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! ]

Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Hiselius, Lena Winslott () (Department of Economics, Lund University)
Abstract

This paper uses the choice experiment approach to assess people's preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials. In a mail survey, carried out in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, changes in exposure to hazardous materials are used as a proxy for changes in accident risk. The results are analysed in the light of an earlier study on transports of hazardous materials by rail. Special attention is given to biases associated with the choice experiment method. The presence of hypothetical bias is studied by the use of self-reported degree of confidence that the respondent would vote the same way in a real referendum. The presence of a focusing effect is studied by an inclusion of information on other fatal risks. The indication is that there are no major differences in individual preferences for hazmat transported by rail or road. The estimates are also dependent on the confidence of stated choices and interpreting this dependence as a hypothetical bias, suggest that this type of bias tends to push estimated values downwards. The findings show that individual background data regarding transports of hazardous materials affect individuals in expected ways and there is no focusing effect.

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://www.nek.lu.se/publications/workpap/Papers/WP05_30.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Lund University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 2005:30.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 32 pages
Date of creation: 23 May 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hhs:lunewp:2005_030

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Box 7082, S-220 07 Lund,Sweden
Phone: +46 +46 222 0000
Fax: +46 +46 2224613
Web page: http://www.nek.lu.se/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (David Edgerton).

Related research
Keywords: Biases; Hazardous materials; Risk; Choice experiments;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models
D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
R41 - Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics - - Transportation Systems - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Nape, Steven & Frykblom, Peter & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lesley, James C., 2003. "Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 423-430, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-47, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-48, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2004. "Using Cheap-Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments," Working Papers in Economics 128, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  5. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482, 05. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Johansson-Stenman , Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2003. "Self Image And Choice Experiments: Hypothetical And Actual Willingness To Pay," Working Papers in Economics 94, Göteborg University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  7. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Johannesson, Magnus & Liljas, Bengt & Johansson, Per-Olov, 1998. "An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-47, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. " Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 15(3), pages 435-62, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  11. Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. 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)
  13. Andreoni, James, 1989. "Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1447-58, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Richard Cookson, 2003. "Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 891-894. [Downloadable!]
  17. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 03. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, March. [Downloadable!]
  20. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
  21. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess Peoples' Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Working Papers 2004:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
  22. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-40, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  23. Eckerlund, Ingemar & Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Tambour, Magnus & Zethraeus, Niklas, 1995. "Value for money? A contingent valuation study of the optimal size of the Swedish health care budget," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 135-143, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. " Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
  25. Ronald G. Cummings & Laura O. Taylor, 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All full texts are decentralized with the publishers, none reside on this server, thus making it possible to offer this service for free to all parties.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-23.

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.