IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for the Valuation of Improvement in Road Safety


  • Naghmeh Niroomand

    () (Department of Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus)

  • Glenn P. Jenkins

    () (Queen's University, Canada and Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus)


This paper presents an empirical comparison of the contingent valuation method (CVM) and choice experiment (CE) method in the estimation of the non-market value of road safety improvements. In this study we used both the CVM and the CE method to identify the preferences and tradeoffs of automobile drivers in North Cyprus for road safety improvements. Mixed logit and payment ladder approaches were used to assess the driversÕ willingness to pay (WTP) for road safety improvements. Although the CVM yielded higher values than the CE, the differences between the estimates of WTP derived from these two methods were found to be statistically insignificant. The value of a statistical life (VSL) and the value of an injury (VI) were estimated for car accidents, and the value was found for the annual economic welfare loss from such deaths and injuries in North Cyprus. The point estimate of the value of a statistical life (VSL) expressed in euros is Û717,000, with the 95% confidence interval from Û315,293 to Û1,117,856, and the value of an injury (VI) is Û16,885, with the 95% confidence interval from Û5,603 to Û28,186. The point estimate of the VSL for North Cyprus obtained from this study was below Û1Êmillion, which places it among the bottom 30% of the estimates made internationally for these parameters. When aggregated over the whole country for 2014, the total annual economic welfare burden was Û46.7 million, which is equivalent to a economic welfare loss of 1.5% of the gross national product (GNP) of North Cyprus in that year.

Suggested Citation

  • Naghmeh Niroomand & Glenn P. Jenkins, 2016. "A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for the Valuation of Improvement in Road Safety," Development Discussion Papers 2016-10, JDI Executive Programs.
  • Handle: RePEc:qed:dpaper:292

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters,in: A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. Arianne de Blaeij & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Piet Rietveld & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-089/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Willingness to pay; contingent value model; choice experiment; road safety; car drivers;

    JEL classification:

    • R41 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise
    • G13 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Contingent Pricing; Futures Pricing
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:qed:dpaper:292. 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: (Bahman Kashi). General contact details of provider: .

    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.