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

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.

[1]  Greg Lindsey,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Urban Greenway Projects , 1999 .

[2]  H. Svedsater.  Contingent valuation of global environmental resources: Test of perfect and regular embedding , 2000 .

[3]  T L McDaniels,et al.  Risk perception and the value of safety. , 1992, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments , 2000 .

[5]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[7]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  G. C. Morrison,et al.  WTP and WTA in repeated trial experiments: Learning or leading? , 2000 .

[9]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  What Risks Are People Concerned About , 1991 .

[10]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[11]  M. Jones-Lee.  Personal willingness to pay for prevention: evaluating the consequences of accidents as a basis for preventive measures. , 1993, Addiction.

[12]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Effects of Perceived Fairness on Willingness to Pay , 2000 .

[13]  M. Hammerton,et al.  THE VALUE OF SAFETY: RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY. IN: URBAN TRANSPORT , 1985 .

[14]  S. Posavac.  Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers expectations of funding source , 1998 .

[15]  E. Jane Luzar,et al.  Willingness to pay or intention to pay: The attitude-behavior relationship in contingent valuation , 1998 .

[16]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[17]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Psychological Perspective , 1993 .

[18]  Philip E. Graves,et al.  Valuing Public Goods , 2003 .

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

[20]  Ulf Sandberg,et al.  Tyre/road noise reference book , 2002 .

[21]  D. Kahneman,et al.  HOW THE SCOPE AND METHOD OF PUBLIC FUNDING AFFECT WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR PUBLIC GOODS , 1994 .