IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revage/v24y2002i2p394-409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen M. Painter
  • Robert Douglas Scott
  • Philip R. Wandschneider
  • Kenneth L. Casavant

Abstract

The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to measure the value of a community service, rural transit, that has both user and nonuser values. Traditional focus groups and a CVM questionnaire provide estimates of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Tobit analysis was used to test relationships among the variables. Income was not related to the amount of perceived benefit, but the alternative desire to provide transit for others was statistically significant. Ranges for possible total benefits, user and nonuser, are provided for the test transit systems. Proper aggregation of benefits to the population was found to be critical. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen M. Painter & Robert Douglas Scott & Philip R. Wandschneider & Kenneth L. Casavant, 2002. "Using Contingent Valuation to Measure User and Nonuser Benefits: An Application to Public Transit," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 394-409.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:2:p:394-409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9353.00105
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Borghi, Josephine & Shrestha, Daya L. & Shrestha, Deepa & Jan, Stephen, 2007. "Using focus groups to develop contingent valuation scenarios--A case study of women's groups in rural Nepal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 531-542, February.
    2. Wang Hua & Fang Ke & Shi Yuyan, 2011. "Benefit-Cost Analysis with Local Residents' Stated Preference Information: A Study of Non-Motorized Transport Investments in Pune, India," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-37, August.
    3. Laird, James & Geurs, Karst & Nash, Chris, 2009. "Option and non-use values and rail project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 173-182, August.
    4. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaicharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2008. "Better than their reputation - A case for mail surveys in contingent valuation," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 297/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    5. Johnson, Daniel & Jackson, James & Nash, Chris, 2013. "The wider value of rural rail provision," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 126-135.
    6. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    7. Justin Chang & Soo Cho & Beom Lee & Yonghwan Kim & Suk Yun, 2012. "A dichotomous choice survey for quantifying option and non-use values of bus services in Korea," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 33-54, January.
    8. Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern & Amy Dan, 2009. "How Deliberation Affects Stated Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(2), pages 329-347.
    9. Michael Ahlheim & Benchaphun Ekasingh & Oliver Frör & Jirawan Kitchaincharoen & Andreas Neef & Chapika Sangkapitux & Nopasom Sinphurmsukskul, 2007. "Using Citizen Expert Groups in Environmental Valuation - Lessons from a CVM study in Northern Thailand," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 283/2007, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    10. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).

    More about this item

    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:oup:revage:v:24:y:2002:i:2:p:394-409. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.