IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235577.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scope Insensitivity in Child's Health Risk Reduction: A Comparison of Damage Schedule and Choice Experiment Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Mahasuweerachai, Phumsith
  • Pangjai, Siwarut

Abstract

The focus of this study is to explore the issue of scope insensitivity concerning two different elicitation formats with regard to differences in preferences distributions. For this purpose, we apply choice experiment (CE) and damage schedule (DM) methods to elicit preferences for different child’s health risk reductions in school in Thailand. The data comes from 1,116 parents who have at least one child attending school from prepared kindergarten to grade 9. Empirical evidences first suggest that these two methods provide the same preferences of respondents on the most preferred and the least preferred of risk reduction issues. However, scope insensitivity occurs for some risk reductions issues elicited by CE. Namely, willingness to pay of higher level of risk reduction and those of lower level of risk reduction in the same issue are statistically indifferent. On the other hand, there is no occurrence of scope insensitivity in all risk reduction issues obtained by DM. This pattern is still unchanged even when the sample is separately analyzed by socio-economic factors such as education and income.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahasuweerachai, Phumsith & Pangjai, Siwarut, 2016. "Scope Insensitivity in Child's Health Risk Reduction: A Comparison of Damage Schedule and Choice Experiment Methods," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, 2016, Boston, Massachusetts 235577, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/235577
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 437-456.
    2. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    3. Ratana Chuenpagdee & Jack L. Knetsch & Thomas C. Brown, 2001. "Environmental Damage Schedules: Community Judgments of Importance and Assessments of Losses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 1-11.
    4. Bernard van den Berg & Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2007. "Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1227-1244.
    5. Euston Quah & Edward Choa & K. C. Tan, 2006. "Use of damage schedules in environmental valuation: The case of urban Singapore," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(13), pages 1501-1512.
    6. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    7. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    8. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Erratum to: Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 457-457, November.
    9. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
    10. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    11. Baron, Jonathan, 1997. "Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 301-309, May-June.
    12. Kahneman, Daniel & Schkade, David & Sunstein, Cass R, 1998. "Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 49-86, April.
    13. Isabell Goldberg & Jutta Roosen, 2007. "Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 123-144, April.
    14. Phumsith Mahasuweerachai, 2013. "Do Parents Benefit from School Health Risk Reduction?," Applied Economics Journal, Kasetsart University, Faculty of Economics, Center for Applied Economic Research, vol. 20(2), pages 75-95, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Scope insensitivity; Damage schedule; Choice experiment; Health risk; Health Economics and Policy; Risk and Uncertainty; D61; H43; I18;

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea16:235577. 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.