Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation
AbstractThe methods and results of a contingent valuation survey to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation are reported. The study demonstrates that not only is it important to acknowledge that there will be losers from the introduction of such a programme but that losers must be allowed to express a value for the magnitude of their perceived loss. Two methods of valuing this loss are explored. Conventional willingness to accept compensation questions are compared with questions in which losers are asked to state their willingness to pay to prevent their water being fluoridated. The results provide tentative support for asking willingness to pay to prevent questions instead of willingness to accept questions when evaluating certain types of public good. The issue of protest responses in contingent valuation surveys is also highlighted and discussed.
Download InfoIf 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.
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 InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Applied Economics.
Volume (Year): 32 (2000)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Parkinson, Bonny & Goodall, Stephen, 2011. "Considering consumer choice in the economic evaluation of mandatory health programmes: A review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 236-244, August.
- Joan Costa-Font & Joan Rovira, 2005.
"Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the 'willingness to assign' approach,"
Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(14), pages 1571-1583.
- Joan Costa Font & Juan Rovira Forns, 2004. "Eliciting Preferences for Collectively Financed Health Programmes: the Willingness to Assign Approach," Working Papers in Economics 117, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
- Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
- David Cohen & Mirella F Longo & John Williams & Wai-yee Cheung & Hayley Hutchings & I.T. Russell, 2003. "Estimating the marginal value of 'better' research output: 'designed' versus 'routine' data in randomised controlled trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 959-974.
- Weatherly, Helen & Drummond, Michael & Claxton, Karl & Cookson, Richard & Ferguson, Brian & Godfrey, Christine & Rice, Nigel & Sculpher, Mark & Sowden, Amanda, 2009. "Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 85-92, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.