IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea01/20731.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Absolute Versus Relative Risk Perceptions: An Application To Economic Values Of Seafood Safety

Author

Listed:
  • Huang, Ju-Chin
  • Haab, Timothy C.
  • Whitehead, John C.

Abstract

We examine the impact of multiple risks of related goods on consumption of a risky good. We argue that the consumption of a risky good depends on both its absolute risk level and its relative risks to other risky goods. Seafood consumption in eastern North Carolina is studied. We elicit, in a survey, the individual perceived risks as the reference points to derive the economic value of reducing health risk in seafood consumption. Revealed and stated data are combined to trace out demand changes in response to absolute and relative risk reductions. Our results show that seafood consumption is affected by the perceived absolute risk and by the relative risk to poultry, which confirms that individuals react to the multiple risks in a nonlinear way--as predicted by our analytical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 2001. "Absolute Versus Relative Risk Perceptions: An Application To Economic Values Of Seafood Safety," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20731, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea01:20731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/20731
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Puto, Christopher P, 1987. " The Framing of Buying Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 301-315, December.
    2. Young Sook Eom, 1994. "Pesticide Residue Risk and Food Safety Valuation: A Random Utility Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 760-771.
    3. Smith, V Kerry & Johnson, F Reed, 1988. "How Do Risk Perceptions Respond to Information? The Case of Radon," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 1-8, February.
    4. Mark E. Smith & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay & Stanley R. Thompson, 1988. "Sales Loss Determination in Food Contamination Incidents: An Application to Milk Bans in Hawaii," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 513-520.
    5. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    6. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2001. "Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 42-55.
    7. Deborah J. Brown & Lee F. Schrader, 1990. "Cholesterol Information and Shell Egg Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 548-555.
    8. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    9. Smith, Mark E. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen O. & Thompson, Stanley R., 1987. "Sales Loss Determination in Food Contamination Incidents: An Application to Milk Bans in Hawaii," Working Papers 115803, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    10. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    11. C.-T Jordan Lin & J. Walter Milon, 1993. "Attribute and Safety Perceptions in a Double-Hurdle Model of Shellfish Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 724-729.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ags:aaea01:20731. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

    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.