IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/faucse/171997.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Kosten und Nutzen der Mobilität: Probleme bei der Messung der Wirkungen von Errichtung und Nutzung der Verkehrsinfrastruktur

Author

Listed:
  • Knapp, Frank

Abstract

Die Messung der Wirkungen von Infrastrukturprojekten stellt eine ernstzunehmende Herausforderung im Hinblick auf knappe öffentliche Mittel und steigende Ansprüche hinsichtlich der immateriellen Lebensqualität einerseits und Datenproblemen andererseits dar. Die vorliegende Arbeit liefert einen Beitrag für die aktuelle Diskussion, speziell hinsichtlich der Bewertungsmöglichkeiten im Rahmen des Bundesverkehrswegeplans (BVWP). Wohlfahrtsökonomisch sind die Veränderungen der individuellen Nutzenpositionen relevant. Der sogenannte Zahlungsbereitschaftsansatz (kontingente Bewertung) ist ein relativ neues Instrument, das sich gegen die bisher vorherrschende Erfassung von der Kostenseite her noch nicht weiter durchsetzen konnte. Diskutiert werden daher die Einsatzmöglichkeiten des kontingenten Ansatzes. Schließlich werden aktuelle Kritik und Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten hinsichtlich des BVWP besprochen

Suggested Citation

  • Knapp, Frank, 1997. "Kosten und Nutzen der Mobilität: Probleme bei der Messung der Wirkungen von Errichtung und Nutzung der Verkehrsinfrastruktur," Discussion Papers 17/1997, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Statistics and Econometrics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:faucse:171997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/29610/1/613021592.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    2. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    3. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1998. "Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison," Chapters, in: Melinda Acutt & Pamela Mason (ed.), Environmental Valuation, Economic Policy and Sustainability, chapter 3, pages 35-50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Cristiano Cechella, 2011. "The Influence Of Cultural Affinity For The Boost Of Brazilian Investment In Portugal," Regional Science Inquiry, Hellenic Association of Regional Scientists, vol. 0(1), pages 59-72, June.
    3. John List & Jason Shogren, 1998. "The Deadweight Loss from Christmas: Comment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00531, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    6. JOHN McMILLAN, 1979. "The Free‐Rider Problem: A Survey," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 55(2), pages 95-107, June.
    7. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    8. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    9. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.
    10. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    11. Vernon L. Smith, 1980. "Relevance of Laboratory Experiments to Testing Resource Allocation Theory," NBER Chapters, in: Evaluation of Econometric Models, pages 345-377, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Bayham, Jude & Muñoz-García, Félix & Espínola-Arredondo, Ana, 2019. "International coordination of environmental policies: is it always worth the effort?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 294-316, June.
    13. Serge Blondel & Ngoc-Thao Noet, 2023. "Quels facteurs expliquent la faible coopération en horticulture ?," TEPP Research Report 2023-01, TEPP.
    14. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    15. 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.
    16. T. Tideman, 1983. "An experiment in the demand-revealing process," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 387-401, January.
    17. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2013. "On the Generalizability of Experimental Results in Economics: With A Response To Camerer," Artefactual Field Experiments j0001, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    19. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    20. Allan Brown & Martin Cave, 1992. "The Economics of Television Regulation: A Survey with Application to Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 68(4), pages 377-394, December.

    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:zbw:faucse:171997. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vierlde.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.