Passenger Value of Time, Benefit-Cost Analysis and Airport Capital Investment Decisions, Volume 3: Appendix A Background Research and Appendix B Stated Preference Survey

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Landau ◽  
Glen Weisbrod ◽  
Geoffrey Gosling ◽  
Christopher Williges ◽  
Melissa Pumphrey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Value Of Time ◽  
Stated Preference Survey ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

Passenger Value of Time, Benefit-Cost Analysis and Airport Capital Investment Decisions, Volume 2: Final Report

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Landau ◽  
Glen Weisbrod ◽  
Geoffrey Gosling ◽  
Christopher Williges ◽  
Melissa Pumphrey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Investment Decisions ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Value Of Time ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost

Is Existence Value Appropriate for Regulatory Benefit–Cost Analysis?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-456
Author(s):  
Seth Binder
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Natural Resource Economics ◽  
Cost Analyses ◽  
Existence Value ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Ethical Frameworks ◽  
Existence Values ◽  
Benefit Cost

AbstractSince its introduction to the field of environmental and natural resource economics in the late 1960s, existence value has faced several critiques from economists, psychologists, and philosophers. Critics have taken aim at the notion’s conceptual ambiguity and lack of connection to observable behavior, its incompatibility with cognitive processes and its sensitivity to cognitive biases, and ethical shortcomings in applying existence values to environmental decisionmaking. Unlike some critiques of existence value that draw on cognitive and ethical frameworks for decisionmaking fundamentally at odds with stated preference methods and benefit–cost analysis (BCA), this paper takes as given the use and adequacy of both. It focuses on challenges to existence value per se, with respect to the ability of existence value estimates to contribute to benefit–cost analyses in a way that is consistent with qualities of BCA that its proponents value: the objectivity, commensurability, and moral salience of the values analyzed. In light of the challenges, inclusion of existence value in benefit–cost analyses is found to inevitably compromise the quality of the BCA with respect to each criterion.

Applying Benefit/Cost Analysis To Identify and Measure the Benefits of Intelligent Transportation Systems

1998 ◽  
Vol 1651 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Brand
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Customer Satisfaction ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Intelligent Transportation Systems ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Intelligent Transportation ◽  
Transportation Systems ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Model Chain

The guidance provided by benefit/cost analysis (BCA) is used to identify the measures appropriate for assessing the benefits of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) investments using BCA. Proper recognition of how ITS differs from conventional transportation improvements can avoid expensive data collection, serious underestimates of the benefits of ITS, and mistakes in our planning and investment policies. The steps in BCA are described, including its strict rules governing the inclusion of benefit measures. An ITS causal model chain is presented that links the five traditional ITS goals (efficiency, mobility, safety, productivity, and energy/environment). The model chain varies from the conventional planning model because the ITS mobility and productivity benefit measures do not vary directly with its safety, energy, and environmental impacts. Recommendations are given for avoiding double counting ITS mobility and productivity benefits, and for identifying them correctly. Errors in valuing the mobility benefit using observed data on travel and ITS product and service buying behavior are described, as is the potential for serious underestimates of ITS mobility benefits from using observed or predicted travel time savings as the primary mobility benefit measure. Instead, direct measurement and valuation of the ITS mobility benefit using customer satisfaction (stated preference) survey methods avoid the problems of ( a) how exactly to measure the utility-generating features of ITS user benefits, and ( b) observing the behavioral responses to ITS information, which involve expensive data collection. Measuring customer satisfaction directly can also simplify other areas of ITS evaluation, including avoiding traditional transportation modeling in some instances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document