IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aej/apecjn/v20y2013i2p75-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Parents Benefit from School Health Risk Reduction?

Author

Listed:
  • Phumsith Mahasuweerachai

    (Faculty of Management Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand)

Abstract

The choice experiment method was applied to determine parent’s preferences and monetary values of risk reductions on three related health issues in school, lead contamination in school drinking water, diarrhea from food contamination, and accident from outdoor playground. Data were obtained from face-to-face interview of 672 respondents in three regions of Thailand. Lead contamination is the greatest concern among parents as reflected by the largest coefficients of risk reduction levels and the highest amount of monetary values elicited from parent’s preferences. The other two issues are considered of equal importance. However, parents seem insensitive to the changes of risk reductions of these two issues revealing the scope insensitivity. Given the scope insensitivity, choice experiment may be seen as a promising method to determine preferences and monetary values of health related issues that have no appropriate or precise financial proxy available.

Suggested Citation

  • Phumsith Mahasuweerachai, 2013. "Do Parents Benefit from School Health Risk Reduction?," Applied Economics Journal, Kasetsart University, Faculty of Economics, Center for Applied Economic Research, vol. 20(2), pages 75-95, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:aej:apecjn:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:75-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.journal.eco.ku.ac.th/upload/document/eng/20131110100810.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    4. Kirsteen Smith & Ken Wright, 1994. "Informal care and economic appraisal: A discussion of possible methodological approaches," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 137-148, May.
    5. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    6. Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt & Jung‐Der Wang & Jin‐Long Liu, 2000. "Mother's willingness to pay for her own and her child's health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 319-326, June.
    7. Boxall, Peter C. & Englin, Jeffrey & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2003. "Valuing aboriginal artifacts: a combined revealed-stated preference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 213-230, March.
    8. M. K. Haener & P. C. Boxall & W. L. Adamowicz, 2001. "Modeling Recreation Site Choice: Do Hypothetical Choices Reflect Actual Behavior?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 629-642.
    9. Cockerill, C.A. & Chilton, S.M. & Hutchinson, W. George, 2007. "Household Decision Making Models And The Value Of Child Farm Safety," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7983, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Pereira, Joao, 2004. "The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: New evidence for health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 445-460, August.
    11. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    12. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    13. Dickie, Mark & Messman, Victoria L., 2004. "Parental altruism and the value of avoiding acute illness: are kids worth more than parents?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1146-1174, November.
    14. Chris Dockins & Robin R. Jenkins & Nicole Owens & Nathalie B. Simon & Lanelle Bembenek Wiggins, 2002. "Valuation of Childhood Risk Reduction: The Importance of Age, Risk Preferences, and Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 335-346, April.
    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. Mahasuweerachai, Phumsith & Pangjai, Siwarut, 2016. "Scope Insensitivity in Child's Health Risk Reduction: A Comparison of Damage Schedule and Choice Experiment Methods," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235577, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    2. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    3. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    5. Devesh Roy & Ekin Birol & Katharina Deffner & Bhushana Karandikar, 2010. "Developing Country Consumers’ Demand for Food Safety and Quality: Is Mumbai Ready for Certified and Organic Fruits?," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    7. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Birol, Ekin & Kontoleon, Andreas & Smale, Melinda, 2006. "Combining revealed and stated preference methods to assess the private value of agrobiodiversity in Hungarian home gardens:," EPTD discussion papers 156, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    10. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    11. Hurley, Jeremiah & Mentzakis, Emmanouil, 2013. "Health-related externalities: Evidence from a choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 671-681.
    12. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    14. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    15. Jeremiah Hurley & Emmanouil Mentzakis, 2011. "Existence and Magnitude of Health-related Externalities: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Department of Economics Working Papers 2011-01, McMaster University.
    16. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    18. Maples, Joshua G. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Peel, Derrell S., 2018. "Unintended consequences of the quest for increased efficiency in beef cattle: When bigger isn’t better," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 65-73.
    19. Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R. & Johnson, Erica H., 2010. "The effect of children on adult demands for health-risk reductions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 364-376, May.
    20. Hudson, Darren & Gallardo, R. Karina & Hanson, Terrill R., 2012. "A Comparison of Choice Experiments and Actual Grocery Store Behavior: An Empirical Application to Seafood Products," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 49-62, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-market valuation; safety in school; health risk reduction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:aej:apecjn:v:20:y:2013:i:2:p:75-95. 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: Chatrat Hemmawat (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feckuth.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.