IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v21y2019i1d10.1007_s10018-018-0222-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the risk–risk trade-off method for use in safety project appraisal responses

Author

Listed:
  • Jytte Seested Nielsen

    (Newcastle University)

  • Susan Chilton

    (Newcastle University)

  • Hugh Metcalf

    (Newcastle University)

Abstract

The risk–risk trade-off method is a technique used to elicit the relative trade-off between changes in morbidity and mortality risks in stated preference surveys. The responses can be used to inform the (relative) values or weights that should be given to different accidents in cost–benefit analyses of road-safety projects that reduce the risk of death or injury. While the method has some distinct advantages over eliciting direct monetary measures of value, it is likely to suffer from similar problems that are found in other stated preference surveys, which might mitigate against its more widespread use. This study explores this issue, but shows that the estimates from a risk–risk trade-off study can be improved by employing a pre-survey learning experiment in which respondents make incentivised risky choices and also using a frame that focuses on the total risk or risks that respondents face, thereby broadening the toolkit available to measure preferences over road-safety interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jytte Seested Nielsen & Susan Chilton & Hugh Metcalf, 2019. "Improving the risk–risk trade-off method for use in safety project appraisal responses," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(1), pages 61-86, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:21:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-018-0222-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10018-018-0222-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10018-018-0222-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10018-018-0222-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. Michael Cameron & John Gibson & Kent Helmers & Steven Lim & John Tressler & Kien Vaddanak, 2008. "The Value of Statistical Life and Cost-Benefit Evaluations of Landmine Clearance in Cambodia," Working Papers in Economics 08/04, University of Waikato.
    4. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Pereira, Joao, 2004. "The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: New evidence for health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 445-460, August.
    5. W. Kip Viscusi & Joel Huber & Jason Bell, 2014. "Assessing Whether There Is A Cancer Premium For The Value Of A Statistical Life," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 384-396, April.
    6. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
    7. Rebecca L. McDonald & Susan M. Chilton & Michael W. Jones-Lee & Hugh R. T. Metcalf, 2016. "Dread and latency impacts on a VSL for cancer risk reductions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 137-161, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535, Decembrie.
    10. Jytte Nielsen & Susan Chilton & Michael Jones-Lee & Hugh Metcalf, 2010. "How would you like your gain in life expectancy to be provided? An experimental approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 195-218, December.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M, 1996. "The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 263-275, November.
    13. Cherry, Todd L. & Shogren, Jason F., 2007. "Rationality crossovers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 261-277, April.
    14. Anna Alberini & Milan Ščasný, 2011. "Context and the VSL: Evidence from a Stated Preference Study in Italy and the Czech Republic," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 511-538, August.
    15. Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested & Hole, Arne Risa, 2018. "An investigation into procedural (in)variance in the valuation of mortality risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 278-284.
    16. Cameron, Michael & Gibson, John & Helmers, Kent & Lim, Steven & Tressler, John & Vaddanak, Kien, 2010. "The value of statistical life and cost–benefit evaluations of landmine clearance in Cambodia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 395-416, August.
    17. George Houtven & Melonie Sullivan & Chris Dockins, 2008. "Cancer premiums and latency effects: A risk tradeoff approach for valuing reductions in fatal cancer risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 179-199, April.
    18. Kip Viscusi, W. & Magat, Wesley A. & Huber, Joel, 1991. "Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-51, July.
    19. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    20. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    21. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    22. Cherry, Todd L. & Crocker, Thomas D. & Shogren, Jason F., 2003. "Rationality spillovers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-84, January.
    23. Steffen Anderson & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & Rutstrom Elisabet, 2007. "Valuation using multiple price list formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(6), pages 675-682.
    24. D. Gyrd‐Hansen & T. Kjær & J. S. Nielsen, 2012. "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 101-112, February.
    25. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-211, Spring.
    26. Wesley A. Magat & W. Kip Viscusi & Joel Huber, 1996. "A Reference Lottery Metric for Valuing Health," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1118-1130, August.
    27. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
    28. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    29. Jones-Lee, Michael W & Loomes, Graham & Philips, P R, 1995. "Valuing the Prevention of Non-fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs. Standard Gambles," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 676-695, October.
    30. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen & Jørgen Nexøe & Jesper Bo Nielsen, 2003. "How Do Individuals Apply Risk Information When Choosing Among Health Care Interventions?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 697-704, August.
    31. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sara Olofsson & Ulf G. Gerdtham & Lars Hultkrantz & Ulf Persson, 2019. "Dread and Risk Elimination Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2391-2407, November.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2013. "Exploring heterogeneity in the value of a statistical life: Cause of death v. risk perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 143-155.
    5. McDonald, R.L. & Chilton, S.M. & Jones-Lee, M.W. & Metcalf, H.R.T., 2017. "Evidence of variable discount rates and non-standard discounting in mortality risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 152-167.
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    7. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    8. Balmford, Ben & Bateman, Ian J. & Bolt, Katherine & Day, Brett & Ferrini, Silvia, 2019. "The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-84.
    9. Gentry, Elissa Philip & Viscusi, W. Kip, 2016. "The fatality and morbidity components of the value of statistical life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 90-99.
    10. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    11. 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, School of Business.
    12. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    13. Rebecca L. McDonald & Susan M. Chilton & Michael W. Jones-Lee & Hugh R. T. Metcalf, 2016. "Dread and latency impacts on a VSL for cancer risk reductions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 137-161, April.
    14. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    15. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2018. "The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 249-262.
    16. Bethany Cooper & Michael Burton & Lin Crase, 2019. "Willingness to Pay to Avoid Water Restrictions in Australia Under a Changing Climate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 823-847, March.
    17. Rikke Søgaard & Jes Lindholt & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 397-405, November.
    18. Rheinberger, Christoph M. & Schläpfer, Felix & Lobsiger, Michael, 2018. "A novel approach to estimating the demand value of public safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 285-305.
    19. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel, 2018. "Peeling back the onion: Using latent class analysis to uncover heterogeneous responses to stated preference surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 165-189.
    20. Anna Alberini, 2017. "Measuring the economic value of the effects of chemicals on ecological systems and human health," OECD Environment Working Papers 116, OECD Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk–risk trade-off; Stated preference;

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:21:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10018-018-0222-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.