IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p158.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The logsum as an evaluation measure - review of the literature and new results

Author

Listed:
  • Gerard De Jong
  • Andrew Daly
  • Marits Pieters
  • Toon Van der Hoorn

Abstract

Transport infrastructure projects in The Netherlands are appraised ex ante by using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) procedures following the so-called ‘OEI-guidelines’. The project benefits for travellers are incorporated in the form of changes in demand (e.g. from the Dutch national model system, LMS, or the regional models, NRM) and changes in the generalised travel costs (using values of time from Stated Preference studies to monetise travel time savings), and applying the rule of half. While a number of short-term improvements to the current procedures have been improved, it is also interesting to consider a more radical approach using explicit measures of consumer surplus, obtained by integrating the demand models directly. These measures are called logsums, from their functional form. The advantages that the logsums would give to the appraisal procedure would be that logsums can incorporate a degree of heterogeneity in the population, while also being theoretically more correct and in many cases easier to calculate. In this context, the Transport Research Centre (AVV) of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management has commissioned RAND Europe to undertake a study comparing the conventional approach to the use of the logsum change as a measure of the change in consumer surplus that would result from a transport infrastructure project. The paper is based on the work conducted in the study. The paper opens with a review of the literature on the use of logsums as a measure of consumer surplus change in project appraisal and evaluation. It then goes on to describe a case study with the Dutch National Model System (LMS) for transport in which three methods are compared for a specific project (a high speed magnetic hover train that would connect the four main cities in the Randstad: Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht): a.the ‘classical’ CBA approach as described above, b.the improved ‘classical’ CBA approach (introducing a number of short-term improvements) and c.the logsum approach (as a long term improvement). The direct effects of a particular policy on the travellers can be measured as the change in consumer surplus that results from that policy (there can also be indirect and external effects that may not be covered in the consumer surplus change). The consumer surplus associated with a set of alternatives is, under the logit assumptions, relatively easy to calculate. By definition, a person’s consumer surplus is the utility, in money terms, that a person receives in the choice situation. If the unobserved component of utility is independently and identically distributed extreme value and utility is linear in income, then the expected utility becomes the log of the denominator of a logit choice probability, divided by the marginal utility of income, plus arbitrary constants. This if often called the ‘logsum’. Total consumer surplus in the population can be calculated as a weighted sum of logsums over a sample of decision-makers, with the weights reflecting the number of people in the population who face the same representative utilities as the sampled person. The change in consumer surplus is calculated as the difference between the logsum under the conditions before the change and after the change (e.g. introduction of a policy). The arbitrary constants drop out. However, to calculate this change in consumer surplus, the researcher must know the marginal utility of income. Usually a price or cost variable enters the representative utility and, in case that happens in a consistent linear additive fashion, the negative of its coefficient is the marginal utility of income by definition. If the marginal utility of income is not constant with respect to income, as is the case in the LMS and NRM, a far more complex formula is needed, or an indirect approach has to be taken. This paper will review the theoretical literature on the use of the logsum as an evaluation measure, including both the original papers on this from the seventies and the work on the income effect in the nineties. Also recent application studies that used the logsum for evaluation purposes will be reviewed. Finally outcomes of runs with the LMS will be reported for the three different approaches (including the logsum approach) mentioned above for evaluating direct effect of transport policies and projects. Different methods for monetising the logsum change will be compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerard De Jong & Andrew Daly & Marits Pieters & Toon Van der Hoorn, 2005. "The logsum as an evaluation measure - review of the literature and new results," ERSA conference papers ersa05p158, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/158.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    2. H C W L Williams, 1977. "On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 9(3), pages 285-344, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karel Martens & Floridea Di Ciommo, 2017. "Travel time savings, accessibility gains and equity effects in cost–benefit analysis," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 152-169, March.
    2. Nagel Kai & Grether Dominik & Beuck Ulrike & Chen Yu & Rieser Marcel & Axhausen Kay W., 2008. "Multi-Agent Transport Simulations and Economic Evaluation," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 228(2-3), pages 173-194, April.
    3. Hultkrantz, Lars, 2012. "A Note on High-Speed Rail Investments and Travelers’ Value of Time," Working Papers 2012:13, Örebro University, School of Business.
    4. Hansen, Mark & Liu, Yi, 2015. "Airline competition and market frequency: A comparison of the s-curve and schedule delay models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 301-317.
    5. Carrillo Murillo, David Guillermo & Liedtke, Gernot, 2013. "A model for the formation of colloidal structures in freight transportation: The case of hinterland terminals," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 55-70.
    6. Bat-hen Nahmias-Biran & Yoram Shiftan, 2020. "Using activity-based models and the capability approach to evaluate equity considerations in transportation projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2287-2305, October.
    7. Nahmias–Biran, Bat-hen & Shiftan, Yoram, 2016. "Towards a more equitable distribution of resources: Using activity-based models and subjective well-being measures in transport project evaluation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 672-684.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Jong, Gerard & Daly, Andrew & Pieters, Marits & van der Hoorn, Toon, 2007. "The logsum as an evaluation measure: Review of the literature and new results," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 874-889, November.
    2. Delle Site, Paolo & Salucci, Marco Valerio, 2013. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in random utility models with imperfect before–after correlation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 215-242.
    3. Francisco Javier Amador & Rosa Marina González & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2004. "Preference heterogeneity and willingness to pay for travel time," Documentos de trabajo conjunto ULL-ULPGC 2004-12, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la ULPGC.
    4. Yai, Tetsuo & Iwakura, Seiji & Morichi, Shigeru, 1997. "Multinomial probit with structured covariance for route choice behavior," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 195-207, June.
    5. Eliasson, Jonas & Mattsson, Lars-Göran, 2000. "A model for integrated analysis of household location and travel choices," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 375-394, June.
    6. Sabina Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Does Inclusion of Landowners’ Non-Market Values Lower Costs of Creating Carbon Forest Sinks?," Working Papers 2003-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    7. Haoge Chang & Yusuke Narita & Kota Saito, 2022. "Approximating Choice Data by Discrete Choice Models," Papers 2205.01882, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    8. Fenichel, Eli P. & Horan, Richard D. & Bence, James R., 2010. "Indirect management of invasive species through bio-controls: A bioeconomic model of salmon and alewife in Lake Michigan," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 500-518, November.
    9. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2002. "Quality Adjustment for Spatially-Delineated Public Goods: Theory and Application to Cost-of-Living Indices in Los Angeles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-10-, Resources for the Future.
    10. Fischer, Benjamin & Jessen, Robin & Steiner, Viktor, 2019. "Work incentives and the cost of redistribution via tax-transfer reforms under constrained labor supply," Discussion Papers 2019/10, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    11. Harold Alderman & Peter F. Orazem & Elizabeth M. Paterno, 2001. "School Quality, School Cost, and the Public/Private School Choices of Low-Income Households in Pakistan," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 36(2), pages 304-326.
    12. Anas, Alex & Chang, Huibin, 2023. "Productivity benefits of urban transportation megaprojects: A general equilibrium analysis of «Grand Paris Express»," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    13. Lim, Yongtaek & Heydecker, Benjamin, 2005. "Dynamic departure time and stochastic user equilibrium assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 97-118, February.
    14. Gibson, John & Barns, Sandra & Cameron, Michael & Lim, Steven & Scrimgeour, Frank & Tressler, John, 2007. "The Value of Statistical Life and the Economics of Landmine Clearance in Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 512-531, March.
    15. Maher, Mike, 1998. "Algorithms for logit-based stochastic user equilibrium assignment," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 539-549, November.
    16. Laurie Garrow & Tudor Bodea & Misuk Lee, 2010. "Generation of synthetic datasets for discrete choice analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 183-202, March.
    17. Viauroux, Christelle, 2007. "Structural estimation of congestion costs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 1-25, January.
    18. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    19. Fosgerau, Mogens & McFadden, Daniel & Bierlaire, Michel, 2010. "Choice probability generating functions," MPRA Paper 24214, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Jan Ondrich, 2005. "Cox-McFadden Partial and Marginal Likelihoods for the Proportional Hazard Model with Random Effects," Center for Policy Research Working Papers 68, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.