IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemsi/12210.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocations Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programs: Results from a CE valuation study in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Nunes, Paulo A.L.D.
  • Travisi, Chiara M.

Abstract

The paper examines the use of choice experiments (CE) to assess the economic value of alternative rail noise reduction interventions on the so-called Brennero railway, Italy. The novelty of this paper is threefold. To our knowledge, this is the first study on the valuation of noise conducted in Italy and it is the first example of CE applied in the field of rail noise valuation. Second, we consider not only the economic value assessment of noise reduction but also how this reduction is achieved, ranging from policy instruments such as barriers or train technology. Third, the paper provides an original contribution in the valuation literature since we test formally the econometric robustness of the CE estimates under three payment vehicles. In fact, we consider (a) a special regional tax, (b) reallocation of financial resource within the provincial budget on the public transport sector, and (c) reallocation of financial resource of the provincial budget from the administration and entertainment sector. Test results are mixed. Welfare analysis and policy implications of valuing rail noise reduction programs using different payment vehicles are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Travisi, Chiara M., 2006. "Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocations Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programs: Results from a CE valuation study in Italy," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12210, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemsi:12210
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.12210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/12210/files/wp060095.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.12210?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    2. 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.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, 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. Paulo A. L. D. Nunes & Chiara M. Travisi, 2007. "Rail Noise‐Abatement Programmes: A Stated Choice Experiment to Evaluate the Impacts on Welfare," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(5), pages 589-604, February.
    2. Roi Durán & María Xosé Vázquez Rodríguez, 2009. "Efectos sociales de la contaminación acústica. Una aplicación de valoración al transporte ferroviario," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 191(4), pages 27-42, December.

    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. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Chiara M. Travisi, 2006. "Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocations Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programs: Results from a CE valuation study in Italy," Working Papers 2006.95, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    5. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    6. José Miguel Sánchez U., 2013. "Contingent valuation and choice experiments applied to the Sierra Nevada National Park in Venezuela," Economía, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales (IIES). Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales. Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida, Venezuela, vol. 38(35), pages 57-100, January-J.
    7. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    8. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Shapansky, Bradford & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C., 2002. "Measuring Forest Resource Values: An Assessment Of Choice Experiments And Preference Construction Methods As Public Involvement Tools," Project Report Series 24036, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    12. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    13. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    15. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Liu, Xuemin, 2008. "Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 328-335, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Sato, Masayuki & Aoshima, Ippei & Chang, Youngho, 2021. "Connectedness to nature and the conservation of the urban ecosystem: Perspectives from the valuation of urban forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    18. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    19. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    20. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public Economics;

    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:ags:feemsi:12210. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.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.