Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 301–308 | Cite as

Costing the traffic barrier effect: A contingent valuation survey

  • Nils C. Soguel
Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

When considering the environmental damage caused by road traffic, one traditionally focuses attention on the consequences of accidents, or on the impact of air and noise pollution. This somewhat narrow definition should be enlarged to capture other, more psychological nuisances. The barrier effect created by heavily travelled streets belongs to this group of nuisances, rarely described and never estimated in monetary terms. It particularly affects children, the disabled and elderly people for whom the street becomes too large to cross. In a survey carried out at Neuchâtel, Switzerland, a contingent market was proposed to suppress the barrier effect around the city centre. A valuation function to predict the bids is estimated and used to infer the annual cost of the nuisance.

Key words

Contingent valuation barrier effect road traffic nuisance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Appleyard, D. (1981),Livable Streets, Protected Neighborhoods, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  2. Arbeitskreis Verkehr und Umwelt (1987),Fussgängerfreundliche Ampeln in Stadten und Dörfern November, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J., R. H. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Leamer, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation’,Federal Register 58(10), 4602–4614.Google Scholar
  4. Box, G. E. and D. R. Cox (1964), ‘An Analysis of Transformations’,Journal of Royal Statistical Society B(2), 211–252.Google Scholar
  5. Hillman, M., J. Adams and J. Whitelegg (1991),One False Move... A Study of Children's Independent Mobility, Policy Studies Institute (PSI) Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  6. McClelland, G. H., W. D. Schulze, D. Waldman, J. Irwin and D. Schenk (1991), ‘Sources of Error in Contingent Valuation’, in J. K. Doyle, S. R. Elliott, G. H. McClelland and W. D. Schulze, eds.,Valuing the Benefits of Groundwater Cleanup: Interin Report, U.S. Washington D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  7. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1990),Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Pommerehne, W. W. and A. Roemer (1991),L'évaluation des gains d'une diminution d'un risque collectif: Le cas des déchets dangereux, Conférence ‘Economie et environment dans les années 90’, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nils C. Soguel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations