Cost-Benefit Analysis and Model Preference of Public Transportation in Can Tho City, Vietnam

被引:0
|
作者
Khong, Tien Dung [1 ]
Tong, Yen Dan [1 ]
Bui, Le Thai Hanh [1 ]
机构
[1] Can Tho Univ, Sch Econ, Can Tho 94000, Vietnam
关键词
contingent valuation methodology; inferred valuation; Mekong River Delta; public investment; public transport; BUS RAPID-TRANSIT; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; INFERRED VALUATION; SYSTEM; TRANSMILENIO; INJURIES;
D O I
10.3390/su15097247
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Bus rapid transit (BRT) systems are cost-effective and efficient transport systems in high-density urban centers. Given the high level of traffic congestion and air pollution in Vietnam, the introduction of BRT is significant due to the ever-growing number of motor vehicles in the country. In this study, we look at the economic viability of BRT in the city of Can Tho. The study adds to the literature on a developing country's content by calculating the costs and benefits of BRT. A feature of the study is the calculation of the benefits by estimating motorists' willingness to pay for the shift from motor vehicles to BRT. The results show that the benefits of reducing accident risk, reducing pollution emissions, and avoiding other adverse effects are adequate to offset the costs. Due to its adaptability, BRT is an excellent candidate for consideration in a wide variety of other conventional vehicles. When the local government lacks the financial resources necessary to execute BRT, the choice to invest in BRT may be anchored on the public's willingness to pay. Therefore, if government implementation seems unfeasible, private partners may engage in its development. This research contributes to the growing literature on implementing BRT projects and the WTP approach by examining the project's benefits and costs and addressing potential needs.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Cost-benefit analysis of urine pregnancy tests prior to menstrual regulation in Vietnam
    Huong, NTM
    Chongsuvivatwong, V
    Geater, A
    Prateepchaikul, L
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2001, 91 (05) : 825 - 826
  • [32] Flood Loss Models and Risk Analysis for Private Households in Can Tho City, Vietnam
    Chinh, Do Thi
    Nguyen Viet Dung
    Gain, Animesh K.
    Kreibich, Heidi
    [J]. WATER, 2017, 9 (05)
  • [33] The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It
    Flyvbjerg, Bent
    Bester, Dirk W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS, 2021, 12 (03) : 395 - 419
  • [34] Cost-Benefit Analysis in Reasoning
    Alaoui, Larbi
    Penta, Antonio
    [J]. JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 2022, : 881 - 925
  • [35] Beware the cost-benefit analysis
    Spence, Des
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 345
  • [36] Incommensurability and cost-benefit analysis
    Adler, M
    [J]. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, 1998, 146 (05) : 1371 - 1418
  • [37] In Defence of Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Ergas, Henry
    [J]. AGENDA-A JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND REFORM, 2009, 16 (03) : 31 - 40
  • [38] Cost-benefit analysis and the environment
    Sunstein, CR
    [J]. ETHICS, 2005, 115 (02) : 351 - 385
  • [39] UNEMPLOYMENT AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    BAXTER, ND
    HOWREY, EP
    PENNER, RG
    [J]. PUBLIC FINANCE, 1969, 24 (01): : 80 - 88
  • [40] Cost-benefit analysis of the RFA
    Dovich, Norman J.
    Soper, Steven A.
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2006, 314 (5806) : 1682 - 1682