IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v24y2002i2p394-409..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen M. Painter
  • Robert Douglas Scott II
  • Philip R. Wandschneider
  • Kenneth L. Casavant

Abstract

The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to measure the value of a community service, rural transit, that has both user and nonuser values. Traditional focus groups and a CVM questionnaire provide estimates of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Tobit analysis was used to test relationships among the variables. Income was not related to the amount of perceived benefit, but the alternative desire to provide transit for others was statistically significant. Ranges for possible total benefits, user and nonuser, are provided for the test transit systems. Proper aggregation of benefits to the population was found to be critical.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen M. Painter & Robert Douglas Scott II & Philip R. Wandschneider & Kenneth L. Casavant, 2002. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 394-409.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:2:p:394-409.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9353.00105
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
    2. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. 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.
    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. Borghi, Josephine & Shrestha, Daya L. & Shrestha, Deepa & Jan, Stephen, 2007. "Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 531-542, February.
    2. 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, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-37, August.
    3. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clement A., 2003. "Use and non-use values of wild Asian elephants: A total economic valuation approach," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48961, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    4. Laird, James & Geurs, Karst & Nash, Chris, 2009. "Option and non-use values and rail project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 173-182, August.
    5. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    6. Johnson, Daniel & Jackson, James & Nash, Chris, 2013. "The wider value of rural rail provision," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 126-135.
    7. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    8. Lee, Sunghoon & Burris, Mark W., 2018. "Estimating the Option Value of managed lanes," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 28-36.
    9. Justin Chang & Soo Cho & Beom Lee & Yonghwan Kim & Suk Yun, 2012. "A dichotomous choice survey for quantifying option and non-use values of bus services in Korea," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 33-54, January.
    10. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    11. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    12. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).

    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. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    2. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    3. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    4. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    5. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    6. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora C., 2001. "Rethinking the Scope Test as a Criterion for Validity in Contingent Valuation," Western Region Archives 321695, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    7. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    8. Ribaudo, Marc O. & Hellerstein, Daniel, 1992. "Estimating Water Quality Benefits: Theoretical and Methodological Issues," Technical Bulletins 157031, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    9. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    11. Nick Hanley & Felix Schlapfer, "undated". "Calibration of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods with Voting and Tax Liability Data: Provision of Landscape Amenities in Switzerland," Working Papers 2002_2, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    12. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    14. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "Calibration of Willingness-to-Accept," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-233, March.
    15. Martin Daniel Siyaranamual, 2013. "Social Interaction and Public Goods Provision: A Case of Waste Management in Bandung, Indonesia," Working Papers in Economics and Development Studies (WoPEDS) 201312, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University, revised May 2013.
    16. Costa-Font, Joan & Rovira-Forns, Joan, 2008. "Who is willing to pay for long-term care insurance in Catalonia?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 72-84, April.
    17. Yves Schneider & Peter Zweifel, 2013. "Spatial Effects in Willingness to Pay for Avoiding Nuclear Risks," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 149(III), pages 357-379, September.
    18. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    19. Nikola Jovanoski, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Preserving the Doubs," IRENE Working Papers 15-02, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    20. Peter A. Groothuis & George Van Houtven & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure the Compensation Required to Gain Community Acceptance of a Lulu: the Case of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(3), pages 231-249, May.

    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:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:2:p:394-409.. 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: Oxford University Press or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.