Abstract

A brief discussion on discrete choice models served to motivate the practice of valuing transport externalities by means of stated choice surveys. As in most applications, a sound microeconomic theory is required if the modeller pretends his research to be an adequate input for cost-benefit analysis. Three case studies were described in this chapter. The aim of each was to elicit the values people place on three local environmental goods (urban accidents, air pollution and noise); although proper markets are not available for these, preferences are deemed to be well defined. These studies show that stated choice surveys provide a way forward to derive such monetary values. However, to obtain values that could be consistently used at governmental level in official cost-benefit analysis there is still a long way to go. More empirical evidence is needed and a great deal of external validation of the derived values is required. The most important conclusion with respect to the three case studies is the realism that the stated choice technique needs to achieve if the experiment is to yield satisfactory and truthful results. Simulated markets should mimic real-life markets in order to provide a sensible input for costbenefit analysis. Besides, these experiments should also help to understand how people could adjust their behaviour in the presence of externalities so that appropriate forecast can be made when the level of an externality changes. The three studies considered show that stated choice survey techniques can be implemented in developing countries. Transferring values from developed countries to the developing world is not warranted and many caveats should be considered. Hence, it is apparent that there is a need for undertaking this kind of studies in countries at various levels of development. © 2007 Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.