IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Absolute Versus Relative Risk Perceptions: An Application To Economic Values Of Seafood Safety

Author

Listed:
  • Huang, Ju-Chin
  • Haab, Timothy C.
  • Whitehead, John C.

Abstract

We examine the impact of multiple risks of related goods on consumption of a risky good. We argue that the consumption of a risky good depends on both its absolute risk level and its relative risks to other risky goods. Seafood consumption in eastern North Carolina is studied. We elicit, in a survey, the individual perceived risks as the reference points to derive the economic value of reducing health risk in seafood consumption. Revealed and stated data are combined to trace out demand changes in response to absolute and relative risk reductions. Our results show that seafood consumption is affected by the perceived absolute risk and by the relative risk to poultry, which confirms that individuals react to the multiple risks in a nonlinear way--as predicted by our analytical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2001. "Absolute Versus Relative Risk Perceptions: An Application To Economic Values Of Seafood Safety," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20731, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20731
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20731/files/sp01hu02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20731?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    2. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    3. Mark E. Smith & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay & Stanley R. Thompson, 1988. "Sales Loss Determination in Food Contamination Incidents: An Application to Milk Bans in Hawaii," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 513-520.
    4. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    5. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2001. "Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 42-55.
    6. Puto, Christopher P, 1987. "The Framing of Buying Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(3), pages 301-315, December.
    7. Young Sook Eom, 1994. "Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 760-771.
    8. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    9. Smith, V Kerry & Johnson, F Reed, 1988. "How Do Risk Perceptions Respond to Information? The Case of Radon," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 1-8, February.
    10. Deborah J. Brown & Lee F. Schrader, 1990. "Cholesterol Information and Shell Egg Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 548-555.
    11. C.-T Jordan Lin & J. Walter Milon, 1993. "Attribute and Safety Perceptions in a Double-Hurdle Model of Shellfish Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 724-729.
    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. Ju-Chin Huang & Timothy C. Haab & John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Absolute versus Relative Risk Perception: An Application to Seafood Safety,”," Working Papers 0010, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    2. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2004. "Risk Valuation in the Presence of Risky Substitutes: An Application to Demand for Seafood," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-16, April.
    3. de Koning, Koen & Filatova, Tatiana & Bin, Okmyung, 2017. "Bridging the Gap Between Revealed and Stated Preferences in Flood-prone Housing Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Richards, Timothy J. & Allender, William J. & Fang, Di, 2011. "Media Advertising and Ballot Initiatives: An Experimental Analysis," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114814, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Eom, Young Sook, 1993. "Pesticide Residue Risks, Produce Choice, and Valuation of Food Safety: A Random Utility Approach," Working Papers 116113, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    7. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    8. Jin, Hyun Joung & Han, Dae Hee, 2014. "Interaction between message framing and consumers’ prior subjective knowledge regarding food safety issues," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 95-102.
    9. Glenn C. Blomquist, 2004. "Self-Protection and Averting Behavior, Values of Statistical Lives, and Benefit Cost Analysis of Environmental Policy," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 89-110, March.
    10. Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C. & Parsons, George R. & Price, Jammie, 2010. "Effects of information about invasive species on risk perception and seafood demand by gender and race," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 586-599, November.
    11. Jau-Rong Li & Dawn D. Thilmany, 1998. "Branded pork consumption in Taiwan: Analysis of market and product choice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 127-138.
    12. Islam Hassouneh & Teresa Serra & José M. Gil, 2010. "Price transmission in the Spanish bovine sector: the BSE effect," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 33-42, January.
    13. Antonovitz, Frances & Liu, Donald J., 1996. "A HEDONIC PRICE STUDY OF PESTICIDES IN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES; Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Agriculture, Food, and the Environment, June 17-18, 1996, Padova, Italy," Working Papers 14389, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
    14. Bennear, Lori S. & Olmstead, Sheila M., 2008. "The impacts of the "right to know": Information disclosure and the violation of drinking water standards," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 117-130, September.
    15. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
    16. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    17. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    18. Jose‐Maria Garcia‐Alvarez‐Coque & Ibtissem Taghouti & Victor Martinez‐Gomez, 2020. "Changes in Aflatoxin Standards: Implications for EU Border Controls of Nut Imports," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 524-541, September.
    19. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    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:ags:aaea01:20731. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.