Bitte benutzen Sie diese Kennung, um auf die Ressource zu verweisen:
https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-25601| Publikationstyp: | Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift |
| Art der Begutachtung: | Peer review (Publikation) |
| Titel: | A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety |
| Autor/-in: | Niroomand, Naghmeh Jenkins, Glenn P. |
| et. al: | No |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006 10.21256/zhaw-25601 |
| Erschienen in: | Economic Analysis and Policy |
| Band(Heft): | 59 |
| Seite(n): | 138 |
| Seiten bis: | 149 |
| Erscheinungsdatum: | 2018 |
| Verlag / Hrsg. Institution: | Elsevier |
| ISSN: | 0313-5926 |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Schlagwörter: | Cyprus; Car driver; Contingent valuation method; Choice experiment method; Environmental services and goods; Road safety improvement; Willingness to pay |
| Fachgebiet (DDC): | 363: Umwelt- und Sicherheitsprobleme |
| Zusammenfassung: | Excerpt of the introduction: [...] This study estimates car drivers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for road safety improvements in North Cyprus. The contingent valuation method (CVM) and choice experiment (CE) methods were used to estimate the welfare change for identical road safety improvements where different attributes were used in the utility functions as the basis for calculating welfare change estimates [...]. In the CVM survey, car drivers were asked directly to state their maximum WTP for the non-market value of road safety, in which demand is unobservable. In the CE survey, car drivers were asked to choose between different alternative scenarios of types of roads and safety features. These choice sets were varied according to a statistical design in order to maximize the precision of the estimates. The paper is organized in five further sections. Section 2 analyzes the econometric method and specification, while Section 3 presents the CE and CVM design. Section 4 describes the econometric analysis. Section 5 provides the resulting model estimates, and Section 6 closes the paper with a discussion and briefly presents our conclusion. |
| URI: | https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/25601 |
| Volltext Version: | Akzeptierte Version |
| Lizenz (gemäss Verlagsvertrag): | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International |
| Departement: | School of Management and Law |
| Organisationseinheit: | Zentrum für Arbeitsmärkte, Digitalisierung und Regionalökonomie (CLDR) |
| Enthalten in den Sammlungen: | Publikationen School of Management and Law |
Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
| Datei | Beschreibung | Größe | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018_Niroomand-Jenkins_Comparison-stated-preference-methods-valuation-improvement-road-safety_AAM.pdf | accepted version | 751.94 kB | Adobe PDF |  Öffnen/Anzeigen |
Zur Langanzeige
Niroomand, N., & Jenkins, G. P. (2018). A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety. Economic Analysis and Policy, 59, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006
Niroomand, N. and Jenkins, G.P. (2018) ‘A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety’, Economic Analysis and Policy, 59, pp. 138–149. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006.
N. Niroomand and G. P. Jenkins, “A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 59, pp. 138–149, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006.
NIROOMAND, Naghmeh und Glenn P. JENKINS, 2018. A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety. Economic Analysis and Policy. 2018. Bd. 59, S. 138–149. DOI 10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006
Niroomand, Naghmeh, and Glenn P. Jenkins. 2018. “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for the Valuation of Improvement in Road Safety.” Economic Analysis and Policy 59: 138–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006.
Niroomand, Naghmeh, and Glenn P. Jenkins. “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for the Valuation of Improvement in Road Safety.” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 59, 2018, pp. 138–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2018.06.006.
Alle Ressourcen in diesem Repository sind urheberrechtlich geschützt, soweit nicht anderweitig angezeigt.