Valuation of environmental impacts of transportation projects: the challenge of self-interest proximity

Noteworthy progress has been made in valuing some benefits of transport projects, such as travel-time savings, but the struggle continues to identify monetary values at the individual project level for many environmental attributes such as changes in open space, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and amenity. The difficulty may be aligned to the idea of attribute proximity to the self-interest paradigm. The empirical findings presented here, based on stated-choice experiments, suggest that environmental attributes that are distant in self-interest proximity are unlikely to be appropriately valued when mixed in a trade-off with attributes close in self-interest proximity unless noticeable gains in self-interest attributes accompany desirable levels of attributes defining environmental impacts. This finding has important implications for the design of empirical studies using stated-choice methods for valuation.

[1]  V. Hajivassiliou,et al.  Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models , 1993 .

[2]  J. Geweke,et al.  Alternative computational approaches to inference in the multinomial probit model , 1994 .

[3]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality , 1991 .

[4]  M. Sagoff.  The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law, and the Environment , 1988 .

[5]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[6]  T. F. Weaver,et al.  Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms , 1993 .

[7]  R. Daniels.  MONETARY VALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRANSPORT , 1994 .

[8]  I. Bateman,et al.  Extending cost benefit analysis of UK highway proposals: environmental evaluation and equity , 1993 .

[9]  D. McFadden,et al.  ESTIMATION BY SIMULATION , 1994 .

[10]  J. Heinen,et al.  Human Behavioural Ecology and Environmental Conservation , 1992, Environmental Conservation.

[11]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the value of Kenai King salmon , 1990 .

[12]  G. Garrod,et al.  A review of cost–benefit analysis as applied to the evaluation of new road proposals in the U.K. , 1998 .

[13]  J. Quiggin,et al.  Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens? - Reply , 1995 .

[14]  Erik T. Verhoef,et al.  External effects and social costs of road transport , 1994 .

[15]  D. Hensher.  Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice , 1994 .

[16]  Joffre Swait,et al.  The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behavior: Discriminating Between Contribution and Confusion , 1996 .

[17]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  PREDICTABILITY, CONSTANCY, AND CONTINGENCY OF PERIODIC PHENOMENA' , 1974 .

[18]  Steven Stern,et al.  Simulation-based estimation , 1997 .

[19]  J. Bennett,et al.  PROSPECTS FOR CONTINGENT VALUATION: LESSONS FROM THE SOUTH‐EAST FORESTS , 1993 .

[20]  N Sheehy,et al.  How much do people value the environment? , 1992 .

[21]  J. Bennett,et al.  Respondents to Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers or Citizens (Blamey, Common and Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — a Comment , 1996 .

[22]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[23]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .