IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/dpaper/5000.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the Value of Life and Injury for Pedestrians Using a Stated Preference Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Glenn P. Jenkins

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

  • Naghmeh Niroomand

    () (Cambridge Resources International)

Abstract

Introduction: The incidence of pedestrian death over the period 2010 to 2014 per 1000,000 in North Cyprus is about 2.5 times that of the EU, with 10.5 times more pedestrian road injuries than deaths. With the prospect of North Cyprus entering the EU, many investments need to be undertaken to improve road safety in order to reach EU benchmarks. Method: We conducted a stated choice experiment to identify the preferences and tradeoffs of pedestrians in North Cyprus for improved walking times, pedestrian costs, and safety. The choice of route was examined using mixed logit models to obtain the marginal utilities associated with each attribute of the routes that consumers chose. These were used to estimate the individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) to save walking time and to avoid pedestrian fatalities and injuries. We then used the results to obtain community-wide estimates of the value of a statistical life (VSL) saved, the value of an injury (VI) prevented, and the value per hour of walking time saved.Results: The estimate of the VSL was €699,434 and the estimate of VI was €20,077. These values are consistent, after adjusting for differences in incomes, with the median results of similar studies done for EU countries. Conclusions: The ratio of deaths to injuries is much higher for pedestrians than for road accidents, and this is completely consistent with the higher WTP to avoid a pedestrian accident than that to avoid a car accident. Moreover, the value of risk reduction (VRR) is perfectly rational for a given reduction in the probability of a fatality and an injury, which means it is an increasing function of the initial risk level. Practical Applications: Findings provide a set of information on the VRR that is useful in the ex ante appraisal of road projects for specific policy measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Glenn P. Jenkins & Naghmeh Niroomand, 2017. "Estimating the Value of Life and Injury for Pedestrians Using a Stated Preference Framework," Development Discussion Papers 2017-11, JDI Executive Programs.
  • Handle: RePEc:qed:dpaper:5000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cri-world.com/publications/qed_dp_5000.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Willingness to pay; choice experiment; value of a statistical life; value of an injury; road safety; pedestrians;

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • J17 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Value of Life; Foregone Income
    • R41 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise

    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:qed:dpaper:5000. 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: (Mark Babcock). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/qedquca.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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.