Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mary Riddel

    ()

  • W. Shaw

    ()

Abstract

Few theoretically-consistent empirical models addressing the relationship between ambiguity, risk, and preferences for health and safety exist. To fill this gap, we propose a theoretical non-expected-utility model (NEUM) that is relatively easy to estimate using an interval-data model. The NEUM we develop hinges upon two sources of variability, one over risk and the other over ambiguity about the risk. Using data from a survey of Nevada residents concerning risks from nuclear-waste transport, we provide individual-specific welfare estimate for a risk increase. Our findings suggest that negative externalities from nuclear-waste transport perceived risks and ambiguity may be substantial. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-006-8290-0
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

Volume (Year): 32 (2006)
Issue (Month): 2 (March)
Pages: 131-150

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:32:y:2006:i:2:p:131-150

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299

Related research

Keywords: Expected utility; Risk and uncertainty; Ambiguity; Nuclear-waste transport;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Eeckhoudt, Louis R. & Hammitt, James K., 2004. "Does risk aversion increase the value of mortality risk?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 13-29, January.
  2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
  3. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. " Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-84, September.
  4. repec:reg:wpaper:282 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Ho, Joanna L Y & Keller, L Robin & Keltyka, Pamela, 2002. " Effects of Outcome and Probabilistic Ambiguity on Managerial Choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 47-74, January.
  6. Mukerji, Sujoy & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2001. "Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Financial Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(4), pages 883-904, October.
  7. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. " Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-63, September.
  8. W. Viscusi & Harrell Chesson, 1999. "Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 157-184, October.
  9. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
  10. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2002. "Option Wealth And Bequest Values: The Value Of Protecting Future Generations From The Health Risks Of Nuclear Waste Storage," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19662, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  11. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-80, July.
  12. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. " Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 265-72, September.
  13. James J. Heckman & Robert J. Willis, 1975. "A Beta-Logistic Model for the Analysis of Sequential Labor Force Participation by Married Women," NBER Working Papers 0112, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
  15. David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
  16. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  17. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, 09.
  18. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank, 1985. "The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 273-287, October.
  19. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. " Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-70, October.
  20. Ermisch, John F. & Jenkins, Stephen P., 1999. "Retirement and housing adjustment in later life: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 311-333, June.
  21. W. Kip Viscusi & Joseph E. Aldy, 2003. "The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates throughout the World," NBER Working Papers 9487, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  22. Gawande, Kishore & Jenkins-Smith, Hank, 2001. "Nuclear Waste Transport and Residential Property Values: Estimating the Effects of Perceived Risks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 207-233, September.
  23. Trudy Ann Cameron, 2002. "Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2003-9, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 20 Jul 2002.
  24. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
  25. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00174539 is not listed on IDEAS
  26. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2001. "Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Financial Markets," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00174539, HAL.
  27. John B. Loomis & Pierre H. duVair, 1993. "Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 287-298.
  28. Chow, Clare Chua & Sarin, Rakesh K, 2001. " Comparative Ignorance and the Ellsberg Paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 129-39, March.
  29. Uzi Segal, 1985. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," UCLA Economics Working Papers 362, UCLA Department of Economics.
  30. repec:reg:rpubli:282 is not listed on IDEAS
  31. W. Kip Viscusi, 1994. "Mortality Effects of Regulatory Costs and Policy Evaluation Criteria," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(1), pages 94-109, Spring.
  32. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  33. Machina, Mark J, 1987. "Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 121-54, Summer.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Melkonyan, Tigran A., 2011. "The Effect of Communicating Ambiguous Risk Information on Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), August.
  2. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00721281 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. TREICH Nicolas, 2008. "The value of a Statistical Life under Ambiguity Aversion," LERNA Working Papers 08.05.249, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
  4. Gadaud, Juliette & Rambonilaza, Mbolatiana, 2010. "Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 297-311, December.
  5. Li, Zhengtao & Folmer, Henk & Xue, Jianhong, 2014. "To what extent does air pollution affect happiness? The case of the Jinchuan mining area, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 88-99.
  6. Hippolyte D'Albis & Emmanuel Thibault, 2012. "Ambiguous Life Expectancy and the Demand for Annuities," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00721281, HAL.
  7. Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Household perceptions of climate change and preferences for mitigation action: the case of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia," Research Reports 94819, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
  8. Shaw, W. Douglass & Woodward, Richard T., 2008. "Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 66-89, January.
  9. Hammitt, James & Robinson, Lisa, 2010. "Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards," LERNA Working Papers 11.02.336, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
  10. Fumihiro Yamane & Kyohei Matsushita & Toshio Fujimi & Hideaki Ohgaki & Kota Asano, 2014. "A Simple Way to Elicit Subjective Ambiguity: Application to Low-dose Radiation Exposure in Fukushima," Discussion Papers 1417, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
  11. Mary Riddel, 2012. "Comparing risk preferences over financial and environmental lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 135-157, October.
  12. Jindapon, Paan & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2008. "Option price without expected utility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 408-410, September.
  13. Kimberly Rollins & Mimako Kobayashi, 2010. "Embedding a Field Experiment in Contingent Valuation to Measure Context-Dependent Risk Preferences: Does Prospect Theory Explain Individual Responses for Wildfire Risk?," Working Papers 10-003, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics & University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.
  14. Riddel, Mary, 2011. "Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 341-354, May.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:32:y:2006:i:2:p:131-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.