1 Noise valuation: Results Alistair Hunt and Alberto Longo University of Bath EC HEATCO project meeting 19 January 2006, Las Palmas

2 Descriptive Statistics - Survey size

3 Descriptive Statistics – Characteristics of the Road samples

4 Descriptive stats - Road (1)

5

6 Descriptive Statistics - Road (2)

7 Distribution of WTP responses -road

8

9

10 Distribution of WTP responses -road

11 Distribution of WTP responses -road

12 Distribution of WTP responses -road

13 Distribution of WTP responses -road

14 Road “No” votes Why did you vote no, or did not answer the wtp question? UKSwedenNorwayHungaryGermanySpain Percent I am not that bothered, disturbed or annoyed by the road traffic noise that I would pay I cannot afford to pay It is more important to reduce other nuisances from road traffic The noise reducing measures cannot remove my annoyance from road traffic noise If you live in a city there will be road traffic noise I am going to move soon I already pay enough charges and taxes Government should pay Those that cause the noise should pay for it I do not want more roadwork in the street The question about paying is too difficult to answer Protesters in orange

15 Econometric model Mean WTP is thus, where E(WTP) is mean WTP. WTP* denotes WTP for the entire sample, while WTP denotes WTP for those persons in the sample who hold positive values for the program. Positive data are analyzed as an interval data model assuming a Weibull distribution of the error terms

16 Road WTP Results (Euro) - UK

17 Road WTP Results (Euro) - Sweden

18 Road WTP Results (Euro) - Norway

19 Road WTP Results (Euro) - Hungary

20 Road WTP Results (Euro) - Germany

21 Road WTP Results (Euro) - Spain

22 Road results - UK

23 Road results - Sweden

24 Road results - Norway

25 Road results - Hungary

26 Road results - Germany

27 Road results - Spain

28 Road results (Euro)

29 Pooled data - Road

30 Pooled data - Road

31 Road Analysis: Conclusions 1.High number of respondents with WTP=0 2.High number of protesters in the UK (50%) and Norway (54.7%) 3.WTP depends on annoyance levels in Sweden on high levels of annoyance in the UK and Hungary on annoyance (but not different levels of annoyance) in Norway 4.Germany is not WTP for annoyance reduction 5.Mixed results for Urban Vs Rural: WTP for Urban is less than for Rural in UK, Sweden, Hungary. 6.Pooled results conforms with economic theory

32 Descriptive stats - Rail (1)

33

34 Descriptive stats - Rail (2)

35 Distribution of WTP responses - rail

36 Distribution of WTP responses - rail

37 Distribution of WTP responses - rail

38 Distribution of WTP responses - rail

39 Distribution of WTP responses - rail

40 Rail “No” votes

41 Rail WTP results (Euro)

42 Rail WTP results - UK

43 Rail WTP results - Norway

44 Rail WTP results - Hungary

45 Rail WTP results - Germany

46 Rail WTP results - Spain

47 Pooled data - Rail

48 Pooled data - Rail

49 Rail Analysis: Conclusions 1.High number of WTP=0 2.Rail noise WTP < Road noise WTP, except for Germany 3.High number of protesters: UK 45%, Norway 56%, Hungary 38%, Germany 42%, Spain 35% 4.WTP depends on annoyance levels in Germany on high levels of annoyance in Norway 5.WTP does not depend on levels of annoyance in the UK, Hungary, Spain 6.Mixed results for Urban Vs Rural: WTP for Urban is less than for Rural in Spain WTP for Urban is more than for Rural in Germany 7.Pooled data confirm that WTP does not depend on annoyance levels

50 Travel time

51 Travel time

52 Travel time

53 Travel time

54 Travel time

55 Travel time

56 Travel time

57 Travel time

58 Travel time

59 Travel time

60 Travel time

61 Travel time

62 Travel time

63 Travel time

64 Travel time St. errors in parenthesis

65 Travel time

66 Travel time

67 Travel time analysis: Conclusions High number of respondents with WTP=0 Many protesters in UK (43%) and Hungary (66%) WTP increases with time saving, as economic theory suggests Germany has low WTP compared to other countries