Technical Papers
Aug 28, 2019

Real Options Approach versus Conventional Approaches to Valuing Highway Projects under Uncertainty

Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 145, Issue 11

Abstract

Conventional valuation approaches—discounted cash flow—consider project alternatives as preset scenarios of predefined activities and ignore uncertainty and managerial flexibilities. The real options (RO) approach has been recently used by a large number of researchers to overcome the shortcomings of conventional approaches. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by presenting an innovative RO method which models flexible strategies in highway projects valuation under uncertainty through four advances over established studies. First, as well as traffic demand and time value of money, uncertainties about unit rates of agency and user costs are accounted for by a fuzzy approach. Second, flexible strategies are developed by considering the options embedded in the decision-making procedure for initial construction and rehabilitation of pavement. Third, a method is used to develop pavement performance curves based on traffic demand and corresponding effects of each construction activity. Fourth, user costs as well as agency costs are considered in analysis. Results of applying the model in a case study in Iran reveal that conventional valuation approaches may overestimate project life-cycle costs and that, in many cases, the flexibilities modeled by the developed fuzzy RO approach help managers enhance project value.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author by request.

Acknowledgments

This work is financially supported by the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) [Project No. 94809371].

References

AASHTO. 1993. AASHTO guide for design pavement structures. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Ammar, M., T. Zayed, and O. Moselhi. 2013. “Fuzzy-based life-cycle cost model for decision making under subjectivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (5): 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000576.
Amram, M., and N. Kulatilaka. 1999. Real options—Managing strategic investment in an uncertain world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bellman, R. E., and S. E. Dreyfus. 1962. Applied dynamics programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carlsson, C., and R. Fullér. 2003. “A fuzzy approach to real option valuation.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 139 (2): 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00591-2.
Carmichael, D. G. 2016. “A cash flow view of real options.” Eng. Economist 61 (4): 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2016.1157661.
Carmichael, D. G., T. A. Nguyen, and X. Shen. 2019. “Single treatment of PPP road project options.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (2): 04018122. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001591.
Chan, A., G. Keoleian, and E. Gabler. 2008. “Evaluation of life-cycle cost analysis practices used by the Michigan Department of Transportation.” J. Transp. Eng. 134 (6): 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2008)134:6(236).
Chen, C. 2007. “Soft computing-based life-cycle cost analysis tools for transportation infrastructure management.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.
Chiara, N., M. J. Garvin, and J. Vecer. 2007. “Valuing simple multiple-exercise real options in infrastructure projects.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 13 (2): 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2007)13:2(97).
Chinneck, J. W. 2015. “Practical optimization: A gentle introduction.” Accessed August 25, 2017. http://www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/chinneck/po/Chapter15.pdf.
Chow, J. Y. J., A. C. Regan, F. Ranaiefar, and D. I. Arkhipov. 2011. “A network option portfolio management framework for adaptive transportation planning.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 45 (8): 765–778.
Copeland, T. E., and V. Antikarov. 2001. Real options—A practitioner’s guide. New York: Texere LLC.
Cui, Q., M. Bayraktar, M. Hastak, and I. Minkarah. 2004. “Use of warranties on highway projects: A real option perspective.” J. Manage. Eng. 20 (3): 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:3(118).
Cui, Q., P. Johnson, A. Quick, and M. Hastak. 2008. “Valuing the warranty ceiling clause on New Mexico Highway 44 using a binomial lattice model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 131 (1): 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:1(10).
Fawcett, W., I. R. Urquijo, H. Krieg, M. Hughes, L. Mikalsen, and Ó. R. R. Gutiérrez. 2015. “Cost and environmental evaluation of flexible strategies for a highway construction project under traffic growth uncertainty.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 21 (3): 05014006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000230.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1998. Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design—In search of better investment decisions. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Transportation.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2002. Life-cycle cost analysis primer. Washington, DC: US DOT.
Gubbi, S. R. 2015. “Dominate or ally? Bargaining power and control in cross-border acquisitions by Indian firms.” Long Range Plann. 48 (5): 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.07.004.
