Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 6
WTP estimates with delta-method (based on M2)
Variable
Coefficient
St.Err.
T-Stat
LUB3/EF1
-0.1938
0.0377
-5.13
LUB3/EF2
-0.2302
0.0511
-4.49
LUB3/EF4
0.2834
0.0621
4.56
LUB3/EF5
0.1358
0.0279
4.86
PLUBF2/EF1
-0.2213
0.0597
-3.7
PLUBF2/EF2
-0.2629
0.0679
-3.86
PLUBF2/EF4
0.3236
0.0911
3.55
PLUBF2/EF5
0.1550
0.0400
3.87
PLUBF3/EF1
-0.2358
0.0569
-4.13
PLUBF3/EF2
-0.2802
0.0716
-3.91
PLUBF3/EF4
0.3448
0.0828
4.16
PLUBF3/EF5
0.1652
0.0408
4.04
Table 7
WTP comparison between M1 and M2
Variable
M1 M2
WTP (discrete variation)
LUB
+800
145
81
(95
-195 )
(45
-117 )
PLUBF
+10
99
142
(73
-125 )
(95
-189 )
+20
198
(147
145
(102
-251 )
-188 )
reference, we need to construct 10 extra LUB to ensure one additional free LUB.
On the other hand, one could obtain the same result by an increase of 0.25 PBPs.
One extra free LUB is evaluated 1.80€ if obtained by construction of additional
LUBs whereas the same result would be evaluated 2.48€ if achieved by increasing
PBPs of finding a LUB free. The apparently contradictory result could be inter-
preted, on one side, as a lack of trust the interviewees have in the announced extra
LUBs construction policy which has for long been on the local administration
agenda and never materialized and, on the other, as an explicit preference for a
short-term, no-financial-outlay policy that can be simply pursued by an increased
surveillance and repression of illegal parking. The policy implications derivable
from this interpretation are clear and suggest the adoption of light intervention
policy based more on regulation rather than LUB construction with a limited
impact on the public purse.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search