This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Isabell Goldberg
Jutta Roosen ()

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Scope insensitivity and embedding are fundamental concerns in contingent valuation studies for health risk reductions. Recently, choice experiments have increasingly been used to obtain contingent willingness to pay (WTP) estimates. We juxtapose the WTP estimates of a choice experiment (CE) to those of the contingent valuation method (CVM) for different health risk reductions and compare them in the extent of scope insensitivity and embedding. WTP using CVM is scope sensitive for single health risks, but embedding is observed for multiple disease risks. In contrast, WTP based on the CE is highly scope sensitive and convex in risk reduction levels. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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/s11166-007-9006-9
File Format: text/html
File Function:
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.

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

Volume (Year): 34 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (April)
Pages: 123-144
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:34:y:2007:i:2:p:123-144

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

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: Choice experiments; Contingent valuation method; Embedding effect; Food safety; Scope insensitivity; Willingness to pay; C9; D8; D12;

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.:

  1. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. " Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
  3. Krupnick, Alan & Cropper, Maureen & Alberini, Anna & Heintzelman, Martin & Simon, Nathalie & O'Brien, Bernie & Goeree, Ron, 2000. "Age, Health, and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey of Ontario Residents," Discussion Papers dp-00-37, Resources For the Future. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  4. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M., 1996. "The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety," Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 103, Stockholm School of Economics.
    Other versions:
  5. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2005. "Effect of Experimental Design on Choice-Based Conjoint Valuation Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 87(3), pages 771-785, 08. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Jon Strand, 2005. "Individual and Household Values of Mortality Reductions with Intrahousehold Bargaining," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 217-236, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Cook, Philip J & Graham, Daniel A, 1977. "The Demand for Insurance and Protection: The Case of Irreplaceable Commodities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 91(1), pages 143-56, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Randall, Alan & Hoehn, John P., 1996. "Embedding in Market Demand Systems," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 369-380, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Persson, Ulf, et al, 2001. " The Value of a Statistical Life in Transport: Findings from a New Contingent Valuation Study in Sweden," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 121-34, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29, 02. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  13. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 322-32, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  17. Loomis John & Lockwood Michael & DeLacy Terry, 1993. "Some Empirical Evidence on Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation of Forest Protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 45-55, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  20. Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Shin, Seung Youll & Kliebenstein, James B., 1995. "Valuing Food Safety in Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers 835, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  21. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16. [Downloadable!]
  22. Thomas Hammerschmidt & Hans-Peter Zeitler & Reiner Leidl, 2004. "A utility-theoretic approach to the aggregation of willingness to pay measured in decomposed scenarios: development and empirical test," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 345-361. [Downloadable!]
  23. Fischhoff, Baruch, et al, 1993. " Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 211-34, June.
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, Swedish Business School. [Downloadable!]
  2. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Certainty calibration in contingent valuation - exploring the within-difference between dichotomous choice and open-ended answers as a certainty measure," Working Papers 2009:1, Örebro University, Swedish Business School. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-31.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.