IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/retrec/v76y2019ics0739885919300721.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Mouter, Niek
  • Cabral, Manuel Ojeda
  • Dekker, Thijs
  • van Cranenburgh, Sander

Abstract

Environmental effects of transport projects have a weak position in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) which might be rooted in the valuation approach adopted in the dominant style of CBA. This conventional valuation approach has been criticized for not valuing positive and negative impacts of transport projects in relation to each other and for not valuing such impacts in a public context, but in the context of private decisions. These critiques might be circumvented through valuing transport projects in a social choice context in which overall burdens and benefits of proposed transport projects are considered together in a public context. We investigate the extent to which a social choice valuation approach produces different outcomes than a conventional valuation approach. We conducted four social choice valuation experiments in which respondents were asked to choose between alternatives for a new road, trading off travel time and three environmental impacts (noise, recreation and biodiversity). Our findings suggest that, under social choice valuation, individuals assign substantially more value to environmental impacts than travel time as compared to conventional valuation studies. Moreover, in a social choice setting, respondents assigned monetary values to impacts that are not (or only qualitatively) considered in conventional CBAs of transport projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:76:y:2019:i:c:s0739885919300721
    DOI: 10.1016/j.retrec.2019.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885919300721
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.retrec.2019.05.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    3. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    4. Stephen K. Swallow & Michael P. McGonagle, 2006. "Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 56-67.
    5. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Are some lives more valuable? An ethical preferences approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 739-752, May.
    6. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 1993. "The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(5), pages 1263-1267.
    7. Paul Anand & Allan Wailoo, 2000. "Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing," Open Discussion Papers in Economics 14, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
    8. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
    9. Richard Batley & John Bates & Michiel Bliemer & Maria Börjesson & Jeremy Bourdon & Manuel Ojeda Cabral & Phani Kumar Chintakayala & Charisma Choudhury & Andrew Daly & Thijs Dekker & Efie Drivyla & Ton, 2019. "New appraisal values of travel time saving and reliability in Great Britain," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 583-621, June.
    10. Jan Anne Annema & Carl Koopmans, 2015. "The practice of valuing the environment in cost-benefit analyses in transport and spatial projects," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(9), pages 1635-1648, September.
    11. Thomopoulos, N. & Grant-Muller, S. & Tight, M.R., 2009. "Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: Current practice and a proposed methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 351-359, November.
    12. Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 69-85.
    13. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    14. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 333-349.
    15. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    16. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov, 1997. "Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 589-599, October.
    17. Robin Boadway, 2006. "Principles of Cost-Benefit Analysis," Public Policy Review, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-44, January.
    18. Abigail Bristow & Mark Wardman & V. Chintakayala, 2015. "International meta-analysis of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 71-100, January.
    19. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    20. Apparicio, Philippe & Gelb, Jérémy & Carrier, Mathieu & Mathieu, Marie-Ève & Kingham, Simon, 2018. "Exposure to noise and air pollution by mode of transportation during rush hours in Montreal," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 182-192.
    21. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    22. Lowe, Chris & Stanley, John & Stanley, Janet, 2018. "A broader perspective on social outcomes in transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 482-488.
    23. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2009. "The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1-14, December.
    24. Mouter, Niek & Chorus, Caspar, 2016. "Value of time – A citizen perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 317-329.
    25. Paulo Nunes & Chiara Travisi, 2009. "Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocation Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programmes: Results from a Stated Choice Valuation Study in Italy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(4), pages 503-517, August.
    26. Dolan, Paul & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2005. "Health priorities and public preferences: the relative importance of past health experience and future health prospects," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 703-714, July.
    27. Bowes, David R. & Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., 2001. "Identifying the Impacts of Rail Transit Stations on Residential Property Values," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-25, July.
    28. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying resident preferences for bus-based and rail-based investments as a complementary buy in perspective to inform project planning prioritisation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    29. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    30. Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Experiences from the Swedish Value of Time study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 144-158.
    31. Kontoleon, Andreas & Yabe, Mitsuyasu & Darby, Laura, 2005. "Alternative Payment Vehicles in Contingent Valuation: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods," MPRA Paper 1827, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    32. Daly, Andrew & Hess, Stephane & de Jong, Gerard, 2012. "Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 333-341.
