the primary source for this valuation. Operating expenses consist of labour, maintenance, and incidental costs. This study collected reference data from crossings along intercity railways in Korea. A public operator, or Korail, provides the intercity services. The Yongsan line is also one of the intercity travel services, even though it is located in an urban area. However, Korail’s database for operational expenses does not supply the spending by individual crossing. The strategy adopted in this paper is to calculate the average running cost. Three-year data set was surveyed and the average value per crossing was calculated (Table 3). This average is used as the basic unit to compute the operating cost savings of crossings. Accident costs were collected from the rail safety

410

J.S. Chang et al.

Table 3. The calculation of unit value for the operating costs associated with crossings. Costs Year

Labour

Incidental

Maintenance

Total

Number of crossings

Unit costs per crossing

2011 2010 2009 Average

10,475 11,517 12,611

12,335 12,848 15,672

3600 3958 4335

26,410 28,323 32,618

1262 1313 1369

20.9 21.6 23.8 22.1

Source: An internal document of Korail (in Korean). Note: Values are expressed as 106 Korean wons per year (2011 prices).

Table 4. The calculation of unit value for the traffic accident costs associated with crossings. Costs Year 2011 2010 2009 Average

Death

Injured

Property damages

Total

Number of crossings

Unit costs per crossing

303,707 242,965 242,965

7449 19,864 42,212

11,790 11,305 24,466

322,946 274,134 309,643

1262 1313 1369

255.9 208.8 226.2 230.3

Source: Korea Rail Information System (www.railsafety.or.kr). Accessed in June 2012. Note: Values are expressed as 104 Korean wons per year (2011 prices).

Table 5. Annual crossing costs. Unit value Annual operating costs Annual accident costs Total

22,107,638 wons 2,302,890 wons

Number of crossings 8 8

Costs per crossing 176,861,108 wons (2011 prices) 195,284,232 wons (2011 prices) 2,019,173,483 wons (2011 prices)

information system of the Korean Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs. A similar approach to that of the calculation of running costs was applied, as is shown in Table 4. The total opportunity cost of crossings along theYongsan line can then be computed using the two cost components. There were eight crossings on the Yongsan line. Thus, the yearly cost can be evaluated as shown in Table 5. 3.3. Urban separation The metric used in this paper to calculate the separation effect was the excess travel time for pedestrians. Three essential components are required to estimate the externality. First, the volume of pedestrians who traverse the Yongsan line should be estimated. This study uses survey data from the Korea Transport Database (KTDB), which is the official transportation database of the Korean Government. Subsequently, excess travel time was calculated. Additional impediments are defined in this paper as the difference between the Euclidean distance travel time and the travel time by using the nearest crossing. Walking speed is applied as 1.1 m/s, which follows Han and Chang (2009), and is based on comprehensively

International Journal of Urban Sciences

411

Table 6. Annual urban separation costs. Values Pedestrian trip rates Average excess travel time Value of walking travel time Annual urban separation costs

24,058 trips per day 9.8 minutes per trip 5132 wons per hour per trip (2010 prices) 7,655,035,293 wons (2011 prices)

collected Korean field data. Finally, this paper uses the results of Chang and Park (2010), derived through meta-analysis, for the value of walking time. The annual costs of urban separation can then be estimated by CS ×



  qij × tijc − tije × 365,

i

j

where CS is the unit value for urban separation representing the value of walking travel time, qij is the pedestrian trip rate between areas i and j that are located on the opposite sides of the Yongsan line, and tijc and tije represent the travel time between i and j while using the nearest crossing or the Euclidean distance, respectively. The KTDB shows that there were 24,058 pedestrian trips that traversed the track. The average excess travel time was calculated to be 9.8 minutes per trip. The annual urban separation cost due to the Yongsan line can then be estimated as shown in Table 6. 3.4. Landscape Broadly, there are two types of approaches to value landscape cost. A bio-centric framework evaluates the scarcity of nature, while an anthropocentric method estimates people’s willingness to pay for landscapes (Schreyer et al., 2004). The definition of scarcity, however, is hard to establish. Furthermore, it stresses the value of the natural environment but does not focus as much on that of the built environment. In addition, from an economic point of view, the willingness-to-pay approach is more feasible. Thus, this study adopts an anthropocentric method to quantify landscape cost due to the Yongsan line. The annual landscape cost is given by CL × HL , where CL is the unit value for landscape costs and HL denotes the total number of households affected by visual intrusion. The estimate CL can be given either by a direct survey or by transferring existing benefit assessments from studies that have already been completed. Each has its own advantages and limitations. A value from a dedicated survey can be a good estimate for the cost. However, empirical research is normally too expensive and is subject to diverse biases, such as hypotheticality, neutrality, and judgement problems. This is because the willingnessto-pay survey is normally based on SP techniques such as contingent valuation methods and choice experiments. On the other hand, the benefit transfer method can be a realistic alternative in the event that the original study was carefully conducted and used sound valuation techniques. This paper adopts the estimates from Chang, Jung, Kim, Song, and Jang (2012) that were based on a meta-analysis using a collection of 34 independent research papers undertaken

412

J.S. Chang et al. Table 7. Annual landscape costs. Values Number of households affected by visual intrusion Unit value for landscape costs Annual landscape costs

173,204 households 23,872 wons per household per year (2011 prices) 4,134,725,888 wons (2011 prices)

Note: The unit value for landscape costs is collected from Chang et al. (2012).

in Korea since 2000. In general, a meta-analysis combines the results of studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. Hence, the method can supply more reliable estimates than those derived in a single study under a given set of assumptions and conditions. Table 7 shows the results of the estimation of annual landscape costs. The problem, however, is how to bind the potential set of households that are affected. The households residing in dongs – an administrative subunit in a Korean city – through which the Yongsan line passes are assumed to suffer from the visual intrusion. The assumption, however, may not be universal. This issue of sensitivity is addressed further in the discussion section in this paper.

4. Discussion 4.1. Values excluded There are several cost components that are not included in this paper. For instance, congestion and scarcity costs for automobile and bike users could be considered. However, as already stated, new road and bike path construction is not considered to be a realistic option to deal with the traffic in Seoul. Air pollution and climate change are also important externalities. Particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, sulphur oxide, and volatile organic compounds are the primary sources of air pollution, and the emission of carbon is related to climate change. The Yongsan line, however, is an electric railway that is not directly related to these pollutants. There are other externalities, such as water and soil pollution and urban up- and downstream processes, that are beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, more comments are required on the issue of land reuse. Regional development can be expected from the rerouting of railways. This is simply because the surface area can be reused for open space, housing, offices, and other things. Thus, it is not difficult to expect that development will involve increases in property prices and job creation. Usually, there is a possibility of double counting when the value of regional development is added to the benefits of a transport scheme. Three types of arguments can be addressed. The first is the multiplier effect. For example, the primary impact of the rerouting may be to reduce the travel times of pedestrians. The secondary influence is improved accessibility to socio-economic activities. The tertiary is regional development from the increased socio-economic activities that the transport scheme has promoted. All of the secondary impacts and most of the tertiary impacts are merely downstream manifestations of the primary impact. This may be considered a transfer in that a similar investment elsewhere would have a similar multiplier effect (Mackie & Preston, 1998). Second, economic value from the regional development is a result of the pecuniary effect. Consider again property prices and job creation. Employment effects may often reflect transfers of jobs from one area to another rather than net gains. The increase in property prices is also a loss to property buyers. Hence,

International Journal of Urban Sciences

413

the net benefit through this trade-off would be small (Mackie & Preston, 1998). Finally, the crowding-out effect should also be considered. Transport projects normally entail investments from governments. The public sector often borrows money by issuing bonds to fund additional spending. The problem occurs when government debt crowds out private companies and individuals from the lending market. Increased government borrowing tends to increase market interest rates. The problem is that the government can always pay the market interest rate, but there comes a point when corporations and individuals can no longer afford to borrow. This results in a reduction in private investments to the transport sector. This is another trade-off causing the net benefit to become negligible. Therefore, this paper does not consider land reuse from rerouting the Yongsan line a benefit. 4.2. Sensitivity The external costs in this paper have mostly been estimated by considering the number of properties or people affected by nuisances. Thus, changes in the impact boundaries cause differences in the estimation of the benefits. For example, this study set the thresholds for the annoyance and health costs by noise as over 55 and 65 decibels, respectively. Even though the critical points are based on the recommendations from international organizations (Hurtley, 2009; Schreyer et al., 2004), there are studies which supply other standards; see, for instance, Maibach et al. (2008) for more details on this issue. The determination of catchment area in estimating the landscape cost can also drastically vary the appraisal. The influential sphere can be wider or narrower than dongs which were adopted as the geographic unit in this study. Figure 5 shows a simple experiment for different catchment areas. This design corresponds to the Korean administrative system in ascending

Figure 5.

Catchment areas in the experiment.

414

J.S. Chang et al. Table 8.

Changes in the annual landscape costs by catchment area.

Catchment area

Annual landscape costs

Adjacent dongs Adjacent gus Whole city

4,134,725,888 wons (2011 prices) 9,930,441,664 wons (2011 prices) 100,089,375,744 wons (2011 prices)

order, namely, in the dong-gu-city arrangement. The different estimates for landscape benefit are summarized in Table 8. When the whole city is applied as the catchment area, the benefit is over 24 times that of the dong case, implying that the benefit estimates are sensitive to changes in the definition of the catchment area. This clearly requires a careful interpretation of the estimates.

