Comparing tax and tax reallocation payments in financing rail noise abatement programmes: Results from a stated choice valuation study in Italy

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 503-517

  Nunes, Paulo A L D ^a,b   Travisi, Chiara M ^b  

^a CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b FONDAZIONE ENI ENRICO MATTEI   (Italy)

Author keywords

Choice experiment; Formal testing; Noise abatement; Payment tax vehicle; Tax reallocation vehicle; Welfare analysis

Indexed keywords

BUDGET CONTROL; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; NOISE ABATEMENT; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION; RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION; TAXATION;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; ECONOMIC VALUES; FORMAL TESTING; MARGINAL VALUES; PUBLIC TRANSPORT; RESEARCH RESULTS; STATED CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; WELFARE ANALYSIS;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMETRICS; FINANCIAL PROVISION; NOISE POLLUTION; POLLUTION CONTROL; POLLUTION TAX; RAILWAY TRANSPORT; TRADE-OFF; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

EURASIA; EUROPE; ITALY; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

EID: 70349696659     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-008-9243-7     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Barreiro J., Sànchez M., Vilardrich-Grau M. (2000) How much are people willing to pay for silence? A one and one-half-bound DC CV estimate, Paper in Proceedings of internoise 2000, 5:3408-3412, Nice, France, 27-30 August.
2. Bergstrom J.C., Boyle K.J., Yabe M. (2004) Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 28(4): 533-549.
3. Blaeij A., Nunes P.A.L.D., van den Bergh J.C.J.M. (2007) Modeling "no-choice" options in attribute nased valuation experiments: Is one model is sufficient?. Appl Econ 39: 1245-1252.
4. Brons M., Nijkamp P., Pels E., Rietveld P.(2003) Railroad noise: Economic valuation and policy. Transp Res Part D 8: 169-184.
5. Day B., Bateman I.J., Lake I. (2007) Beyond implicit prices: Recovering theoretically consistent and transferable values for noise voidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ Resource Econ 37(1): 211-232.
6. Fischer A, Hanley N (2007) Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: A consumer psychological approach. Ecol Econ 6(2-3): 303-314.
7. Freeman A.M. (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.
8. Galilea P., Ortuzar J.D. (2005) Valuing noise level reductions in a residential location context. Transp Res Part D 10: 305-322.
9. Kontoleon A., Yabe M., Darby L. 2005) Alternative payment vehicles in contingent valuation: The case of genetically modified foods. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 1827.
10. Lambert J., Poisson F., Champlovier P. (2001) Valuing benefits of a road traffic noise abatement programme: A contingent valuation study. INRETS-LTE, France. Paper in Proceedings of internoise 2000, 5:3413-3418, Nice, France, 27-30 August.
11. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. (2000) Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. Morrison M.D., Blamey R.K., Bennett J.W. (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16(2): 407-422.
13. Navrud S (2002) The state-of-the-art on economic valuation of noise. Final Report to European Commission DG Environment, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås, 04/02.
14. Provincia Autonoma di Trento PAT (2006) Trentino in schede, Servizio Statistica., at http://www.statweb.provincia.tn.it/TrentinoInSchede/.
15. Revelt D., Train K. (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices of appliance efficiency levels. Rev Econ Stat LXXX(4): 647-657.
16. Ryan M., Skåtun D. (2004) Modelling non-demanders in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ Lett 13: 397-402.
17. Swallow S.K., McGonagle M.P. (2006) Public funding of environmental amenities: Contingent choices using new taxes or existing revenues for coastal land conservation. Land Econ 82(1): 56-67.
18. Watkiss P, Jones R, Brand C, Forster D (2001) Cost-effectiveness of noise reduction measures. Report to the UK Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions.