Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

Uncertainty, Flexibility, Valuation and Design: How 21 Century Information and Knowledge Can Improve 21 Century Urban Developm

Author/s: David Geltner, Richard De Neufville

Date Published: 1/01/2012

Published in: Volume 18 - 2012 Issue 3 (pages 251 - 276)

Abstract

The 21 century presents humankind with perhaps its greatest challenge since our species almost went extinct some 70,000 years ago in Africa. A big part of meeting that challenge lies in how the urbanization of three billion additional people (equal to the entire world population in 1960) will be accomplished between now and mid-century, on top of necessary renewal and renovation of the earth’s existing cities. China alone will urbanize 300 million more people between now and 2030, equal to the entire population of the U.S., the world’s third most populous country, in just 20 years. This is development on a scale and pace that is an order of magnitude greater than the past century, in a world resource and climate environment that is near the breaking point, in a context of greater technological, financial, and economic uncertainty than ever before. To meet this challenge will require that we use the best tools in our kit, including ones that have become available to us only in this new knowledge and information-based century. Technology got us here, and technology will be key to getting us through. In this paper we will review and synthesize two important methodological developments in our profession that can help infrastructure and real estate physical development (i.e., urban development) to be accomplished more effectively and efficiently in a world of uncertainty. The first methodological development is the honing of real options theory and methodology for practical application to identify and evaluate sources of flexibility in the design and operation of capital projects. The second development is the marriage of digital data compilation of property transactions records with the honing of econometric analysis methodology to allow the practical quantification of real estate and infrastructure asset price dynamics. We argue that this latter development provides the key input to the former development, enabling a much more complete and rigorous treatment of design and evaluation problems for urban development. We also argue that an engineering systems approach to option modelling is likely to find better traction in actual professional practice than the economic theoretical models that have dominated the academic literature. We provide a concrete example by applying the suggested approach to the Songdo New City development in Korea. The result can be better informed design and valuation and more efficient urban development laced with greater flexibility to avoid the worst down-side outcomes and to take advantage of the best up-side opportunities, saving vital resources of capital, land, raw materials, and energy.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2012.11104362.pdf 14445921.2012.11104362.pdf (2MB)

