Valuation of Transport Externalities by Stated Choice Methods

  • Juan de Dios Ortúzar
  • Luis Ignacio Rizzi
Part of the Contributions to Economics book series (CE)


Residential Location Road Safety Route Choice Discrete Choice Model Choice Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamowicz WL (2000) Environmental valuation case studies. In: JJ Louviere, DA Hensher, JD Swait (eds) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong PM, Garrido RA, Ortúzar JdeD (2000) Confidence intervals to bound the value of time. Transportation Research 37E: 143–161.Google Scholar
  3. Arsenio E, Bristol A, Wardman M (2002) Values of traffic noise from a stated preference-choice experiment in Lisbon. The 2002 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, Deaborn, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Carson R, Louviere JJ, Anderson DA, Arabie P, Bunch DS, Hensher DA, Johnson RM, Kuhfeld WF, Steinberg D, Swait J, Timmermans H, Wiley JB (1994) Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 5: 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caussade S, Ortúzar JdeD, Rizzi LI, Hensher DA (2004): Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates. Transportation Research B, (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Daniels R, Adamowicz WL (2000) Environmental valuation. In D.A. Hensher and K.J. Button (eds.), Handbook of Transport Modelling. Pergamon, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Gaudry MJI, Jara-Díaz SR, Ortúzar JdeD (1989) Value of time sensitivity to model specification. Transportation Research 23B: 151–158.Google Scholar
  8. Hanemann WM, Kanninen B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete response data. In: I. Bateman and K. Willis (eds), Valuing Environmental Preferences. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30: 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huber J, Zwerina K (1996) The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research XXXIII, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt JD, McMillan JDP, Abraham JE (1994) Stated preference investigation of influences on attractiveness of residential locations. Transportation Research Record 1466: 17–35.Google Scholar
  12. Iragüen P, Ortúzar, JdeD (2004) Willingness-to-pay for reducing fatal accident risk in urban areas: an Internet-based Web page stated preference survey. Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention 36: 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jara Díaz S, Videla, J (1989) Detection of income effect in mode choice: theory and application. Transportation Research 23B: 393–400.Google Scholar
  14. Jones Lee M, Loomes G (2002) Valuation of safety. In: DA Hensher, KJ Button (eds), Handbook of Transport and the Environment, Pergamon, Amsterdam, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Karlström A (2000) Non-linear value functions in random utility econometrics. Pre-prints 9th International Association for Travel behaviour Research Conference, Gold Cost, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  16. Lancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy 74: 136–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Maddala G (1992) Introduction to Econometrics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  19. Mc Fadden D (1995) Computing willingness to pay in random utility models. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. Nash, C (1997) Transport externalities: does monetary valuation make sense? In: Gde Rus, C Nash (eds), Recent Developments in Transport Economics. Ashgate Press, London.Google Scholar
  21. Ortuzar JdeD, Rodríguez G (2002) Valuing reductions in environmental pollution in a residential location context. Transportation Research 7D: 407–427.Google Scholar
  22. Ortúzar JdeD, Willumsen LG (2001) Modelling Transport. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  23. Ortúzar JdeD, Ivelic AM, Malbran H, Thomas A (1993) The 1991 Great Santiago origin-destination survey: methodological design and main results. Traffic Engineering and Control 34: 362–368.Google Scholar
  24. Ortúzar JdeD, Cifuentes LA, Williams HCWL (2000) Application of willingness-to-pay methods to value transport externalities in less developed countries. Environment and Planning 32A: 2007–2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ortúzar JdeD, Martínez FJ, Varela FJ (2000) Stated preference in modelling accessibility. International Planning Studies 5: 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pérez, P, Martínez F, Ortúzar JdeD (2003) Microeconomic formulation and estimation of a residential location choice model: implications for the value of time. Journal of Regional Science 43: 771–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rizzi LI, Ortúzar JdeD (2003) Stated preference in the valuation of interurban road safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35: 9–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rizzi LI, Ortúzar JdeD (2005) Road safety valuation under a stated choice framework. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, (in press).Google Scholar
  29. Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones (2002) Caracterización socioeconómica de los servicios de telefonía y tecnologías de información y comunicación. Informe Estadístico 4, SUBTEL, Gobierno de Chile (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  30. Saelensminde K (2001) Inconsistent choices in stated choice data. Transportation 28, 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schelling, T (1993) The life you save may be your own. In: R Dorfman, N Dorfman, (Eds), Economics of the Environment: Selected Readings. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Sillano M, Ortúzar JdeD (2005) Willingness-to-pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environment and Planning 37A (in press).Google Scholar
  33. Small K, Rosen S (1981) Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49: 105–130.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Street DJ, Bunch DS, Moore B (2001) Optimal designs for 2k paired comparison experiments. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 30: 2149–2171.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Train: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan de Dios Ortúzar
    • 1
  • Luis Ignacio Rizzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Transport EngineeringPontificia Universidad Católica of ChileChile

Personalised recommendations