5. Conclusion This paper has estimated the benefits of rerouting theYongsan line as tunnels in Seoul, Korea. Four representative externalities associated with noise, grade crossings, the urban separation of neighbourhoods, and landscapes were evaluated. Each component was quantified based on a universal methodology, but with Korean-specific parameters. There were also other elements which were not included in this study. Congestion and scarcity costs, air pollution, and climate change were not monetized since they are indirectly related to the purpose of this paper. Land reuse effects can be double counted and thus cause problems. Measurements for water and soil pollution, and urban up- and downstream processes are beyond the scope of this research. Benefit estimates can vary depending on the definition of the catchment area, and sensitivity analysis has illustrated this risk. The results of this study can be a useful reference to represent the benefits of this kind of mega-project. However, it leaves many items for future studies. Two typical directions have been noted. First, a cost–benefit analysis will be the corollary of follow-up studies. The cost can include investment and operating expenses, but they should be evaluated with do-minimum and do-something baselines. In other words, the difference between the reroute and non-reroute options should be measured in treating the scheme cost. Second, an ex-post analysis will supply useful implications for future planning. Ex-ante and ex-post analyses are standard evaluation techniques. These subsequent studies will ultimately be good resources to internalize the externalities. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Mr. Inseong Jang and Ms. Minsu Song for their support of the data collection for this study.

Funding This work was supported by the BK21 Plus program of the National Research Foundation of Korea.

References Arsenio, E., Bristow, A. L., & Wardman, M. (2006). Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 11, 15–31. Bein, P. (1997). Monetization of environmental impacts of roads. Canada: Ministry of Transportation and Highways, British Columbia.

International Journal of Urban Sciences

415

Blanco, J. C., & Flindell, I. (2011). Property prices in urban areas affected by road traffic noise. Applied Acoustics, 72, 133–141. Brandt, S., & Maennig, W. (2012). The impact of rail access on condominium prices in Hamburg. Transportation, 39, 997–1017. Chang, J., Jung, D., Kim, D., Song, M., & Jang, I. (2012). The benefits of utilizing rail-beds. Seoul: Environmental Planning Institute, Seoul National University (in Korean). Chang, J., & Kim, D. (2013). Hedonic estimates of rail noise in Seoul. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 19, 1–4. Chang, J., & Park, K. (2010). Estimation of the value of walking travel time by meta-analysis. Journal of Transport Research, 17, 13–22 (in Korean). Dekkers, J. E. C., & van der Straaten, J. W. (2009). Monetary valuation of aircraft noise: A hedonic analysis around Amsterdam airport. Ecological Economics, 68, 2850–2858. Galilea, P., & Ortúzar, J. D. (2005). Valuing noise level reductions in a residential location context. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 10, 305–322. Han, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Evaluation of social values for walking to promote green growth. Goyang: Korea Transport Institute (in Korean). Hong, J., Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2009). Long-term medical costs and their trend for acute myocardial infarction patients. Seoul: Korea Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Hurtley, C. (2009). Night noise guidelines for Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Korea Development Institute. (2008). A study on standard guidelines for pre-feasibility study on road and railway projects (5th ed.). Seoul: Korea Development Institute (in Korean). Lera-López, F., Faulin, J., & Sánchez, M. (2012). Determinants of the willingness-to-pay for reducing the environmental impacts of road transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17, 215–220. Lijesen, M., Straaten, W., Dekkers, J., Elk, R., & Blokdijk, J. (2010). How much noise reduction at airports? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15, 51–59. Mackie, P., & Preston, J. (1998). Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. Transport Policy, 5, 1–7. Maibach, M., Schreyer, C., Sutter, D., van Essen, H., Boon, B., Smokers, R., Schroten, A., Pawlowska, B., & Bak, M. (2008). Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector. Delft: European Commission DG TREN. Martín, M., Tarrero, A., González, J., & Machimbarrena, M. (2006). Exposure–effect relationships between road traffic noise annoyance and noise cost valuations in Valladolid, Spain. Applied Acoustics, 67, 945–958. Morrison, S. A., Winston, C., & Watson, T. (1999). Fundamental flaws of social regulation: The case or airplane noise. Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 723–743. Nelson, J. P. (2004). Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38, 1–27. Nijland, H., Van Kempen, E., Van Wee, G., & Jabben, J. (2003). Costs and benefits of noise abatement measures. Transport Policy, 10, 131–140. Pope, J. C. (2008). Buyer information and the hedonic: The impact of a seller disclosure on the implicit price for airport noise. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 498–516. Rehdanz, K., & Maddison, D. (2008). Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany. Ecological Economics, 64, 787–797. Schreyer, C., Schneider C., Maibach, M., Rothengatter, W., Doll, C., & Schmedding, D. (2004). External costs of transport: Update study. Paris: International Union of Railways.