Haas, R., H. R. Hudson, and L. C. Falls. 2015. Pavement asset management. Salem, MA: Scrivener Publishing LLC.
Heravi, G., and A. N. Esmaeeli. 2014. “Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making approach for pavement project evaluation using life-cycle cost/performance analysis.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (2): 04014002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000170.
Huang, Y. H. 2004. Pavement analysis and design. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kashani, H., B. Ashuri, S. M. Shahandashti, and J. Lu. 2015. “Investment valuation model for renewable energy systems in buildings.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 141 (2): 04014074. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000932.
Krüger, N. A. 2012. “To kill a real option—Incomplete contracts, real options and PPP.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 46 (8): 1359–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.04.009.
Lamptey, G., M. Ahmad, S. Labi, and K. C. Sinha. 2005. Life cycle cost analysis for INDOT pavement design procedure. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ.
Lay, M. G. 2009. Handbook of road technology. New York: Spon Press.
Li, Z., and S. Madanu. 2009. “Highway project level life-cycle benefit/cost analysis under certainty, risk, and uncertainty: Methodology with case study.” J. Transp. Eng. 135 (8): 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000012.
Lütolf-Carroll, C., A. Pirnes, and Withers LLP. 2009. “From innovation to cash flows: Value creation by structuring high technology alliances.” Accessed July 26, 2016. http://innovationtocashflows.com/var/uploads/app07p1.pdf.
Mackie, P., T. Worsley, and J. Eliasson. 2014. “Transport appraisal revisited.” Res. Transp. Econ. 47 (1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.013.
Martins, J., R. C. Marques, and C. O. Cruz. 2015. “Real options in infrastructure: Revisiting the literature.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 21 (1): 04014026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000188.
Miller, K. D., and H. G. Waller. 2003. “Scenarios, real options and integrated risk management.” Long Range Plann. 36 (1): 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00205-4.
MPORG (Management and Planning Organization of Iran). 2011. Iran highway asphalt paving code. 1st ed. Tehran: MPORG.
Myers, S. C. 1984. “Finance theory and financial strategy.” Interfaces 14 (1): 126–137.
Park, T., B. Kim, and H. Kim. 2013. “Real option approach to sharing privatization risk in underground infrastructures.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 139 (6): 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000636.
Ramjerdi, F., and N. Fearnley. 2014. “Risk and irreversibility of transport interventions.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 60 (1): 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.014.
Reigle, J. A., and J. P. Zaniewski. 2002. “Risk-based life-cycle cost analysis for project-level pavement management.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1816 (1): 34–42. https://doi.org/10.3141/1816-05.
Rodger, J. A. 2013. “A fuzzy linguistic ontology payoff method for aerospace real options valuation.” Expert Syst. Appl. 40 (8): 2828–2840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.12.001.
Shaheen, A. A., A. R. Fayek, and S. M. AbouRizk. 2007. “Fuzzy numbers in cost range estimating.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 133 (4): 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:4(325).
Smit, H. T. J., and L. Trigeorgis. 2007. “Strategic options and games in analysing dynamic technology investments.” Long Range Plann. 40 (1): 84–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2007.02.005.
Tighe, S. 2001. “Guidelines for probabilistic pavement life cycle cost analysis.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1769 (1): 28–38. https://doi.org/10.3141/1769-04.
Trigeorgis, L. 1996. Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trigeorgis, L. 2005. “Making use of real options simple: An overview and applications in flexible/modular decision making.” Eng. Economist 50 (1): 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00137910590917026.
Wilde, W. J., S. Waalkes, and R. Harrison. 1999. Life cycle cost analysis of portland cement concrete pavements. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas.
Zadeh, L. A. 1999. “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 100 (Jan): 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)80004-9.
Zadeh, L. A. 2008. “Is there a need for fuzzy logic?” Inf. Sci. 178 (13): 2751–2779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.02.012.
Zhao, T., S. K. Sundararajan, and C. Tseng. 2004. “Highway development decision-making under uncertainty: A real options approach.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 10 (1): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2004)10:1(23).

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 145Issue 11November 2019

History

Received: Feb 18, 2018
Accepted: Mar 19, 2019
Published online: Aug 28, 2019
Published in print: Nov 1, 2019
Discussion open until: Jan 28, 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Univ. of Tehran, 16 Azar Ave., P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3243-0075. Email: [email protected]
Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Univ. of Tehran, 16 Azar Ave., P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2727-4920. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share