Estimation of Willingness-To-Pay for Extensive Implementation of Congestion Pricing

혼잡통행료제도 확대시행에 따른 지불의사액 추정

  • 김건영 (한국교통연구원 동북아물류경제연구센터) ;
  • 한상용 (한국교통연구원 동북아물류경제연구센터) ;
  • 강경우 (한양대학교 교통시스템공학과) ;
  • 김태승 (경기개발연구원)
  • Published : 2005.08.31

Abstract

Traffic congestion causes enormous social costs as well as loss of travel time and waste of energy. Though the Seoul metropolitan government implemented various forms of transportation policies such as urban road pricing and public transportation reform, traffic volume which across the Seoul metropolitan borders have greatly increased because of housing land development in suburban area. The purpose of this study is to estimate individual's willingness-to-pay(WTP) for extensive implementation of congestion pricing through policy-mix with bus rapid transit(BRT) system. So the field survey interviews carried out. The empirical analysis was done with priority given to the following two topics; derivation of individual WTP and prior evaluation of policy effect from the equity aspect. To estimate individual WTP, we adopted contingent valuation method (CVM). The former is to estimate individual WTP for respondent's maintaining his/her transit pattern when he/she is faced with congestion pricing by using compensating variation(CV) concept. And, the latter aims at evaluating policy effect from the equity aspect by calculating the Proportion of WTP to average income using WTP in income bracket for policy scenarios.

교통혼잡은 통행시간의 손실과 에너지 낭비뿐만 아니라 막대한 사회적 비용을 발생시킨다. 서울시는 도심통행료 도입, 대중교통체계개편 등 다양한 교통정책을 실행해 오고 있으나, 수도권외곽의 택지개발등으로 시계 유출입 교통량은 크게 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 본 연구의 목적은 광역급행버스시스템 (Bus Rapid Transit: BRT)과의 정책결합을 통한 혼잡통행료제도 확대시행에 따른 지불의사액 (Willingness-To-Pay: WTP)을 추정하는 것이다. 분석을 위해 가구방문 직접면접조사를 실시하였다. 본 연구는 크게 두 가지 부분으로 구성되어 있다. 첫째는 일인당 지불의사액 분석이고 둘째는 형평성 분석이다. 일인당 지불의사액 분석은 개별 시나리오에 대한 통행자가 현재 통행수단 유지를 위한 보상변화(Compensating Variation, CV)규모를 지불의사액의 개념에 따라 측정하는 것이다. 지불의사액 도출을 위해서는 조건부가치측정법(Contingent Valuation Method : CVM)을 적용하였다. 형평성 분석은 정책 시나리오에 대해 통행자를 소득계층별로 구분하여 현재 통행수단 유지를 위한 보상변화를 측정하고, 이것이 계층별 평균소득에서 차지하는 비중을 계산함으로써 정책 시행효과를 확인하는 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 박창호. 진삼현(1994), '교통혼잡비용 적용에 따른 승용차 행태분석에 관한 연구', 대한교통학회지, 제12권 4호, 대한교통학회, pp.131-151
  2. 조혜진(2001), '교통정보시스템과 다양한 다이나믹 혼잡통행료의 결합시행에 대한 연구', 대한교통학회 제39회 학술발표논문집, 대한교통학회, pp.135-155
  3. Brent. R. J.(1995), Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
  4. Cameron, T. and James. D.(1987), 'Efficient Estimation Methode for 'Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys', Review of Economics and Statistics 69, pp.269-276 https://doi.org/10.2307/1927234
  5. Cameron, T.(1988), 'A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15, pp.355-379 https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3
  6. Gonzalez-Caban, A. and Loomis, J.(1986), 'Economic Benefits of Maintaining Ecological Integrity of Rio Mameyes in Puerto Rico', Ecological Economics 21, pp.63-75 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00093-6
  7. Hanemann, W. M.(1984), 'Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, pp.332-341 https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  8. Hanemann, W. M. (1989), 'Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Respones: Reply', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, pp.1057-1061 https://doi.org/10.2307/1242685
  9. Kealy, M., Dovidio, J. and Rockel, M.(1988), 'Accuracy in Valuation is a Matter of Degree', Land Economics 64, pp.158-170 https://doi.org/10.2307/3146821
  10. Kling, C. and Sexton, R.(1990), 'Bootstrapping in Applied Welfare Analvsis,' American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, pp.406-418 https://doi.org/10.2307/1242343
  11. Loomis, J.(1990), 'Comparative Reliability of the Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Techniques', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, pp.78-85 https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90053-2
  12. MCConnell, K. E. (1990), 'Models for Referendum Data: the Structure of Discrete Choice Models for Contingent Valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 18, pp.19-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90049-5
  13. Mitchell. R. C. and Carson, R. T.(1989), Using Surveys to Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future
  14. Park. T., Loomis, J. and Creel, M.(1991), 'Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies', Land Economics 67, pp.64-73 https://doi.org/10.2307/3146486