Stated choice valuation of urban traffic air pollution and noise

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 13-27

  Sælensminde, Kjartan ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS   (Norway)

Author keywords

Air pollution; Noise; Norway; Stated choice

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; URBAN TRANSPORT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NORWAY;

EID: 0032937263     PISSN: 13619209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1361-9209(98)00020-0     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adamowicz, W. 1995. Alternative valuation techniques: A comparison and movement toward a synthesis. In Environmental Valuation: New Perspectives, eds, K. Willis and J. Corkindale. CAB International, Oxford.
2. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26:(3):1994;271-292.
3. Adamowicz, W., Swait, J., Boxall, P., Louviere, J., Williams, M. 1996. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. Mimeo, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Canada.
4. Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M., Louviere J. Stated preference approaches to measuring passive use values: choice experiments versus contingent valuation. Mimeo, Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, Canada. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 80:1998;64-75.
5. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H. 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, 15 January, 58(10), 4601-4614.
6. Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S.R. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
7. Bhat C.R. A heteroseedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice. Transportation Research. 29B:(6):1995;471-483.
8. Boxall P.C., Adamowicz W.L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics. 18:(3):1996;243-253.
9. Braden, J.B., Kolstad, C.D. (eds) 1991. Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Contributions to economic analysis, no. 198, North Holland, Amsterdam.
10. Bradley M., Daly A. Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation. 21:(2):1994;167-184.
11. Carson R.T., Mitchell R.C. The issue of scope in contingent valuation studies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75:1993;1263-1267.
12. Daniels, R. 1997. A stated choice framework for the valuation of environmental externalities of road projects. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Institute of Transport Studies, Graduate School of Business, The University of Sydney, 1997.
13. Desvousges, W.H., Reed Johnson, F., Dunford, R.W., Hudson, S.P., Wilson, K.N., Boyle, K.J. 1993. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability, chapter 3. In Contingent Valuation. A Critical Assessment, ed. J.A. Hausman. Contributions to economic analysis, no. 220. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
14. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:(4):1994;45-64.
15. Foster, V., Mourato, S. 1997. Are consumers rational? Evidence from a contingent ranking experiment. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 26-28 June 1997, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
16. Halvorsen, B., Strand, J., Sælensminde, K., Wenstøp 1996. Comparing contingent valuation, conjoint analysis and decision panels: an application to the valuation of reduced damages from air pollution in Norway. Memorandum no. 37 1996 from Department of Economics, University of Oslo.
17. Halvorsen, B., Sælensminde, K. (in press) Differences between willingness-to-pay estimates from open-ended and discrete choice contingent valuation method: the effect of heteroscedasticity. Land Economics.
18. Hanley, N., MacMillan, D., Wright, R., Bullock, C., Simpson, I., Parsission, D., Crabtree, R. 1997. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 26-28 June 1997, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
19. Hausman, J.A. (ed.) 1993. Contingent Valuation. A Critical Assessment. Contributions to economic analysis, no 220, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
20. Hensher D.A. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation. 21:(2):1994;107-133.
21. Hoehn J.P., Randall A. Too many proposals pass the benefit cost test. American Economic Review. 79:1989;544-551.
22. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. 1992. Contingent valuation and the value of public goods: reply. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22 90-94.
23. Kemp, M.A., Maxwell, C. 1993. Exploring budget context for contingent valuation estimates. In Contingent Valuation. A Critical Assessment, ed. J.A. Hausman. Contributions to economic analysis, no. 220, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
24. Larsen, O.I. 1985. Vegtrafikk og Boligpriser. TØI-rapport (ISBN 82-7133-4980), Transportøkonimisk institutt, Oslo (in Norwegian).
25. Leksell, I. 1987. Samhäallsekonomisk vädrdering av bilavgasutsläpp. DsK 1987:6, Kommunikationsdepartementet, Stockholm (in Swedish).
26. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. On the design and analysis of simulated or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transportation Research Record. 890:1982;11-17.
27. Louviere J.J., Woodworth G.G. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregated data. Journal of Marketing Research. 20:1983;350-367.
28. McFadden, D. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, ed. P. Zaremmbka. Academic Press, New York.
29. McFadden, D., Leonard, G.K. 1993. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In Contingent Valuation. A Critical Assessment, ed. J.A. Hausman. Contributions to economic analysis, no. 220, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
30. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
31. Navrud, S. (ed.) 1992. Pricing the European Environment. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.
32. Navrud S., Pruckner G.J. Environmental valuation - to use or not to use. Environmental and Resource Economics. 10:1997;1-26.
33. Nielsen, G., Solberg, S. 1985. Kostnader og effekter av tiltak mot vegtrafikkstøy. Grunntag for et nasjonalt handlingsprogram. TØI-rapport (ISBN 82-7133-497-2), Transportokonomisk institutt, Oslo (in Norwegian).
34. NOAA 1994. Natural Resource Damage Assessments, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 59 Federal Register, 1062, 7 January.
35. NPRA (1995a) Håndbok 140, Konsekvensanalyser (del I-III). Statens vegvesen (in Norwegian).
36. NPRA (1995b) Brukerveiledning og dokumentasjon, MIKO. Statens vegvesen (in Norwegian).
37. Ouwersloot H., Rietveld P. Stated choice experiments with repeated observations. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 30:(2):1996;203-212.
38. Randall, A. 1991. Total and nonuse values. Chapter 10 In Measuring the Demand for Environmental quality, ed. J.B. Braden, C.D. Kolstad. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
39. Strand, J. 1985. Verdsetting av reduserte luftforurensninger fra biler i Norge. (Valuation of reduced air pollution from road traffic in Norway.) Memorandum nr. 1/1985, Sosialøkonomisk institutt, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo (In Norwegian).
40. Sælensminde, K. 1992. Miljøkostnader av vegtrafikk i byområder - resultater fra tidiigere studier. (Environmental costs caused by road traffic in urban areas - results from previous studies.) TØI-rapport nr. 115/1992, Transportøkonomisk institutt, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary).
41. Sælensminde, K. (1998a) Inconsistent choice's impact on the valuation of travel time in stated choice studies. Working paper, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo.
42. Sælensminde, K. (1998b) Interaction effects between nonmarket goods included in benefit-cost analysis for road investments: valuation of travel time savings, traffic safety and environmental goods. Working paper, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo.
43. Sælensminde, K., Hammer, F. 1993. Samvalganalyse som metode for verdsetting av miljøgoder - pilotundersøkelse. (Conjoint analysis as a method of assessing enviromental benefits - Pilot study.) TØI-rapport no. 184/1993, Transportøkonomisk institutt, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary).
44. Sælensminde, K., Hammer, F. 1994. Verdsetting av miljøgoder ved bruk av samvalganalyse - Hovedundersoøkelse. (Assessing environmental benefits by means of conjoint analysis - Main study.) TØI-rapport no. 251/1994, Transportøkonomisk institutt, Oslo (in Norwegian, with English summary).
45. Wenstøp, F., Carlsen, A.J., Bergland, O., Magnus, P. 1994. Valuation of environmental goods with expert panels. Research report 1994/1, BI Research Center, Oslo.