IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v38y2004i7p483-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self and others' willingness to pay for improvements to the paved road surface

Author

Listed:
  • Walton, D.
  • Thomas, J. A.
  • Cenek, P. D.

Abstract

A contingent valuation study involving a quasi-experimental design was undertaken to measure motorists self and perceived others' willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements to the paved road surface. The three benefits considered were: (1) improved fuel efficiency, (2) reduced interior noise and (3) reduced stopping distance in wet conditions. To assess the perceived relative importance of the improvements, 1200 motorists received one of eighteen versions of a questionnaire outlining a road surface scenario with different levels of the benefits within a 3 × 2 × 3 factorial design. It was found that motorists were willing to pay for improved fuel efficiency and reduced interior vehicle noise. However, motorists showed no significant WTP for a reduction in vehicle stopping distance. No systematic bias is detected in perceptions of self-other WTP for road surface improvements and perceived other WTP presents the same pattern of results. These findings are contrasted with the finding for a preference for Government to spend additional petrol taxation on safety benefits. The explanation for the absence of a positive WTP for reduced stopping distance is discussed along with the importance of recognising that motorists' preference for improved safety benefits need not translate into a positive WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Walton, D. & Thomas, J. A. & Cenek, P. D., 2004. "Self and others' willingness to pay for improvements to the paved road surface," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 483-494, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:38:y:2004:i:7:p:483-494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(04)00035-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Posavac, Steven S., 1998. "Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers expectations of funding source," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 205-214, April.
    2. Ryan, Mandy & San Miguel, Fernando, 2000. "Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 305-317, June.
    3. Gregory W. Fischer & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Indira Nair & Lester B. Lave, 1991. "What Risks Are People Concerned About," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 303-314, June.
    4. Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 2000. "WTP and WTA in repeated trial experiments: Learning or leading?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 57-72, February.
    5. Jones-Lee, M W & Hammerton, M & Philips, P R, 1985. "The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(377), pages 49-72, March.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Luzar, E. Jane & Cosse, Kelli J., 1998. "Willingness to pay or intention to pay: The attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 427-444.
    8. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    9. Svedsater, Henrik, 2000. "Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: Test of perfect and regular embedding," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 605-623, December.
    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. Wang, Hua & Fang, Ke & Shi, Yuyan, 2011. "Benefit-Cost Analysis with Local Residents’ Stated Preference Information: A Study of Non-Motorized Transport Investments in Pune, India," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 1-37, August.
    2. Ivo Bischoff, 2008. "Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 283-296, March.
    3. Wang, Hua & Fang, Ke & Shi, Yuyan, 2010. "Economic valuation of development projects : a case study of a non-motorized transport project in India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5422, The World Bank.
    4. Lee, Gi-Eu & Loveridge, Scott & Joshi, Satish, 2017. "Local acceptance and heterogeneous externalities of biorefineries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 328-336.

    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. Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    4. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    7. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    8. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    9. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Kallas, Z. & Gómez-Limón, J.A., 2007. "Valoración De La Multifuncionalidad Agraria: Una Aplicación A Través Del Método De Los Experimentos De Elección/Agricultural Multifunctionality Valuation: A Case Study Using The Choice Experiment," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 107-144, Abril.
    13. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    14. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Forbes-Brown, Shelicia & Mcheels, Eric & Hobbs, Jill, 2015. "Signalling Origin: Consumer Willngness to Pay for Dairy Products with the "100% Canadian Milk" Label," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211636, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    17. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    18. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    20. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.

    More about this item

    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:transa:v:38:y:2004:i:7:p:483-494. 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/547/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.