A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE EXISTING METHODOLOGIES FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE VALUE OF UNDERGROUND SPACE

19th WORLD CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATED RESEARCH CENTRES FOR THE URBAN UNDERGROUND SPACE, Belgrade, Serbia, November 4-7, 2025. (Paper No: 6.2.3,  pp. 871-881)

 

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Dimitrios Papadomarkakis

Download Full Pdf   

DOI:  10.46793/ACUUS2025.6.2.3

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

Ever since 2020, more than 50% of the world’s population has been concentrated in large urban centers. Coupled with the rapidly growing global population, this shift has exacerbated major issues and challenges within modern cities. These problems span environmental, social, transportation, and energy-related concerns that must be addressed to ensure the sustainable development of emerging „mega-cities.“ One sustainable solution that has gained prominence over the past 30 years is the utilization of Urban Underground Space (UUS). Countries like Singapore and Japan, and cities such as Montreal and Paris, have consistently developed their underground spaces to create metro lines, underground parking lots, and roads to cope with these modern challenges. However, in many other parts of the world, underground projects remain unrealized, often stalled at the decision-making stage. The primary reason for this stagnation is the unfavorable comparison between underground structures and their above-ground counterparts, primarily due to the significantly higher capital costs associated with underground development. However, it is misleading to compare an underground project with an above-ground facility of the same utility and base the decision solely on construction cost estimates. UUS possesses a „hidden“ value, often referred to as the indirect value, which represents the monetary value of the indirect benefits that arise from UUS development. This indirect value is frequently overlooked during the decision-making process because it is challenging to quantify in monetary terms. However, if systematically integrated into the decision-making process, the indirect value could allow underground facilities to compete directly with above-ground solutions, making them more attractive investments. Together, the indirect value and direct value constitute the real value of UUS. Consequently, the scope of the current study is to gather and critically evaluate all existing methodologies for estimating the real value, direct value, or indirect value, including losses that may arise from UUS development. To ensure comprehensive coverage of all available techniques, the study utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method. The existing methodologies were thoroughly presented, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, and proposing ways to improve them in the future.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

Urban Underground Space (UUS), Underground Space Value, Indirect Benefits of UUS, Valuation of Underground Space Benefits, Economics of Underground Space

ПРОЈЕКАТ / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

  • Barker, M.B., Jansson, B. (1982). Cities of the future and planning for subsurface utilization. Underground Space, Vol. 7, pp. 82-85.
  • Bobylev, N. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainable development into a city’s Master plan: A case of Urban Underground Space use. Land Use Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 1128-1137. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.003
  • Dong, Y.H., Peng, F.L., Qiao, Y.K., Zhang, J.B., Wu, X.L. (2021). Measuring the monetary value of environmental externalities derived from urban underground facilities: Towards a better understanding of sustainable underground spaces. Energy & Buildings, Vol. 250, 111313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111313
  • Godard, J.P., Sterling, R.L. (1995). General considerations in assessing the advantages of using underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 10, pp. 287-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(95)00018-T
  • International Tunnelling Association (1998). Working Group 15, Final Report ‘’Underground Works and the Environment’’, ITA-AITES.
  • International Tunnelling Association (2004). Working Group 13, Final Report ‘’Underground or aboveground? Making the choice for urban mass transit systems’’. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 19, pp. 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(03)00104-4
  • Kaliampakos, D., Benardos, A. (2008). Underground space development: Setting modern strategies. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, Vol. 102, pp. 1-10, 1st International Conference on Underground Spaces-Design, Engineering and Environmental Aspects, New Forest, United Kingdom, 8-10 September.
  • Kaliampakos, D., Benardos, A., Mavrikos, A. (2016). A review on the economics of underground space utilization. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 55, pp. 236-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.10.022
  • Liberati, A., Altman, D.A., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
  • Ma, C.X., Peng, F.L. (2021). Monetary evaluation method of comprehensive benefits of complex underground roads for motor vehicles orienting urban sustainable development. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 65, 102569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102569
  • Mavrikos, A., Kaliampakos, D. (2021). An integrated methodology for estimating the value of underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research, Vol. 109, 103770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103770
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
  • Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A.C., Sampson, M., Altman, D.G. (2007). Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews. PLoS Med 4(3): e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
  • Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Teztlaff, J.M., Akl, T.C., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Wilson, E.M., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 134, pp. 178-189. 1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001
  • Papadomarkakis, D. (2025). Combatting Modern City Problems with the Usage of Underground Space: The Case Study of Greece. Proceedings of the 19th ACUUS International Conference ‘’Underground Mobility and Elevated Thinking: New Opportunities and Challenges in the Use of Underground Urban Space’’, November 4-7, Belgrade, Serbia (Submitted manuscript, under review).