Improving accessibility has become one of the main objectives for policymakers in the transport and urban field. Having access to activities and people is essential to ensure the proper functioning of societies and it affects people’s quality of life. One of the remaining challenges in this field is related with the economics of accessibility, in particular, with the monetary quantification of the added value of having multiple options available to travel to. Accessibility indicators and current theory suggest that having more options available is translated into higher levels of accessibility. However, the benefits of increasing the number of alternatives is subjected to the law of diminishing returns, that is, the added value provided by each additional option decreases as more options are available. Therefore, the main research question of this thesis is: How much are individuals willing to pay for having different quantity of options of the same destination (e.g., a supermarket) to travel to? The research methodology proposed to answer this research question consists on a preliminary research and two different questionnaires. The study area of this research is a small Spanish city, located in the province of Albacete. The aim of the preliminary research is to gather information about the context and the culture of this study area. In this way, data about sociodemographic characteristics of the population, the location and current number of destinations or perceptions about current services has been searched. The non-market nature of the services to be analysed makes Stated Preference approaches the best methods to elicit monetary values. However, due to the novelty of the research, a first exploratory questionnaire was designed to obtain a first sight of the citizens’ opinion about the importance that they give to have multiple options of the same destination, which factors they value most, or what are the main reasons why they value having several options. After that, the second questionnaire was elaborated using a particular Contingent Valuation Method, namely Payment Cards, whose objective is to elicit monetary values for different hypothetical situations in which the supply of the service varies. Both questionnaires were distributed online in order to reach the highest number of respondents. The results show that people prefer to have more options of basic services, such as food stores, pharmacies, schools or medical centres, than non-essential services like gyms, hairdressers or clothe shops Moreover, proximity is considered an important factor just for basic services, while variety is more appreciated for secondary ones, so that people can choose the one that best suits their likings. After analysing the results from the first questionnaire and applying other relevant criteria, two final destinations were chosen to be further analysed in the second questionnaire, namely, kindergartens and primary health centres. Results show that, in the case of kindergartens, more than half of the respondents are willing to pay extra 12€ per month (median value) for expanding current services in case the demand increases, whereas just 8€ to remain in the status quo in the hypothetical situation in which demand holds or decreases. At first sight this result may seem the opposite to the concept of loss aversion, but when placed in context it may be reasonable that citizens are not willing to pay for keeping open empty kindergartens. Furthermore, the results showed that not all the respondents are willing to pay the same amounts, resulting in significant differences among respondents who are users, have been in the past, or will probably be in the future, and those who have no children, prefer private kindergartens or simply do not make use of the service. On the other hand, there is no such a difference between users, option users and non-users in the case of medical centres. All the three groups present a mean WTP value of 50€ per year for expanding current services. One possible explanation is that everyone is a potential user of this service, even if they do not currently use it. Therefore, option values would probably be high for option and non-users, being willing to pay the same amounts than regular users. Also, non-use values may play a key role. It is important to mention that there is not a significant difference in the values reported when considering the two possible alternatives proposed to expand the service. Although finishing a second medical centre is more expensive than extending current schedule, people is not willing to pay more for it. After reflecting on all the findings obtained and place them in the context of the study area, it can be concluded that sometimes it is not only the number of options itself what citizens appreciate (and are willing to pay for), but many other factors should be taken into account. For instance, for public services, the amount of destinations can be subjected to political strategies such as increasing the number of services even if they are not needed. Moreover, people may prefer to have less options with high service quality, than more options with poorer quality. Finally, for private destinations in which people’s preferences play a key role, the particular characteristics of each new (or removed) option will influence the total value for each individual. Thanks to this research, policymakers are better informed to make decisions about public services, avoiding unnecessary costs and allocating public funds more efficiently. In the particular case of this research, information to make future decisions is provided for different scenarios. For example, in case the demand for primary health services increases, policymakers should extend current schedule, as it is cheaper than opening a new centre and people value both alternatives in the same way . Moreover, current managers and future entrepreneurs can obtain useful insights for running their businesses. The results from the questionnaires show which factors are more appreciated for each type of destination, in addition to the citizens’ perception about the current number of options available, making it easily to identify market opportunities. Finally, several interesting future research avenues are proposed to further explore about this topic. For instance, the research can be replicated in other contexts with different cultural factors to see whether people’s preferences vary. Moreover, more sophisticated methods can be applied to estimate how much are individuals willing to pay. Finally, it would be very interesting to analyse private and non-essential destinations in order to compare whether the results differ and empirically test the hypothesis derived from the first questionnaire.