Determinants of the willingness-to-pay for reducing the environmental impacts of road transportation

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 215-220

  Lera López, Fernando ^a   Faulin, Javier ^a   Sánchez, Mercedes ^a  

^a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Air pollution; Pollution externalities; Road noise nuisance; Willingness to pay estimates

Indexed keywords

AIR POLLUTION; ECONOMICS; NOISE POLLUTION; POLLUTION; POLLUTION CONTROL; RESOURCE VALUATION; ROADS AND STREETS; TRANSPORTATION;

CONTINGENT VALUATIONS; NAVARRE; ROAD NOISE; ROAD TRANSPORTATION; SPANISH PYRENEES; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY ESTIMATES;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; NOISE POLLUTION; POLLUTION CONTROL; ROAD TRANSPORT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

NAVARRA; SPAIN;

EID: 84855288765     PISSN: 13619209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Barreiro J., Sánchez M., Viladrich-Grau M. How much are people willing to pay for silence? A contingent valuation study. Applied Economics 2005, 37:239-258.
2. Bjørner T.B. Combining socio-acoustic term and contingent valuation surveys to value noise reduction. Transportation Research Part D 2004, 9:341-356.
3. Dziegielewska D.A., Mendelsohn R. Valuing air quality in Poland. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:131-163.
4. Infraestructura de Datos Espaciales de Navarra, 2009. (accessed September 2011). http://idena.navarra.es/ogc/wms.aspx.
5. Jorgensen B.S., Wilson M.A., Heberlein T.A. Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope. Ecological Economics 2001, 36:133-148.
6. Kriström B. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1997, 79:1013-1023.
7. Lambert, J., Poisson, F., Champelovier, P., 2001. Valuing benefits of road traffic noise abatement programme: a contingent valuation study. In: Paper Presented at the 17th International Congress on Acoustics, Rome.
8. Martín M.A., Tarrero A., González J., Machimbarrena M. Exposure effect relationship between road traffic noise annoyance and noise cost valuations in Valladolid, Spain. Applied Acoustics 2006, 67:945-958.
9. Moulton B.R. An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on microunits. Review of Economics and Statistics 1990, 72:334-338.
10. Navrud S. Valuing health impacts from air pollution in Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 20:305-329.
11. Palatnik R., Ayalon O., Shechter M. Household demand for waste recycling services. Environmental Management 2005, 35:121-129.
12. del Saz S., Rausell-Köster P. A Double-Hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 84:241-251.
13. del Saz S., Suárez C. El valor del uso recreativo de espacios naturales protegidos: aplicación del método de valoración contingente al Parque Natural de l'Albufera. Revista Española de Economía Agraria 1998, 182:239-272.
14. Silberman J., Klock M. The behavior of respondents in Contingent Valuation: evidence on starting bids. The Journal of Behavioral Economics 1989, 18:51-60.
15. Spanish National Statistics Institute, 2009. Encuesta de Hogares y Medio Ambiente 2008. (Accessed September 2011). http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_medioambiente.htm.
16. Wardman M., Bristow A. Traffic related noise and air quality valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice models. Transportation Research Part D 2004, 9:1-27.