IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0142507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protective Behaviour of Citizens to Transport Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials: A Discrete Choice Experiment Applied to Populated Areas nearby Waterways

Author

Listed:
  • Esther W de Bekker-Grob
  • Arnold D Bergstra
  • Michiel C J Bliemer
  • Inge J M Trijssenaar-Buhre
  • Alex Burdorf

Abstract

Background: To improve the information for and preparation of citizens at risk to hazardous material transport accidents, a first important step is to determine how different characteristics of hazardous material transport accidents will influence citizens’ protective behaviour. However, quantitative studies investigating citizens’ protective behaviour in case of hazardous material transport accidents are scarce. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted among subjects (19–64 years) living in the direct vicinity of a large waterway. Scenarios were described by three transport accident characteristics: odour perception, smoke/vapour perception, and the proportion of people in the environment that were leaving at their own discretion. Subjects were asked to consider each scenario as realistic and to choose the alternative that was most appealing to them: staying, seeking shelter, or escaping. A panel error component model was used to quantify how different transport accident characteristics influenced subjects’ protective behaviour. Results: The response was 44% (881/1,994). The predicted probability that a subject would stay ranged from 1% in case of a severe looking accident till 62% in case of a mild looking accident. All three transport accident characteristics proved to influence protective behaviour. Particularly a perception of strong ammonia or mercaptan odours and visible smoke/vapour close to citizens had the strongest positive influence on escaping. In general, ‘escaping’ was more preferred than ‘seeking shelter’, although stated preference heterogeneity among subjects for these protective behaviour options was substantial. Males were less willing to seek shelter than females, whereas elderly people were more willing to escape than younger people. Conclusion: Various characteristics of transport accident involving hazardous materials influence subjects’ protective behaviour. The preference heterogeneity shows that information needs to be targeted differently depending on gender and age to prepare citizens properly.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther W de Bekker-Grob & Arnold D Bergstra & Michiel C J Bliemer & Inge J M Trijssenaar-Buhre & Alex Burdorf, 2015. "Protective Behaviour of Citizens to Transport Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials: A Discrete Choice Experiment Applied to Populated Areas nearby Waterways," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0142507
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142507
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142507&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0142507?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. Tami L. Mark & Joffre Swait, 2004. "Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(6), pages 563-573, June.
    2. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    3. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    2. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    4. Marta Trapero-Bertran & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín & Julio López-Bastida, 2019. "What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    7. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    8. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    9. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    10. Esther Bekker-Grob & John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1169-1183, December.
    11. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. William F. Vásquez & Jennifer M. Trudeau & Jessica Alicea‐Planas, 2021. "Immediate and informative feedback during a pandemic: Using stated preference analysis to predict vaccine uptake rates," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3123-3137, December.
    15. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    17. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    18. Ashlyn Hansen & Scott D. Brown & Marie B. H. Yap, 2021. "Enhancing Engagement of Fathers in Web-Based Preventive Parenting Programs for Adolescent Mental Health: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    20. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris‐Prestholt & Zindoga Mukandavire & Peter Vickerman, 2021. "Modelling the effect of market forces on the impact of introducing human immunodeficiency virus pre‐exposure prophylaxis among female sex workers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 659-679, March.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0142507. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.