The Value of BRT in Urban Spaces
Edited by Fiona Ferbrache
C. Erik Vergel-Tovar and William Camargo
More than 200 cities in the world are implementing bus rapid transit (BRT) systems nowadays but empirical evidence on urban development impacts of this type of mass transit system is still limited. The study of land-use and development impacts of BRT requires a time frame that allows changes on the built environment as a result of accessibility benefits introduced by BRT systems. Since the implementation of the BRT system in Bogotá in 2000, the national government of Colombia has been promoting this type of mass transit system in large and medium-size cities, but few studies have examined urban development impacts of BRT systems in the country through a systematic approach. This chapter examines land-use and development impacts of BRT in five cities by looking at planning, implementation and operation stages and the role played by public and private actors in the urban development outcomes related to BRT investments. The analysis examines changes on land use and built-up areas along BRT corridors in Bogotá, Pereira, Cali, Barranquilla and Bucaramanga in order to determine the capacity of BRT systems to promote transit-oriented development and the factors that explain these urban development outcomes in terms of challenges and opportunities.
This chapter applied Rosen’s two-stage hedonic price estimation to derive a demand function for proximity to the bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Seoul, South Korea. Welfare changes from improved BRT accessibility were estimated for illustrative purposes. The major findings of this study can be summarized as follows. First, estimation of spatial hedonic price models presents a statistically significant price premium for BRT proximity, with average marginal implicit prices of $4550–$8208 for a decrease in the distance to a BRT stop. Second, estimation of the inverse demand function shows a downward sloping demand curve for accessibility of the BRT system, implying that people prefer living closer to the BRT system, but that they have a diminishing marginal willingness to pay for this increased proximity. Lastly, residents living in the southern part of the Seoul metropolitan area (cluster 3), including several new-town residents, are likely to receive more benefits from improved BRT accessibility than those living in other areas.
Multi Actor Multi Criteria Analysis
Edited by Cathy Macharis and Gino Baudry
Issues, Challenges and National Policies
Edited by Joseph S. Szyliowicz and Luca Zamparini
Joseph S. Szyliowicz and Luca Zamparini
Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij
We explain and demonstrate how the selected cases have to be prepared for the actual comparison. This involves a serious effort with regard to the interpretation of the case materials. In QCA, this process of interpreting data is guided by calibration, where raw (qualitative) case data are transformed into quantitative values. Calibration is important because it systematizes interpretation and makes it transparent. There are three principle types of calibration in QCA: crisp-set QCA, fuzzy-set QCA, and multi-value QCA. We explain and demonstrate the different types of calibration using real examples. We also discuss good practices that will help the researcher in making sound decisions when calibrating. The calibration results in a calibrated data matrix, which forms the input for the formal comparison in QCA. Having completed this chapter, the researcher will be able to start the comparison.
Lasse Gerrits and Stefan Verweij
We explain why it is important to research specific cases and how exactly cases are to be understood and studied using QCA. Cases allow the researcher to account for the heterogeneity, uniqueness, and contextuality of projects. Whereas the term ‘case’ is often used indiscriminately, in QCA it is a clearly defined and important building block. In QCA, cases are conceptualized as configurations of conditions. This configurational nature highlights the complexity of the case. Cases can be researched in two principal ways: case-driven and theory-driven. The case-driven route is decidedly grounded in empirical material, with the boundaries and aspects of cases being constructed during the empirical research process. In the more theory-driven route, the boundaries and aspects of cases are defined by prior theories. Both routes constitute dialogues between data and theory. The chapter explains the concrete research steps involved in both routes.