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

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. Q uantifying benefits for publicly provided services and goods is an essential but difficult task for determining optimum provision levels. What is the worth to society of public transit, a new park, better schools, or preservation of an endangered species? Often the arguments over provision of these public goods stem from measurement problems; we truly do not know the overall community benefits of providing free public transit, or the future impact of the loss of a particular species. If there are substantial nonuser benefits, nonmarket evaluation Kathleen M.

A dichotomous choice survey for quantifying option and non-use values of bus services in Korea

“…The specific valuation method, however, needs more discussion. Early studies in this field (Bristow et al 1991a, b;Crockett 1992;Painter et al 2002;Humphreys and Fowkes 2006) adopted open-or closed-ended CVMs. The approaches could suffer from problems such as cognitive stresses, starting-point biases, and strategic answers.…”

“…Even though the use, option, and non-use classifications are considered in this paper, option value may belong to the use (Geurs et al 2006) or non-use value categories (Bristow et al 1991a, b;Crockett 1992;Painter et al 2002). Direct, indirect, and non-use values are another grouping system which views the option value as an element of non-use value (Humphreys and Fowkes 2006).…”

Estimation of option and non-use values for intercity passenger rail services

“…Option and non-use values are normally estimated using stated preference (SP) data in the literature (Bristow et al, 1991a,b;Crockett, 1992;Geurs et al, 2006;Humphreys and Fowkes, 2006;Painter et al, 2001;Roson, 2001), shown in Table 3. This is primarily because the data deal with factors that are unobservable in the market, while revealed preference (RP) data are based on market surveys.…”

“…Various studies have classified the total amount via the use benefit that addresses the willingness to pay for actual usage and the non-use counterpart which includes the option value (Bristow et al, 1991a,b;Crockett, 1992;Painter et al, 2001). Direct, indirect and non-use values are another rule for this grouping (Humphreys and Fowkes, 2006); the option value belongs to the non-use worth in this arrangement.…”

The wider value of rural rail provision

“…A student project with a very small sample size (Crockett, 1992), is the only study to examine rail in deep rural areas to our knowledge and does not provide separate estimates of option and non use values. Painter et al (2002) also look non use values of rural bus networks but do not report option values.…”