IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v69y1993i3p287-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • John B. Loomis
  • Pierre H. duVair

Abstract

Two versions of a contingent valuation questionnaire that differ only in the device used to communicate risks from hazardous waste were sent to California households. Both risk communication devices provide WTP functions which vary in a statistically significant fashion with the absolute risk reduction. However, these empirical results also demonstrate that different risk communication devices produce statistically different logit equations and hence estimates of willingness to pay (WTP) for reductions in exposure to hazardous waste. The pros and cons of using each risk communication device in CVM surveys is also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • John B. Loomis & Pierre H. duVair, 1993. "Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 287-298.
  • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:69:y:1993:i:3:p:287-298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3146594
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    2. Kawata, Yukichika & Watanabe, Masahide, 2012. "Valuing the mortality risk of wildlife reintroduction: Heterogeneous risk preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 79-86.
    3. Dr Clevo I. Wilson, 1999. "Pesticide Avoidance: Results From a Sri Lankan Study with Health and Environmental Policy Implications," Discussion Papers Series 264, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Robert Cameron Mitchell, 2006. "Public Preferences Toward Environmental Risks: The Case of Trihalomethanes," Chapters,in: Handbook on Contingent Valuation, chapter 19 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    6. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    7. Loomis John B, 2011. "Incorporating Distributional Issues into Benefit Cost Analysis: Why, How, and Two Empirical Examples Using Non-market Valuation," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    9. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2015. "Evaluating Change in Objective Ambiguous Mortality Probability: Valuing Reduction in Ambiguity Size and Risk Level," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Abou-Ali, Hala, 2003. "Using stated preference methods to evaluate the impact of water on health: the case of metropolitan Cairo," Working Papers in Economics 113, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March.
    12. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters,in: Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Loomis, John & Sanchez, Jose & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando & Holmes, Thomas, 2015. "Are WTP Estimates for Wildfire Risk Reductions Transferrable from Coast to Coast? Results of a Choice Experiment in California and Florida," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202661, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association;Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2003. "Option Wealth and Bequest Values: The Value of Protecting Future Generations from the Health Risks of Nuclear Waste Storage," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 537-548.
    15. Hala Abou-Ali, 2012. "Willingness to Pay for Improving Land and Water Conditions for Agriculture in Damietta, Egypt," Working Papers 667, Economic Research Forum, revised 2012.
    16. Perrings, Charles, 2001. "The economics of biological invasions," Land Use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research, vol. 1.
    17. Creel, Michael & Loomis, John, 1997. "Semi-nonparametric Distribution-Free Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 341-358, March.
    18. Riddel, Mary, 2011. "Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 341-354, May.
    19. Melkonyan, Tigran A., 2011. "The Effect of Communicating Ambiguous Risk Information on Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), August.

    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:uwp:landec:v:69:y:1993:i:3:p:287-298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.