Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
E. Fama, K. French (1992)
The Cross‐Section of Expected Stock ReturnsJournal of Finance, 47
A. Sharkaway
The phys‐fin model for development analysis
S. Ahmad (1991)
Capital in Economic Theory
M. Greenhut (1970)
A theory of the firm in economic space
M. Ball, C. Lizieri, B. MacGregor (1998)
The Economics of Commercial Property Markets
Steven Grenadier (1995)
The persistence of real estate cyclesThe Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 10
T. Key, B. MacGregor, N. Nanthakumaran, F. Zarkesh
Economic cycles and property cycles, main report for understanding property cycles
J. Graaskamp
A Guide to Feasibility Analysis
N. Hutchison, Rainer Schulz (2005)
A Real Options Approach to Development Land Valuation
Steven Grenadier (1996)
The Strategic Exercise of Options: Development Cascades and Overbuilding in Real Estate Markets.Journal of Finance, 51
S. Titman (1985)
Urban Land Prices under UncertaintyThe American Economic Review, 75
Joseph Williams (1993)
Equilibrium and Options on Real AssetsReview of Financial Studies, 6
D. Geltner, Timothy Riddiough, S. Stojanovic (1996)
Insights on the Effect of Land Use Choice: The Perpetual Option on the Best of Two Underlying AssetsJournal of Urban Economics, 39
E. Elton, M. Gruber, Joel Rentzler (1987)
Professionally Managed, Publicly Traded Commodity FundsThe Journal of Business, 60
C. Gollier (2007)
Intergenerational Risk-Sharing and Risk-Taking of a Pension FundCESifo Working Paper Series
(1984)
Risk, Uncertainty and Decision-Making in Property Development
Dean Paxson, Patel Kanak (2001)
Real Urban Development Options at Canary Wharf
D. Capozza, R. Helsley (1989)
The fundamentals of land prices and urban growthJournal of Urban Economics, 26
Paul Childs, Timothy Riddiough, Alexander Triantis (1996)
Mixed Uses and the Redevelopment OptionReal Estate Economics, 24
L. Quigg (1993)
Empirical Testing of Real Option‐Pricing ModelsJournal of Finance, 48
D. Geltner (1989)
On the use of the Financial Option Price Model to Value and Explain Vacant Urban LandReal Estate Economics, 17
Alfred Marshall
Principles of Economics
T. Grissom
Property economics: growth theory and valuation of sustainable development options
D. Geltner, N. Miller, Jim Clayton, Piet Eichholtz (2000)
Commercial Real Estate Analysis and Investments
A. Antwi, J. Henneberry (1995)
Developers, non‐linearity and asymmetry in the development cycleJournal of Property Research, 12
Joseph Williams (1991)
Real estate development as an optionThe Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4
W. Fraser (1984)
Principles of Property Investment and Pricing
D. Capozza, Yuming Li (1994)
The Intensity and Timing of Investment: The Case of LandThe American Economic Review, 84
James Turner (1974)
Mixed use development
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to integrate land use and option pricing theories using case study analyses to compare a portfolio of uses comprising single and mixed‐use development on the same site and assess the effects on the risk‐return profile of potential development schemes. The integration of land use development based on highest and best use (HBU) is tested against a combination of uses on the selected sites at a point in time in the downswing of the real estate cycle. Design/methodology/approach – The proposed methodology integrates the development valuation approach with option theory in which both consider the relationships of cost and value associated with alternative development options. The approach used in this paper addresses the broader consideration of project coordination inclusive of land use flexibility and opportunity costs endogenously associated with development strategies. By investigating the uncertainty of economic options specific to the development process, the methodology considers the significance of complementary components of strategic decisions and entrepreneurial effort within a return/risk management strategy. Findings – The stochastic model when compared to the real option model enhances strategic decisions and development project management by allowing the consideration of single/mixed‐use alternatives. The development process is facilitated by the research findings whereby alternative uses are tested to maximise the potential use of the site. The analyses consider optimal funding strategies in developing and investing for a range of use options on regeneration sites. Practical implications – The significant insights apparent from the research is the quantification of the strategic specification of development as a productive process and an investment endeavour. The proposed model enables a comparison of a HBU based on a single development, a mixed‐use development or a combination of uses as the difference between the scenarios impacts on land value and profit measures, especially where these measures are calculated as distributive residuals. Originality/value – The stochastic model developed in this paper provides a value‐added contribution to real estate literature by considering the complexity of the interrelationships between urban land economics, land use theory, valuation appraisal methodologies, portfolio analysis and option pricing as applied in the development of regeneration schemes.
Journal of European Real Estate Research – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jul 20, 2010
Keywords: Portfolio investment; Real estate; Design and development; Regeneration
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.