Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment
AbstractPrevious research has shown that people wish a premium to be placed on the prevention of certain types of deaths as they perceive those deaths as 'worse' than others. The research reported in this paper is an attempt to quantify such a 'bad death' premium via a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The four underlying attributes included were: the age of the victim, who was most to blame for the death, the severity of the victim's pain and suffering in the period leading up to death, and the duration of the victim's pain and suffering in the period leading up to death. In addition, a fifth attribute - number of deaths - was included in order to provide a quantitative scale against which to measure the "bad death premium". The results show that each of the 4 underlying attributes did matter to respondents in determining whether deaths were worse than others, but also uncovered marked insensitivity to variations in the number of those deaths. The implication of our findings for the use of quantitative variables in DCEs is 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Queen Mary, University of London, School of Economics and Finance in its series Working Papers with number 597.
Date of creation: May 2007
Date of revision:
Discrete choice experiment; Value of preventing a fatality; Relative weights; Insensitivity;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
- I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-05-19 (All new papers)
- NEP-DCM-2007-05-19 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-HEA-2007-05-19 (Health Economics)
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.:
- Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
- Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-24, November.
- Chilton, Susan, et al, 2002. " Public Perceptions of Risk and Preference-Based Values of Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 211-32, November.
- Jin-Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt, 2003.
"Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk,"
NBER Working Papers
10012, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James Hammitt & Jin-Tan Liu, 2004. "Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 73-95, January.
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2002.
"Is Transport Safety More Valuable in the Air?,"
Working Papers in Economics
84, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
- Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402.
- K. K. Lancaster, 2010. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1385, David K. Levine.
- Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
- Jones-Lee, M W & Hammerton, M & Philips, P R, 1985. "The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(377), pages 49-72, March.
- Sunstein, Cass R, 1997. "Bad Deaths," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 259-82, May-June.
- Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2003. "Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 479-491.
- Judith Covey & Angela Robinson & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2010. "Responsibility, scale and the valuation of rail safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 85-108, February.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nick Vriend).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.