KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 2333–2338 | Cite as

Estimation of Total Benefits of Battery-Swapping Electric Bus Systems using a Contingent Valuation Method

  • Seonuk Park
  • Iljoon ChangEmail author
Transportation Engineering


CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrialization contribute nearly 78% to the total greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce CO2 emissions in the transportation sector, the South Korean government is attempting to introduce a battery-swapping electric bus system. Some government-level economic analysis studies have been conducted to analyze the cost/benefit of the introduction. This research, by contrast, estimates the estimation of the benefits of the new bus system using the contingent valuation method (CVM), which is widely used to estimate the value of non-market public goods. A survey was conducted in Seoul city, and a total of 972 complete CVM questionnaires were used for analysis. A valuation function was developed for the study, and the total willingness-to-pay (TWTP) for the new system was estimated. Total benefits of the new system were USD 36,537,470 and the B/C ratio was computed as 1.47, which is slightly higher than the results of the previous national level research. If the international market price of battery cells decreases, and battery cells become more efficient, the B/C ratio of introducing the new battery-swapping electric bus system will increase.


electric bus battery-swapping environment-freindly system contingent valuation method (CVM) willingness-to-pay (WTP) total benefits 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberini, A. (1995). “Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: Bivariate and interval-data models.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 169–180, DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., and Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Silver Spring, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Blaine, T. W., Lichtkoppler, F. R., Jones, K. R., and Zondag, R. H. (2005). “An assessment of household willingness to pay for curbside recycling: A comparison of payment card and referendum approaches.” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 15–22, DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bubna, P., Avani, S. G., and Prasad, A. K. (2012). “Integration of batteries with ultracapacitors for a fuel cell hybrid transit bus.” Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 199, pp. 360–366, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.09.097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubna, P., Brunner, D., Gangloff Jr., J. J., Avani, S. G., and Prasad, A. K. (2010). “Analysis, operation and maintenance of a fuel cell/battery series-hybrid bus for urban transit applications.” Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 195, No. 12, pp. 3939–3949, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour. 2009.12.080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cameron, T. (1988). “A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 335–379, DOI: 10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, T. and James, M. (1987). “Efficient methods for use with ‘closed-ended’ contingent valuation survey data.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 269–276, DOI: 10.2307/1927234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, I. (2018). “Policy-feasibility study of vertical/horizontal movingassistant systems for the mobility-disabled using a contingent valuation method.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, pp. 1–10, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2018.1456579.Google Scholar
  9. Cummings, R., Elliott, S., Harrison, G., and Murphy, J. (1997). “Are Hypothetical referenda incentive compatible?” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 105, No. 3, 609–621, DOI: 10.1086/jpe.1997.105. issue-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duan, H., Lü, Y., and Li, Y. (2014). “Chinese public’s willingness to pay for CO2 emissions reductions: A case study from four provinces/ cities.” Advances in Climate Change Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 100–110, DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1248.2014.100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eom, Y. and Larson, D. (2006). “Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 501–516, DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2005.11.001.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Feng, W. and Figliozzi, M. (2013). “An economic and technological analysis of the key factors affecting the competitiveness of electric commercial vehicles: A case study from the USA market.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 26, pp. 135–145, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2012.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelo, D. and Koch, S. F. (2015). “Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM.” Ecological Economics, Vol. 114, pp. 79–89, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., and Kanninen, B. (1991). “Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 1225–1263, DOI: 10.2307/1242453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Summary for policymakers (SPM), 40th Session of the IPCC, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  16. Jung, H., Baek, S., and Baek E. (2008). “Value analysis of barrier-free facilities at subway stations using CVM with a double bounded dichotomous choice question.” Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 26, pp. 205–216.Google Scholar
  17. Kanninen, B. J. (1995). “Bias in discrete response contingent valuation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 114–125, DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, K., Kang, K., and Kim, K. (2010). “The value assessment for indirect benefits of road project using contingent valuation method.” Journal of Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1D, pp. 61–70.Google Scholar
  19. Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT) (2013). R&D of traffic safety convergence systems of electric vehicles, KICT, Goyang, Korea.Google Scholar
  20. Korean Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) (2014). Korea Technology development of electric vehicle traffic safety convergence system, Final report, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT), Sejong, Korea.Google Scholar
  21. Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS) (2017). Statistics Korea, population census, KOSIS, Daejeon, Korea, Scholar
  22. KRITI (2015). Bus operation efficiency strategies through vehicle diversification, Korea Research Institute for Transportation and Industry Report, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  23. Kwon, Y., Lee, J., and Son, Y. (2006). “A study for benefit calculation of bicycle roadway construction using contingent valuation method.” Journal of Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 26, No. 6D, pp. 945–950.Google Scholar
  24. Lajunen, A. (2013). “Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 38, pp. 1–15, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, B., Seo, L., and Nam, G. (2007). “Benefit evaluation for traffic transfer system using contingent valuation method in tourist resort.” Journal of Korean Society of Transportation, Vol. 25, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
  26. McKenzie, C. E. and Durnago-Cohen, P. L. (2012). “Environmental lifecycle assessment of transit buses with alternative fuel technology.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 39–47, DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Suh, B., Chang, Y. H., Han, S. B., and Chung, Y. J. (2012). “Simulation of a powertrain system for the diesel hybrid electric bus.” International Journal of Automotive Technology, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 701–711, DOI: 10.1007/s12239-012-0069-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT). Scholar
  29. Van Vliet, O. P. R., Kruithof, T., Turkenburg, W. C., and Faaij, A. P. C. (2010). “Techno-economic comparison of series hybrid, plug-in hybrid, fuel cell and regular cars.” Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 195, No. 19, pp. 6570–6585, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.04.077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Working Group III (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change, 5th Assessment Report for the IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Yun, Y. and Kim, S. (2012). “A study on the extended cost/benefit analysis of the road projects using CVM.” Journal of The Korean Research Association for The Business Education, Vol. 26, pp. 433–454.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of LawGachon UniversitySungnamKorea
  2. 2.Dept. of Urban PlanningGachon UniversitySungnamKorea

Personalised recommendations