Estimation of Time Loss and Costs of Traffic Congestion: The Contingent Valuation Method

Authors: Amira Mabrouk, Chokri Abdennadher

Abstract:

The reduction of road congestion which is inherent to the use of vehicles is an obvious priority to public authority. Therefore, assessing the willingness to pay of an individual in order to save trip-time is akin to estimating the change in price which was the result of setting up a new transport policy to increase the networks fluidity and improving the level of social welfare. This study holds an innovative perspective. In fact, it initiates an economic calculation that has the objective of giving an estimation of the monetized time value during the trips made in Sfax. This research is founded on a double-objective approach. The aim of this study is to i) give an estimation of the monetized value of time; an hour dedicated to trips, ii) determine whether or not the consumer considers the environmental variables to be significant, iii) analyze the impact of applying a public management of the congestion via imposing taxation of city tolls on urban dwellers. This article is built upon a rich field survey led in the city of Sfax. With the use of the contingent valuation method, we analyze the “declared time preferences” of 450 drivers during rush hours. Based on the fond consideration of attributed bias of the applied method, we bring to light the delicacy of this approach with regards to the revelation mode and the interrogative techniques by following the NOAA panel recommendations bearing the exception of the valorization point and other similar studies about the estimation of transportation externality.

Keywords: Willingness to pay, value of time, contingent valuation, time value, city toll, transport.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1111747

References:

nuisances, Rapport au Commissariat général du Plan, p.323.
[2] F. Bonnieux (1997) Evaluation contingente et décision publique, INRA-ESR.
[3] F. Bonnieux., B. Desaigues, D. Vermersh. (1992) “French Experiments in Contingent Valuation: Two Case Studies”, in Valuing the Environment: The European Experience. S. NAVRUD, editor, Oxford University Press.
[4] I. Bräuer (2003) Money as an indicator: to make use of economic evaluation for biodiversity conservation, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98, 483-491.
[5] R. Coase (1960), ‘‘the Problem of Social Cost’’. Journal of Law and Economic, n°3, pp.1-44.
[6] J. Loomis et al. (2000) Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey, Ecological Economics 33 pp. 103–117
[7] M. V. Johansson (1999) Valuing a Peripheral Environmental Amenity. The Swedes’ Willingness to Pay for the Survival of the African Elephant, Working Payer, Department of Economics, Umea University, 27 p.
[8] R.C. Mitchell, R. T Carson. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, 463 p.
[9] MVA, (1987) The Value of Travel Time Saving. Report
[10] O. Oort (1969): "The evaluation of travelling time", Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Vol 3, pp. 279-286.
[11] A. P. Samuelson (1954) The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 4. (Nov., 1954), pp. 387-389.
[12] S. Scherrer (2003) Evaluation économique des aménités récréatives d’une zone humide d’intérieur, Direction des études économiques et de l’évaluation environnementale, 75p.
[13] D. Terra (2004) Guide des bonnes pratiques pour la mise en œuvre de la method d’évaluation contingente. D4E, Série Méthode, (5), 2004. Direction des études économiques et de l’évaluation environnementale.
[14] B. Desaigues, V. Lesgards (1992), La valorisation des actifs naturels: un exemple d'application de la méthode d'évaluation contingente, Revue d'Economie Politique, 1.
[15] J.J Heckman (1979). Sample Selection as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47 (1): 153–161.