대한교통학회지 (Journal of Korean Society of Transportation)

  • 제26권6호
  • /
  • Pages.143-154
  • /
  • 2008
  • /
  • 1229-1366(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-4217(eISSN)
대한교통학회 (Korean Society of Transportation)
권호 표지

철도의 선택 및 비사용 가치에 관한 연구

Option and non-use values of rail services

  • 장수은 (한국교통연구원 국가교통물류전략연구본부) ;
  • 강지혜 (한국교통연구원 철도교통연구실) ;
  • 이범신 ((주)GRI Research) ;
  • 윤석강 ((주)GRI Research)
  • 발행 : 2008.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 철도의 선택 및 비사용 가치를 논의한다. 교통서비스의 총경계적 가치는 여러 가지로 분류될 수 있으나, 사용 가치, 선택 가치, 비사용 가치로 구분할 수 있다. 사용 가치는 특정 교통시설의 실제 이용에 대한 지불용의액이다. 반면 선택 가치는 특정 교통시설을 주로 이용하지 않으나 잠재적 이용 가능성에 대한 지불용의액이다. 마지막으로 비사용 가치는 특정 교통시설을 실제로 또는 선택적으로 이용하지 않으나, 그 교통시설에 내재한 대리적, 이타적, 기능적, 존재적 가치에 대한 지불용의액이다. 선택 및 비사용 가치를 추정하기 위하여 이중제약 양분선택형 잠재선호조사를 시행한다. 조사된 자료를 생존모형을 이용하여 분석한다. 모형의 모수 추정치를 이용하여 철도의 선택 및 비사용 가치를 산정한다. 마지막으로 연구결과의 (예비)타당성조사 활용방안을 제시한다.

This paper considers option and non-use values of rail services. The total economic value of a given transport service can be classified into use, option and non-use values, other grouping rules can be applied though. The use value is the consumer's surplus from the actual rides of a specific mode. The option value, on the other hand, can be defined as a traveler's willingness to pay for reserving a travel mode, which is not his or her main choice, as a standby alternative. Finally, the non-use value represents benefits that are not attributable to the actual use or option use, but to the vicarious, altruistic, functional and existing worth of a transport service. A stated preference survey based on a double-bounded dichotomous choice is conducted. A survival model is applied to the data collected. Calculations of trip makers' willingness to pay for option and non-use values are based on the parameters of the estimated survival model. Some suggestions for transport appraisal are also presented.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 건설교통부(2007), "공공교통시설개발사업에 관한 투자평가지침"
  2. 장수은.정규화(2007), "철도사업 (예비)타당성조사의 사회경제적 가치 평가 항목 연구", 교통정책브리프 2007-05, 한국교통연구원
  3. 한국개발연구원(2004), "도로.철도 부문 사업의 예비타당성조사 표준지침 수정.보완 연구(제4판)"
  4. 한국교통연구원(2008), "철도사업 (예비)타당성조사의 편익 산정방안 개선연구", 국토해양부
  5. Bonsall, P., Wardman, M., Nash, C., and Hopkinson, P.(1992), "Development of a survey instrument to measure subjective valuations of non-use benefits of local public transport services". Selected Readings in Transport Survey Methodology, Ampt E., Richardson, A.. and Meyburg, A. eds., Eucalyptus Press, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, pp.71-87
  6. Bristow, A., Hopkinson, P., Nash, C., and Wardman, M.(1991a), "Evaluation of the Use and Non-use Benefits of Public Transport". Report No. 1. Developments of a survey methodology. ITS working paper 309, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds
  7. Bristow, A., Hopkinson, P., Nash, C., and Wardman, M.(1991b), "Evaluation of the Use and Non-use Benefits of Public Transport". Report No. 2. Application of the method. ITS working paper 310, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds
  8. Chu, X. and Polzin, S.(1998), "The value of having a public transit travel choice", Journal of Public Transportation, 2(1), 91-116 https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.2.1.5
  9. Crockett, D.(1992), "Should Non-Use Benefits be Included in Social Cost Benefit Analysis". Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds
  10. ECONorthwest and PBQD(Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas) Inc.(2002), "Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects", Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 78, Transportation Research Board
  11. Geurs, K., Haaijer, R., and van Wee, B.(2006), "The option value of public transport: methodology for measurement and case study for regional rail links in the Netherlands". Transport Reviews, 5(26), pp.613-643
  12. Humphreys, R. and Fowkes, A.(2006), "The significance of indirect use and non-use values in transport appraisal", International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), pp.17-35
  13. Laird, J., Batley, R., Nash, C., and Geurs, K.(2006), "Option Values, Non-use Values and Transport Appraisal", A report to the Department for Transport, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds
  14. Lewis-Workman, S. and Brod, D.(1997), "Measuring the neighborhood Benefits of Rail Transit Accessibility". Transportation Research Record, 1584, pp.1-7 https://doi.org/10.3141/1584-01
  15. Litman, T.(2006), "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs", Victoria Transport Policy Institute
  16. Painter, K., Scott II, R., Wandschneider, P., and Casavant, K.(2001), 'Using contingent valuation to measure user and nonuser benefits: an application to public transit'. Review of Agricultural Economics, 24(2), pp.394-409 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9353.00105
  17. Roson, R.(2001), "Assessing the option value of a publicly provided service: the case of local transport". Urban Studies, 38(8), 1319-1327 https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120061043
  18. UK Department for Transport(2007), "Transport Analysis Guidance"
  19. Weisbrod, B. (1964), "Collective-consumption services of individual-consumption goods", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78, pp.471-477 https://doi.org/10.2307/1879478