Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 459–480 | Cite as

Valuations of aircraft noise: experiments in stated preference



The aim of this paper is to report new evidence relating to residents’ valuations of aircraft noise in three countries with an emphasis on a comparison of the valuations obtained using two contrasting approaches. One might be regarded as a standard stated choice approach offering pairwise comparisons of two alternatives characterised by a limited number of attributes. The other choice format adopted is innovative in drawing inspiration from the priority evaluator approach to embed aircraft movements alongside a wide range of other local factors that impact on residents’ quality of life. The paper addresses the differences in the results of the two approaches and explores the possible explanations for these variations. Although not conclusive, there is a suspicion that strategic bias may have influenced the results and we urge further research regarding incentives to such bias.


Aircraft noise Environmental valuation Noise valuation Stated preference Choice format 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz WL, Boxall PC, Louviere JJ, Swait J (1999) Stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation methods in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford University Press, chapter 13, pp 460–482Google Scholar
  2. Arentze T, Borgers A, Timmermans H and DelMistro R (2003). Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy. Transport Res E 39: 229–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arsenio E, Bristow AL and Wardman M (2006). Stated choice valuations of traffic related noise. Transport Res D 11(1): 15–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Munro A, Starmer C and Sugden R (2000). Estimating four Hicksian welfare measures for a public good: a contingent valuation investigation. Land Econ 76(3): 355–373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohm P (1971) An approach to the problem of estimating demand for public goods. Swedish J Econ 73(1)Google Scholar
  6. Boyle KJ, Holmes TP, Teisl MF and Roe B (2001). A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 83(2): 441–454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bristow AL and Wardman M (2006a). Valuation of aircraft noise by time of day: a comparison of two approaches. Transport Rev 26(4): 417–433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bristow AL, Wardman M (2006b) What influences the value of aircraft noise. Paper presented at AET European transport conference, 18th–20th September, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  9. Bristow AL, Wardman M et al (2003) Attitudes towards and values of aircraft annoyance and noise nuisance. Attitudes to Aircraft Annoyance Around Airports (5A) Survey Report. EEC/SEE/2003/002. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, France. (published) July 2003). http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/eec_2003_all_docs.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown N (1996) Quality of life issues within an integrated transport strategy framework. PhD Thesis, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  11. Caparrós A, Oviedo JL, Campos P (2006) Comparing structural models and welfare measures in ranking and choice experiments. Paper to the 3rd world congress of environmental and resource economists, 3rd–7th July, 2006, KyotoGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsson F, Lampi E and Martinson P (2004). The marginal values of noise disturbance from air traffic: does the time of day matter. Transport Res D 9: 373–385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson RT, Groves T, Machina MJ (2000) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Draft paper 2000. http://www.econ.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/cgm.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. Caussade S, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA and Ortuzar JD (2005). Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transport Res B 39: 621–640 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapman RG and Staelin R (1982). Exploiting rank-ordered choice set data within the stochastic utility model. J Market Res 19(3): 288–301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cirillo C, Daly A, Lindveld K (2000) Eliminating bias due to the repeat measurements problem in SP data. In: de Ortúzar JD (ed) Stated preference modelling techniques. PTRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hague Consulting Group (2000) ALOGIT 4.0EC. The HagueGoogle Scholar
  18. Heaver C (2002) Attitudes to Aircraft Annoyance Around Airports (5A) Focus Group Report. EEC/ENV/ 2002/009. http://www.eurocontrol.fr/ba_env/Documents/EEC_ENV_2002_009.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. Hensher DA, Rose J and Greene WH (2005). The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation 32: 203–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoinville G (1971). Evaluating community preferences. Environ Plan 3: 33–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horowitz JL (1980). The accuracy of the multinomial logit model as an approximation to the multinomial probit model of travel demand. Transport Res 14B: 331–341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MVA (1985) Station modernisation priorities and payoffs. Prepared for British Railways BoardGoogle Scholar
  23. MVA (1986) Evaluation of intercity rolling stock improvements. Prepared for British Railways BoardGoogle Scholar
  24. MVA Consultancy (2004) Attitudes to noise from aviation sources in England: pilot of time-of-day stated preference study and design of standard annoyance questions. Prepared for the Department for Transport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Navrud S (2002) The state-of-the-art on economic valuation of noise. Final Report to European Commission DG EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  26. Samuelson P (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Rev Econ Stat 36(4): 387–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Timmermans H (1993). The impact of task complexity on information in multi-attribute decision making. J Behav Decision Making 6: 95–111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thune-Larsen H (1995) Flystøyavgifter basert på betalingsvillighet, TOI report 289/1995. (English language summary report: Charges on air traffic noise by means of conjoint analysis)Google Scholar
  29. Tversky A and Kahneman D (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Quart J Econ 106(4): 1039–1061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wardman M and Bristow AL (2004). Noise and air quality valuations: evidence from stated preference residential choice models. Transport Res D 9(1): 1–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wardman M, Shires J (2003) Review of fare elasticities in Great Britain. Working Paper 573. Institute for Transport Studies, University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  32. Wardman M and Whelan G (2001). Valuation of improved railway rolling stock: a review of the literature and new evidence. Transport Rev 21(4): 415–448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wardman M, Bristow A, Murphy P, Heaver C (2003) Valuation of aircraft noise using stated preference methods within a broader quality of life dimension. Paper presented at AET European Transport Conference. 8th–10th October, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  34. Widlert S (1998) Stated preference studies: the design affects the results. In: de Ortuzar JD, Hensher D, Jara-Diaz S (eds) Travel behavior research: updating the state of play. Pergamon, UK, chapter 7, pp 105–123Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Transport Studies Group, Department of Civil and Building EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations