Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 503–517 | Cite as

Comparing Tax and Tax Reallocation Payments in Financing Rail Noise Abatement Programmes: Results from a Stated Choice Valuation Study in Italy

  • Paulo A. L. D. Nunes
  • Chiara M. Travisi


The paper examines the use of stated choice experiments (SC) to assess the economic value of alternative rail noise reduction interventions on the Brennero railway in Italy. The paper formally tests the econometric robustness of the SC estimates under three payment regimes: (a) a regional tax, where consumers must trade off welfare gains due to noise reduction for part of their income; (b) a transport tax reallocation scheme, where consumers must trade off a part of the tax payments that are currently spent on the public transport sector; and (c) an administration tax reallocation scheme, where consumers must trade off a part of the tax payments that are currently spent on the administration sector. The test results are varied. On the one hand, the SC estimates are found to be statistically different for the tax reallocation and the tax introduction regimes. This confirms previous valuation research results, and thus reiterates the hypothesis that states the inequality between marginal values of private income and public money. On the other hand, the SC estimates are not found to be statistically different for the two proposed tax reallocation regimes, suggesting that, in the case study investigated here, the marginal value of public money does not depend upon the budget source.


Choice experiment Noise abatement Payment tax vehicle Tax reallocation vehicle Formal testing Welfare analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barreiro J, Sànchez M, Vilardrich-Grau M (2000) How much are people willing to pay for silence? A one and one-half-bound DC CV estimate, Paper in Proceedings of internoise 2000, 5:3408–3412, Nice, France, 27–30 AugustGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Yabe M (2004) Trading taxes vs. paying taxes to value and finance public environmental goods. Environ Resour Econ 28(4): 533–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaeij A, Nunes PALD, van den Bergh JCJM (2007) Modeling “no-choice” options in attribute nased valuation experiments: is one model is sufficient?. Appl Econ 39: 1245–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brons M, Nijkamp P, Pels E, Rietveld P (2003) Railroad noise: economic valuation and policy. Transp Res Part D 8: 169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Day B, Bateman IJ, Lake I (2007) Beyond implicit prices: recovering theoretically consistent and transferable values for noise voidance from a hedonic property price model. Environ Resource Econ 37(1): 211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer A, Hanley N (2007) Analysing decision behaviour in stated preference surveys: A consumer psychological approach. Ecol Econ 6(2–3): 303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freeman AM (2003) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods, 2nd edn. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Galilea P, Ortuzar JD (2005) Valuing noise level reductions in a residential location context. Transp Res Part D 10: 305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kontoleon A, Yabe M, Darby L 2005) Alternative payment vehicles in contingent valuation: the case of genetically modified foods. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 1827Google Scholar
  10. Lambert J, Poisson F, Champlovier P (2001) Valuing benefits of a road traffic noise abatement programme: a contingent valuation study. INRETS-LTE, France. Paper in Proceedings of internoise 2000, 5:3413–3418, Nice, France, 27–30 AugustGoogle Scholar
  11. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Morrison MD, Blamey RK, Bennett JW (2000) Minimising payment vehicle bias in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resour Econ 16(2): 407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Navrud S (2002) The state-of-the-art on economic valuation of noise. Final Report to European Commission DG Environment, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås, 04/02Google Scholar
  14. Provincia Autonoma di Trento PAT (2006) Trentino in schede, Servizio Statistica., at
  15. Revelt D, Train K (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices of appliance efficiency levels. Rev Econ Stat LXXX(4): 647–657Google Scholar
  16. Ryan M, Skåtun D (2004) Modelling non-demanders in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ Lett 13: 397–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swallow SK, McGonagle MP (2006) Public funding of environmental amenities: contingent choices using new taxes or existing revenues for coastal land conservation. Land Econ 82(1): 56–67Google Scholar
  18. Watkiss P, Jones R, Brand C, Forster D (2001) Cost-effectiveness of noise reduction measures. Report to the UK Department for Environment, Transport and the RegionsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Advanced Studies in Venice FoundationCa’ Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation (SIEV)VeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations