The value of statistical life in the context of road safety: new evidence on the contingent valuation/standard gamble chained approach
-
Published:2021-09-22
Issue:2
Volume:63
Page:203-228
-
ISSN:0895-5646
-
Container-title:Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Risk Uncertain
Author:
Sánchez-Martínez Fernando-IgnacioORCID, Martínez-Pérez Jorge-EduardoORCID, Abellán-Perpiñán José-MaríaORCID, Pinto-Prades José-LuisORCID
Abstract
AbstractThis study estimates the value of statistical life (VSL) on a road traffic accident using the Contingent Valuation/Standard Gamble chained approach. A large representative sample (n = 2020) is used to calculate a VSL for use in the evaluation of road safety programmes in Spain. The paper also makes some methodological contributions, by providing new evidence about the consistency of the chained method. Our main results are: (1) A range from 1.3 million euro to 1.7 million euro is obtained for the VSL in Spain in the context of road accidents. This range is in line with the values used in the same context in other European countries, although it is lower than those obtained in different contexts and with other methods. (2) The method performs much better in terms of scope sensitivity than the traditional contingent valuation method, which asks subjects about their willingness to pay for very small reductions in the risk of death. (3) We introduce a new ‘indirect’ chaining approach which reduces (but does not remove) the disparity between direct and indirect chaining approaches. More extreme VSL estimates are still obtained with this indirect method than with the direct one. (4) VSL estimates depend on the injury used. More specifically, we obtained a lower VSL when a more severe injury is used. (5) Framing the risk of death in the modified standard gamble question as “10n in 10,000” instead of “n in 1000” influences the value of VSL. We attribute this effect to the Ratio Bias.
Funder
Universidad de Murcia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting
Reference38 articles.
1. Abellán Perpiñán, J. M., Sánchez Martínez, F. I., Martínez Pérez, J. E., & Méndez, I. (2012). Lowering the “floor” of the SF-6D scoring algorithm using a lottery equivalent method. Health Economics (United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1792 2. Anderson, R. G., & Kichkha, A. (2017). Replication, meta-analysis, and research synthesis in economics. American Economic Review, 107(5), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171033 3. Andersson, H., Hole, A. R., & Svensson, M. (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, 75, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.11.001 4. Balmford, B., Bateman, I. J., Bolt, K., Day, B., & Ferrini, S. (2019). The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches. Resource and Energy Economics, 57, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.04.005 5. Beattie, J., Covey, J., Dolan, P., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N., Robinson, A., & Spencer, A. (1998). On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 1-Caveat investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007711416843
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|