Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online January 1, 2011

Who Really Pays for a Parking Space?: Estimation of Marginal Implicit Value of Off-Street Parking Spaces for Condominiums in Central Edmonton, Canada

Abstract

Many large North American cities impose minimum parking space requirements on multifamily residential developments. Concern has arisen, however, that the high cost to provide these spaces raises housing prices in such complexes. Because no well-developed, formal market for parking spaces exists, this study attempted to estimate the implicit price of aboveground or underground parking spaces for condominiums located in central Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Through the use of two real estate data sets, this study employed the hedonic method and tested for the presence of heteroskedasticity and for spatial autocorrelation when possible. Overall, the results suggested that consumers of bundled parking spaces received a large discount on such spaces. If the retail price were increased to include additional parking spaces, the higher price would not fully reflect the cost to provide such spaces. The affordability of housing might be adversely affected nonetheless. Developers, who are likely to be burdened by some of this indirect parking subsidy, may ultimately provide less housing to the market, which will lead to a higher market-clearing price. This study provided further empirical evidence to support the argument against the imposition of minimum parking space requirements. The requirements are likely to cause an oversupply of parking at multifamily residential developments.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Shoup D. C. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., 2005.
2. Litman T. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2008.
3. Means R. S. Building Construction Cost Data, 20th ed. R. S. Means Co., Kingston, Mass., 2006.
4. Folmar K., and New S. J. Garage Set to Open: “Bold” Downtown Project Cost $58 Million, to Include Restaurants, Shops, Banquet Hall. San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 5, 2003.
5. Wentink D. The Real Price of Parking Policy: The Effect of Parking Policy on the Housing Market in Amsterdam. MS thesis. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009.
6. Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan—Downtown Parking Study. Final draft report. Project 3027.13. Bunt & Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2008.
7. Bertha B. A. Appendix A. In The Low-Rise Speculative Apartment (Smith W. F., ed.), Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1964.
8. Jia W., and Wachs M. Parking Requirements and Housing Affordability: A Case Study of San Francisco. No. 380. University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 1998.
9. Anselin L., and Bera A. K. Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. In Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics (Ullah A., and Giles D. E. A., eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998.
10. Can A., and Megbolugbe I. Spatial Dependence and House Price Index Construction. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 14, No. 1-2, 1997, pp. 203–222.
11. Andersson D. E. Hypothesis Testing in Hedonic Price Estimation on the Selection of Independent Variables. Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2000, pp. 293–304.
12. Boxall P. C., Chan W. H., and McMillan M. L. The Impact of Oil and Natural Gas Facilities on Rural Residential Property Values: A Spatial Hedonic Analysis. Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2005, pp. 248–269.
13. Box G. E. P., and Cox D. R. An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), Vol. 26, No. 2, 1964, pp. 211–252.
14. Anselin L., Hudak S., and Dodson R. Spatial Data Analysis and GIS: Interfacing GIS and Econometric Software. Technical Report 93–7. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1993.
15. Anselin L., and Florax R. J. G. M. Small Sample Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Regression Models. In New Directions in Spatial Econometrics (Anselin L., and Florax R. J. G. M., eds.), Springer, Berlin, New York, 1995.
16. Bera A. K., and Yoon M. J. Specification Testing with Locally Mis-specified Alternatives. Econometric Theory, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1993, pp. 649–658.
17. Forinash C. V., Millard-Ball A., Dougherty C., and Tumlin J. Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
18. Klipp L. H. The Real Costs of San Francisco's Off-Street Residential Parking Requirements: An Analysis of Parking's Impact on Housing Finance Ability and Affordability. Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, 2004.
19. Arnott R., Rave T., and Schöb R. Alleviating Urban Traffic Congestion. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2005.
20. Cropper M. L., Deck L., Kishor N., and McConnell K. E. Valuing Product Attributes Using Single Market Data: A Comparison of Hedonic and Discrete Choice Approaches. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 75, No. 2, 1993, pp. 225–232.
21. Fan G., Ong S. E., and Koh H. C. Determinants of House Price: A Decision Tree Approach. Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 12, 2006, pp. 2301–2315.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: January 1, 2011
Issue published: January 2011

Rights and permissions

© 2011 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Owen Jung
Department of Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Industry Canada, 1411-52 Bayswater Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4K3, Canada.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 44

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 1

  1. Puzzling over parking: Assessing the transitional parking requirement ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub