IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i5p1199-1214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Choice Experiments to Assess People's Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials

Author

Listed:
  • Lena Winslott Hiselius

Abstract

This article investigates whether the choice experiment approach can be used to assess people's preferences and the determinants of these preferences in order to estimate the costs and benefits of different configurations of the transport of hazardous materials by rail. Changes in the exposure to hazardous materials that people are subjected to are used rather than changes in accident risk. To the best knowledge of the author, this has not been done before in a study of people's preferences toward hazardous materials. A mail survey, carried out in two cities in Sweden, is used to obtain tentative estimates of the willingness to pay for a reduction in exposure as well as the willingness to accept an increase in exposure. Special attention is given to viability, since the complexity of the activity studied, transport of hazardous materials, and the method used pose particular challenges. The response rate and tests of validity and consistency indicate that this method can be applied. Moreover, the results suggest that studies of this kind may provide guidance on changes in the transport of hazardous materials, especially because policymakers may influence the attributes presented here. Referring to the exposure of hazardous materials highlights the importance of providing the respondents with adequate information regarding hazardous transports. An important finding is that the amount of background information may have some effect on the stated preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Lena Winslott Hiselius, 2005. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess People's Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1199-1214, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1199-1214
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00660.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00660.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00660.x?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. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
    2. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    3. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    4. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1)," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 909-912, September.
    5. Algers, S. & Bergstrom, P. & Dahlberg, M. & Dillen, J.L., 1998. "Mixed Logit Estimation of the Value of Travel Time," Papers 1998:15, Uppsala - Working Paper Series.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    7. Wheeler, Sarah Ann & Damania, Richard, 2001. "Valuing New Zealand recreational fishing and an assessment of the validity of the contingent valuation estimates," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(4), pages 1-23.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    9. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    10. 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.
    11. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    12. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    13. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    14. Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139, March.
    15. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Ryan, Mandy, 1999. "Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 535-546, February.
    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. Sisi Que & Liang Wang & Kwame Awuah-Offei & Wei Yang & Hui Jiang, 2019. "Corporate Social Responsibility: Understanding the Mining Stakeholder with a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Grilli, Gianluca & Notaro, Sandra & Campbell, Danny, 2018. "Including Value Orientations in Choice Models to Estimate Benefits of Wildlife Management Policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 70-81.
    3. Elifcan Göçmen & Rızvan Erol, 2018. "The Problem of Sustainable Intermodal Transportation: A Case Study of an International Logistics Company, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.

    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. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess Peoples' Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Working Papers 2004:6, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    9. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    10. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    11. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    14. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 349-359, July.
    15. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    16. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    17. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Marva Stithou & Yiannis Kountouris & Phoebe Koundouri, 2011. "A Choice Experiments Application in Transport Infrastructure: A case study on travel time savings, accidents and pollution reduction," DEOS Working Papers 1116, Athens University of Economics and Business.

    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:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1199-1214. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.