    33. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    34. Seo, Kihwan & Golub, Aaron & Kuby, Michael, 2014. "Combined impacts of highways and light rail transit on residential property values: a spatial hedonic price model for Phoenix, Arizona," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 53-62.
    35. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    36. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    37. Kouwenhoven, Marco & de Jong, Gerard C. & Koster, Paul & van den Berg, Vincent A.C. & Verhoef, Erik T. & Bates, John & Warffemius, Pim M.J., 2014. "New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in The Netherlands," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 37-49.
    38. Amartya Sen, 1995. "Environmental Evaluation And Social Choice: Contingent Valuation And The Market Analogy," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 23-37, March.
    39. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    40. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    41. Perez-Prada, Fiamma & Monzon, Andres, 2017. "Ex-post environmental and traffic assessment of a speed reduction strategy in Madrid's inner ring-road," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 256-268.
    42. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    43. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    44. Abrantes, Pedro A.L. & Wardman, Mark R., 2011. "Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-17, January.
    45. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    46. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 931-952, June.
    47. Ajzen, Icek & Brown, Thomas C. & Rosenthal, Lori H., 1996. "Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-57, January.
    48. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    49. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    50. John A. Kilpatrick & Ronald C. Throupe & John I. Carruthers & Andrew Krause, 2007. "The Impact of Transit Corridors on Residential Property Values," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 29(3), pages 303-320.
    51. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    52. Niek Mouter & Jan Annema & Bert Wee, 2015. "Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview based study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 277-302, March.
    53. Harsanyi, John C., 1975. "Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 594-606, June.
    54. Mackie, P.J. & Jara-Díaz, S. & Fowkes, A.S., 0. "The value of travel time savings in evaluation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 91-106, April.
    55. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    56. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    57. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1996. "The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behavior: Discriminating Between Contribution and Confusion," Staff Paper Series 24091, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "Do individuals have different preferences as consumer and citizen? The trade-off between travel time and safety," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 333-349.
    2. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    3. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "An introduction to Participatory Value Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-024/V, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Dec 2019.
    4. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    5. Bondemark, Anders & Andersson, Henrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2022. "Public preferences for distribution in the context of transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 160-184.
    6. Schmid, Basil & Molloy, Joseph & Peer, Stefanie & Jokubauskaite, Simona & Aschauer, Florian & Hössinger, Reinhard & Gerike, Regine & Jara-Diaz, Sergio R. & Axhausen, Kay W., 2021. "The value of travel time savings and the value of leisure in Zurich: Estimation, decomposition and policy implications," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 186-215.
    7. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John C. & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2020. "Expert judgements and community values: preference heterogeneity for protecting river ecology in Western Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), April.
    8. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    10. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    11. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    12. Rogers, Abbie A. & Burton, Michael P. & Cleland, Jonelle A. & Rolfe, John & Meeuwig, Jessica J. & Pannell, David J., 2017. "Expert judgements and public values: preference heterogeneity for protecting ecology in the Swan River, Western Australia," Working Papers 254025, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Deriving transport appraisal values from emerging revealed preference data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 225-245.
    14. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    15. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    16. Suziana Hassan & Søren Bøye Olsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2018. "Appropriate Payment Vehicles in Stated Preference Studies in Developing Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 1053-1075, December.
    17. Anders Dugstad & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2021. "Scope Elasticity of Willingness to pay in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(1), pages 21-57, September.
    18. Kingsley Adjenughwure & Basil Papadopoulos, 2019. "Towards a Fair and More Transparent Rule-Based Valuation of Travel Time Savings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    19. Krčál, Ondřej & Peer, Stefanie & Staněk, Rostislav & Karlínová, Bára, 2019. "Real consequences matter: Why hypothetical biases in the valuation of time persist even in controlled lab experiments," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    20. Schmid, Basil & Becker, Felix & Axhausen, Kay W. & Widmer, Paul & Stein, Petra, 2023. "A simultaneous model of residential location, mobility tool ownership and mode choice using latent variables," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-benefit analysis; Social choice valuation; Transport policy; Transport appraisal; Environmental valuation; Travel time; Noise; Biodiversity; Recreation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R4 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics
    • H50 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - General
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:retrec:v:76:y:2019:i:c:s0739885919300721. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620614/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.