Keywords

Design - Development - Digital - Real Options - Songdo New City - Uncertainty

References

  • Black, F and Scholes, M 1973, ‘The pricing of options and corporate liabilities’, Journal of Political Economy, 81, pp. 637–659
  • Bulan, L, Mayer, C and Somerville, CT 2009, ‘Irreversible investment, real options, and competition: evidence from real estate development’, Journal of Urban Economics, 65(3), pp. 237–251
  • Capozza, D and Helsley, R 1989, ‘The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth’, Journal of Urban Economics, 26, pp. 295–306
  • Capozza, D and Li, Y 1994, ‘The intensity and timing of investment: the case of land’, American Economic Review, 84(1), pp. 889–904
  • Case, K and Shiller, R 1987, ‘Prices of single family homes since 1970: new indexes for four cities’, New England Economic Review, September/October, pp. 45–56
  • Chiara, N, Garvin, M and Vecer, J 2007, ‘Valuing simple multiple-exercise real options in infrastructure projects’, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, (ASCE), June, pp. 97–103
  • Clapp, JM and Lindenthal, T 2009, Option value created and destroyed by the big bang in the Berlin housing market 1978–2007, accessed November 19, 2009, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1537397
  • Cox, J and Ross, S 1979, ‘ Option pricing: a simplified approach’, Journal of Financial Economics, 7(3), pp. 229–263
  • Crosby, N, Lavers, A and Murdoch, J 1998, ‘Property valuation variation and the ‘margin of error’ in the UK’, Journal of Property Research, 15(4), pp. 305–330
  • Cunningham, CR 2006, ‘House price uncertainty, timing of development, and vacant land prices: evidence for real options in Seattle’, Journal of Urban Economics, 59(1), pp. 1–31
  • Cunningham, CR 2007, ‘Growth controls, real options, and land development’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), pp. 343–358
  • de Neufville, R, Scholtes, S and Wang, T 2006, ‘Valuing options by spread sheet: parking garagecase example’, ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 12(2), pp. 107–111
  • de Neufville, R and Scholtes, S 2011, Flexibility in Engineering Design, MIT Press, Cambridge
  • Diaz, J and Wolverton, M 1998, ‘A longitudinal examination of the appraisal smoothing hypothesis’, Real Estate Economics, 26(2)
  • Dixit, A and Pindyck, R 1994, Investment under uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton
  • Economist Intelligence Unit 2011, Building Rome in a Day: The Sustainability of China’s Housing Boom, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd, London
  • Fisher, J, Geltner, D and Pollakowski, H 2007, ‘A quarterly transactions-based index (TBI) of institutional real estate investment performance and movements in supply and demand’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34(1)
  • Geltner, D, MacGregor, B and Schwann, G 2003, ‘Appraisal smoothing and price discovery in real estate markets’, Urban Studies
  • Geltner, D, Miller, N, Clayton, J and Eichholtz, P 2007, Commercial real estate analysis and investments, South-Western College Publishing Co, Cincinnati
  • Grenadier, S 1995a, ‘The persistence of real estate cycles’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 10, pp. 95–119
  • Grenadier, S 1995b, ‘Valuing lease contracts: a real options approach’, Journal of Financial Economics, 38(3), pp. 297–331
  • Grenadier, S 1995c, ‘Flexibility and tenant mix in real estate projects’, Journal of Urban Economics, 38(3), pp. 357–378
  • Grenadier, S 1996, ‘The strategic exercise of options: development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets’, Journal of Finance, 51(5), pp. 1653–1679
  • Grenadier, S 2005, ‘An equilibrium analysis of real estate leases’, Journal of Business, 78(4), pp. 1173–1213
  • Guma, A, Pearson, J, Wittels, K, de Neufville, R and Geltner, D 2009, ‘Vertical phasing as a corporate real estate strategy and development option’, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 11(3), pp. 144–157
  • Hoesli, M, Jani, E and Bender, A 2006, ‘Monte Carlo simulations for real estate valuation’, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 24(2), pp. 102–122
  • Lin, J, de Weck, O, de Neufville, R and Yue, H 2011, ‘Enhancing the value of oilfield developments with flexible subsea tieback’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (in review)
  • Kang, J 2004, ‘Valuing flexibilities in large-scale real estate development projects’, unpublished MSRED Thesis, MIT Center for Real Estate
  • Lee, J and Oh, J 2008, ‘New Songdo City and the value of flexibility: a case study of implementation and analysis of a mega-scale project’, unpublished MSRED Thesis, MIT Center for Real Estate
  • Luenberger, D 1998, Investment science, Oxford University Press, New York
  • Macomber, J 2011, ‘The role of finance and private investment in developing sustainable cities’, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 23(3), pp. 64–75
  • Masunaga, S 2007, ‘ Comparative study of real options valuation methods: economics-based approach vs. engineering-based approach’, unpublished MSRED Thesis, MIT Center for Real Estate
  • McDonald, R and Siegel, D 1986, ‘The value of waiting to invest’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, pp. 707–728
  • Merton, RC 1973, ‘The theory of rational option pricing’, Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4, pp. 141–183
  • Myers, SD 1977, ‘Determinants of corporate borrowing’, Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), pp. 147–175
  • Newell, G. and Peng, H 2008, ‘The role of U.S. infrastructure in investment portfolios’, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 14(1), pp. 21–32
  • Newell, G, Chau, K and Wong, S 2009, ‘The significance and performance of infrastructure in China’, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 27(2), pp. 180–202
  • Quigg, L 1993, ‘Empirical testing of real option-pricing models’, Journal of Finance, 48(2), pp. 621–640
  • Rose, S 1998, ‘Valuation of interacting real options in a toll road infrastructure project’, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 38, pp. 711–723
  • Rothballer, C and Kaserer, C 2011, Is infrastructure really low risk? an empirical analysis of listed infrastructure firms, Working Paper, Technische Universität München
  • Samuelson, P 1965, ‘Rational theory of warrant pricing’, Industrial Management Review, 6, pp. 41–50
  • Schwartz, E and Torous, W 2007, ‘Commercial office space: testing the implications of real options models with competitive interactions’, Real Estate Economics, 35(1), pp. 1–20
  • Smit, HTJ and Trigeorgis, L 2009, ‘Valuing infrastructure investment: an option games approach’, California Management Review, 51(2), pp. 79–100
  • Titman, S 1985, ‘Urban land prices under uncertainty’, American Economic Review, 75(3), pp. 505–514
  • Trigeorgis, L 2002, Real options: managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation, MIT Press, Cambridge
  • Wang, T and de Neufville, R 2006, Identification of real options “in” projects, Proceedings, INCOSE International Symposium, Orlando, July
  • Williams, J 1991, ‘ Real estate development as an option’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4(2), pp. 191–209