The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey

Jones‐Lee, Michael; Hammerton, M.; Philips, P. R.

doi:10.2307/2233468

Cited by 434 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

211

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed already, this was not a problem as only relative valuations across hazards were being investigated. In addition, there are considerable practical problems in obtaining an unbiased unconstrained numerical answer (see Jones-Lee, Hammerton and Philips, 1985). As to the actual wording used, a number of different versions were considered.…”

Section: Q42mentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risk

Savage¹

1993

J Risk Uncertainty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Q42mentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risk

Savage¹

1993

J Risk Uncertainty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We are looking for factors that systematically affect the magnitude of the cancer VSL and VSCC within a cancer context, and we are not seeking to estimate the so-called cancer premium, which has been investigated, with mixed results, in earlier studies (Jones-Lee et al, 1985;Hammitt and Haninger, 2010;Adamowicz et al, 2011;Lindhjem et al, 2011;OECD, 2012). Moreover, in past research we have found that cancer values trump those for any other cause of death Ščasný, 2011, 2013) making it difficult to investigate issues of scope and attributes associated with illness and death.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several risk-risk tradeoff studies have indeed found that people favor programs that reduce cancer mortality (e.g. Jones-Lee et al, 1985;Mendeloff and Kaplan, 1989;McDaniels et al, 1992;Savage, 1993;Tolley et al, 1994;Magat et al, 1996;Van Houtven et al, 2008). Stated-preference valuation studies have found either i) little evidence that the cancer VSL is higher than the VSL for other causes of death (Hammitt and Liu, 2004;Hammitt and Haninger, 2010;Chestnut et al, 2012), ii) modest cancer "discounts" (Tsuge et al, 2005, andAdamowicz et al, 2011), or iii) large variations associated with different causes of death (cancer, respiratory disease, road traffic accidents), resulting in cancer premia of 90-156% (Alberini and Ščasný, 2011;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study

Alberini

Ščasný

2018

Journal of Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We use stated-preference methods to estimate the cancer Value per Statistical Life (VSL) and Value per Statistical Case (VSCC) from a representative sample of 45-60-year olds in four countries in Europe. We ask respondents to report information about their willingness to pay for health risk reductions that are different from those used in earlier valuation work because they are comprised of two probabilities-that of getting cancer, and that of dying from it (conditional on getting it in the first place). The product of these two probabilities is the unconditional cancer mortality risk. Our hypothetical risk reductions also include two qualitative attributes-quality-of-life impacts and pain. The results show that respondents did appear to have an intuitive grasp of compound probabilities, and took into account each component of the unconditional cancer mortality risk when answering the valuation questions. We estimate the cancer VSL to be between € 1.9 and 5.7 million, depending on whether the (unconditional) mortality risk was reduced by lowering the chance of getting cancer, increasing the chance of surviving cancer, or both. The VSCC is estimated to be up to € 0.550 million euro, and its magnitude depends on the initial (conditional) cancer mortality and on the improvement in survival. We interpret these as "pure" mortality and cancer risk values, stripped of morbidity, pain or quality-of-life effects. The survey responses show that impacts on daily activities and pain have little or no effect on the WTP to reduce the adverse health risks.

show abstract

“…A specific measurement problem in CV risk change studies is how to convey present risk levels and changes in risk to respondents. A possible solution to this problem is given in Jones-Lee et al [21] where two hints are given to improve the respondents' understanding of the risk change. In our case these hints were put in practice by:…”

Section: Validity Of Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Wierstra

Geurts

Veen

2001

Integrated Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explores the boundaries of a valid application of contingent valuation as a method to value environmental changes. Recent criticism from social psychologists refers to unrealistic cognitive demands upon respondents. Criticism from economists point to the problem of measuring preferences in relation to non-use values. In this research the hypothesis is tested that the CV method in valuing goods with non-use value and with a complex content of information produces less valid results than with use values and non-complex content of information. Validity is tested across goods (sample survey: N = 832). Results show that scope validity is ambiguous for goods with high content of complexity. Construct validity is not guaranteed for environmental changes with non-use values: Economic factors are not significant, only attitudes are relevant. Given the importance of WTP figures in cost-benefit analysis these results are of paramount importance for the trust in contingent valuation.

show abstract

The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey

Cited by 434 publications

References 19 publications

An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risk

An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risk

The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About