IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i11p2359-2368.html

Illustration of a Method to Incorporate Preference Uncertainty in Benefit–Cost Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Sunhee Baik
  • Alexander L. Davis
  • M. Granger Morgan

Abstract

Benefit–cost analysis is widely used to evaluate alternative courses of action that are designed to achieve policy objectives. Although many analyses take uncertainty into account, they typically only consider uncertainty about cost estimates and physical states of the world, whereas uncertainty about individual preferences, thus the benefit of policy intervention, is ignored. Here, we propose a strategy to integrate individual uncertainty about preferences into benefit–cost analysis using societal preference intervals, which are ranges of values over which it is unclear whether society as a whole should accept or reject an option. To illustrate the method, we use preferences for implementing a smart grid technology to sustain critical electricity demand during a 24‐hour regional power blackout on a hot summer weekend. Preferences were elicited from a convenience sample of residents in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. This illustrative example shows that uncertainty in individual preferences, when aggregated to form societal preference intervals, can substantially change society's decision. We conclude with a discussion of where preference uncertainty comes from, how it might be reduced, and why incorporating unresolved preference uncertainty into benefit–cost analyses can be important.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunhee Baik & Alexander L. Davis & M. Granger Morgan, 2019. "Illustration of a Method to Incorporate Preference Uncertainty in Benefit–Cost Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2359-2368, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:11:p:2359-2368
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13338
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13338?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. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Butler, David & Loomes, Graham, 2011. "Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 511-522.
    3. Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert, 2012. "Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 148-166.
    4. Fischhoff, Baruch & Furby, Lita, 1988. "Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 147-184, June.
    5. Sunhee Baik & M. Granger Morgan & Alexander L. Davis, 2018. "Providing Limited Local Electric Service During a Major Grid Outage: A First Assessment Based on Customer Willingness to Pay," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 272-282, February.
    6. Pindyck, Robert S, 1991. "Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1110-1148, September.
    7. Joseph L. Arvai, 2003. "Using Risk Communication to Disclose the Outcome of a Participatory Decision‐Making Process: Effects on the Perceived Acceptability of Risk‐Policy Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 281-289, April.
    8. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    9. Henry, Claude, 1974. "Investment Decisions Under Uncertainty: The "Irreversibility Effect."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(6), pages 1006-1012, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Mary Jo Kealy & Robert W. Turner, 1993. "A Test of the Equality of Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Contingent Valuations," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 321-331.
    12. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Chris Starmer, 2015. "On preference imprecision," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 1-34, February.
    13. Amartya Sen, 1999. "The Possibility of Social Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 349-378, June.
    14. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1950. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4), pages 328-328.
    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. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Attanasi, Giuseppe Marco & Montesano, Aldo, 2010. "Testing Value vs Waiting Value in Environmental Decisions under Uncertainty," TSE Working Papers 10-154, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Antoinette Baujard, 2016. "Welfare economics," Chapters, in: Gilbert Faccarello & Heinz D. Kurz (ed.), Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis Volume III, chapter 42, pages 611-624, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Gürtler Marc & Sieg Gernot, 2010. "Crunch Time: A Policy to Avoid the ‘Announcement Effect’ when Terminating a Subsidy," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 25-36, February.
    5. Abebayehu Tegene & Keith Wiebe & Betsey Kuhn, 1999. "Irreversible Investment Under Uncertainty: Conservation Easements and the Option to Develop Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 203-219, May.
    6. Matthew P. Taylor, 2020. "Liking the long-shot … but just as a friend," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 245-261, December.
    7. Miguel A. Costa‐Gomes & Carlos Cueva & Georgios Gerasimou & Matúš Tejiščák, 2022. "Choice, deferral, and consistency," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(3), pages 1297-1318, July.
    8. Liu Shi & Jianying Qiu & Jiangyan Li & Frank Bohn, 2024. "Consciously stochastic in preference reversals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 255-297, June.
    9. Grainger, Daniel & Watkin-Lui, Felecia & Cheer, Karen, 2021. "The value of informed agency for Torres Strait climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Wiser, Ryan H., 2007. "Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: A comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 419-432, May.
    11. Kniebes, Carola & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Validity of WTP measures under preference uncertainty," Kiel Working Papers 1972, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    12. Youssef Allouah & Rachid Guerraoui & L^e-Nguy^en Hoang & Oscar Villemaud, 2022. "Robust Sparse Voting," Papers 2202.08656, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    13. May Elsayyad & Florian Morath, 2016. "Technology Transfers For Climate Change," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1057-1084, August.
    14. Balmann, Alfons & Musshoff, Oliver, 2002. "Is The "Standard Real Options Approach" Appropriate For Investment Decisions In Hog Production?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19897, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Mehmet Balcilar & Zeynel Abidin Ozdemir, 2017. "The nexus between the oil price and its volatility in a stochastic volatility in mean model with time-varying parameters," Working Papers 15-33, Eastern Mediterranean University, Department of Economics.
    16. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2013. "Happiness economics," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 35-60, March.
    17. Balcilar, Mehmet & Ozdemir, Zeynel Abidin, 2019. "The nexus between the oil price and its volatility risk in a stochastic volatility in the mean model with time-varying parameters," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 572-584.
    18. de la Croix, David & Pommeret, Aude, 2021. "Childbearing postponement, its option value, and the biological clock," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    19. Alexandra Rauchs & Marc Willinger, 1996. "Expérimentations sur les choix séquentiels : application à " l'effet irréversibilité"," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 47(1), pages 51-71.
    20. Clemens Löffler & Thomas Pfeiffer & Georg Schneider, 2013. "The irreversibility effect and agency conflicts," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 219-239, February.

    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:39:y:2019:i:11:p:2359-2368. 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.