IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/por/fepwps/384.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determinants of higher education students’ willingness to pay for violent crime reduction: a contingent valuation study

Author

Listed:
  • Mafalda Soeiro

    (Faculdade de Engenharia, Universidade do Porto)

  • Aurora A.C. Teixeira

    (CEF.UP, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto; INESC Porto; OBEGEF)

Abstract

By eliciting an individual’s Willingness to Pay (WTP) for a reduction in crime risks, the contingent valuation method is one of the most solid methodologies in use to estimate the intangible costs of crime. However, very few studies have applied contingent valuation methods to random samples of the population located in high crime rate areas. This study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first attempt to apply the contingent valuation method to estimate how much a specific group of society, which is relatively prone to falling victim to (violent) crime, i.e., students, is willing to pay to reduce the likelihood of being the victim of violent crime. In contrast to the existing literature, our study focuses on a rather unexplored context, Portugal, where criminality and violent crime rates are relatively low by international standards, even though they have been on the rise. Based on responses from 1122 higher education students in a broad range of degrees (from Economics to Psychology and the Humanities), we found that 33% of our respondents have been victims of crime in the past, although in general they did not result in physical or psychological injuries. A reasonable percentage of the students (almost 40%) is very worried about falling victim to a crime and 52.8% worries moderately. Over 40% of our respondents were willing to pay a certain amount but less than 50€, whereas 20.8% were willing to pay between 50€ and 250€. On average, all other determinants constant, younger and female students revealed that they were more inclined to pay so as to avoid violent crime than their older and male counterparts. Low and high income Portuguese students do not differ in their willingness to pay more to avoid being victims of violent crime. Cautious behaviour, such as locking doors at home, and a strong opinion about policies and payment vehicles with potential to reduce the risk of crime is positively associated with the WTP. Finally, the students’ field of study surfaced as a key determinant of WTP – students enrolled in Economics and Management revealed a higher WTP. Such findings are likely to have a critical impact on crime and insurance policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Mafalda Soeiro & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2010. "Determinants of higher education students’ willingness to pay for violent crime reduction: a contingent valuation study," FEP Working Papers 384, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
  • Handle: RePEc:por:fepwps:384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/10.07.26_wp384.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Bjornstad & Ronald Cummings & Laura Osborne, 1997. "A Learning Design for Reducing Hypothetical Bias in the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(3), pages 207-221, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martina Menon & Federico Perali & Marcella Veronesi, 2013. "Preferences for Social Inclusion: Empirical Evidence from Juvenile Rehabilitation in Italy," Working Papers 18/2013, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    2. Diego De Maria André & José Raimundo De Araújo Carvalho Júnior, 2016. "Spatial Willingness To Pay For A First Order Stochastic Reduction On The Risk Of Robbery," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 166, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    3. Tânia Dias & Pedro Sousa, 2012. "Explicit Social Costs Of Crime In A Time Of Crisis - Costs Of Law Enforcement In The Drivers’ Crimes," Book Chapters, in: João Sousa Andrade & Marta C. N. Simões & Ivan Stosic & Dejan Eric & Hasan Hanic (ed.), Managing Structural Changes - Trends and Requirements, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 111-128, Institute of Economic Sciences.

    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. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    2. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    3. Taylor, Laura O. & McKee, Michael & Laury, Susan K. & Cummings, Ronald G., 2001. "Induced-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 61-65, April.
    4. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    6. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    7. Ovchinnikova, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2009. ""I don't want to be selling my soul": Two experiments in environmental economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 221-229, March.
    8. Radmehr, Mehrshad & Willis, Ken & Kenechi, Ugo Elinwa, 2014. "A framework for evaluating WTP for BIPV in residential housing design in developing countries: A case study of North Cyprus," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 207-216.
    9. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    10. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    11. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark E., 2015. "Walk in my shoes: Nudging for empathy conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 147-158.
    12. Katherine Silz Carson, 2013. "Incentive compatible mechanisms for providing environmental public goods," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 15, pages 434-457, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J., 2010. "An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 2033-2041, August.
    14. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March.
    15. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Anna Bartczak & Wiktor Budziński & Marek Giergiczny, 2014. "Within- and between- sample tests of preference stability and willingness to pay for forest management," Working Papers 2014-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    16. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    17. repec:sss:wpaper:201406 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. McIntosh, Christopher R., 2014. "Preference reversals: experimental review and a new idea for using arbitrage within the double bound dichotomous choice elicitation method," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11.
    19. Anthony Burton & Katherine Carson & Susan Chilton & W. Hutchinson, 2007. "Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 513-525, December.
    20. Kelly Maguire & Laura Taylor & Shiferaw Gurmu, 2003. "Do students behave like adults? Evidence from valuation experiments," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 753-756.
    21. Rakesh Paliwal & Gejo Geevarghese & P. Ram Babu & P. Khanna, 1999. "Valuation of Landmass Degradation Using Fuzzy Hedonic Method: A Case Study of National Capital Region," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 519-543, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contingent Valuation Method; Intangible costs; Crime costs;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:por:fepwps:384. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fepuppt.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.