Measuring the WTP for shopping facilities around railway stations

  • Thomas de Graaff
  • Caroline Rodenburg


Railway stations often function as a nexus of various activities, such as transport, shopping and working. Larger stations especially act as nodes for several transport modes, including heavy rail, light rail and city bus transport. Therefore, it is precisely due to their strategic and accessible locations that specific railway stations increasingly become more attractive for the location of firms. Because station areas potentially act as magnets for service sector firms (particularly) and in combination with increased traffic density, these areas also attract many smaller facilitative firms, such as shops, childcare centres, and restaurants. This situation leads to a variety of (Marshallian) localised external economies of scale; examples of railway stations that have induced such economies of scale are the high-speed railway station in Lille, Gare Montparnasse in Paris, Broadgate in London, Lehrter Bahnhof in Berlin, and the train-metro-tram station Zuidas in Amsterdam. At present, the area around the latter is witnessing a rapid transformation towards a completely new central business district (CBD) (for more details, see Rodenburg 2005).


Flower Shop Residential Location Railway Station Budget Share Postcode Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bannister D (1994) Viewpoint: Reducing the Need to Travel Through Planning. Town Planning Review 65:349–354Google Scholar
  2. CBS (2004) Statistische Berichten Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Voorburg/HeerlenGoogle Scholar
  3. Coupland A (1997) An Introduction to Mixed Use Development. Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. De Graaff T, Groot HFL de, Rodenburg CA, Verhoef ET (2005) The WTP for Facilities at the Amsterdam Zuidas. Tinbergen Institute discussion paper TI-2005-090/3, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Florida R (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class and How it is Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE (1997) Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS. Ecological Economics 23:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geurs KT, Ritsema van Eck JR (2001) Accessibility Measure: Review and Applications: Evaluation of Accessibility Impacts on Land Use Transport Scenarios and Related Social and Economic Impacts. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  8. Geurs KT, Wee B van (2004) Accessibility Evaluation of Land Use and Transport Strategies: Review and Research Directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Irwin EG (2002) The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78465–480Google Scholar
  10. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2001) The Problem of Identifying Land Use Spillovers: Measuring the Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83:698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs J (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson PO (1991) Valuing Environmental Damage: Economic Policy Towards the Environment. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Johansson PO (1987) The Economic Theory and Measurement of Environmental Benefits. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Nijkamp P, Rodenburg CA, Vreeker R (2003) The Economics of Multiple Land Use. Shaker Publishing, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  16. Priemus H, Nijkamp P, Dieleman FM (2000) Meervoudig Ruimtegebruik: Stimulansen en Belemmeringen. Delft University Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodenburg CA (2005) Measuring Benefits of Multifunctional Land Use. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Sheehan K (2001) E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 6/2 Online: Scholar
  19. Song Y, Knaap GJ (2004) Measuring the Effects of Mixed Land Uses on Housing Values. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:663–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wee B van (2003) Assessment of Benefits of Multifunctional Land Use. In: Nijkamp P, Rodenburg CA, Vreeker R (eds) The Economics of Multifunctional Land Use. Shaker Publishing, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  21. Weisbrod B (1964) Collective Consumption Services of Individual Consumption Goods. Quarterly Journal of Economic 78:471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas de Graaff
    • 1
  • Caroline Rodenburg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Spatial EconomicsFree UniversityAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Real Estate Advisory Services and International Location Advisory Services, Ernst & YoungUtrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations