Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 147–163

Is Transport Safety More Valuable in the Air?

  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Olof Johansson-Stenman
  • Peter Martinsson
Article

Abstract

Using a contingent valuation survey, people's willingness to pay for a given risk reduction is found to be much larger, consistently more than two times as large, when traveling by air compared to by taxi. Follow-up questions revealed that an important reason for this discrepancy is that many experience a higher mental suffering from flying, and that they are willing to pay to reduce this suffering. It was also consistently found that people are willing to pay more for a certain risk reduction if the original price was higher. Policy implications are discussed.

contingent valuation transport value of a statistical life willingness to pay anchoring bad deaths 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andreoni, James. (1989). “Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence,” Journal of Political Economy 97, 1447-1458.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoni, James. (1990). “Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm Glow Giving,” Economic Journal 100, 464-477.Google Scholar
  3. Beattie, Jane et al. (1998). “On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1-Caveat Investigator,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 5-25.Google Scholar
  4. Broome, John. (1999). Ethics our of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carlsson, Fredrik and Olof Johansson-Stenman. (2000). “Willingness to Pay for Improved Air Quality in Sweden,” Applied Economics 32, 661-670.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, Richard and Robert Mitchell. (1993). “The Value of Clean Water: The Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water,” Water Resources Research 29, 2445-2454.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman Gretchen B. and Eric J. Johnson. (2002). “Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value.” In Gilovich, Thomas, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Corso, Phaedra, James K. Hammitt, and John D. Graham. (2001). “Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 165-184.Google Scholar
  9. Diamond, Peter A. and Jerry A. Hausman. (1994). “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 45-64.Google Scholar
  10. Federal Aviation Administration. (1996). Statistical Handbook of Aviation. Available at http://www.api.faa.gov/handbook96/toc96.htm.Google Scholar
  11. Green, Donald, Karen E. Jacowitz, Daniel Kahneman, and Daniel McFadden. (1998). “Referendum Contingent Valuation, Anchoring and Willingness to Pay for Public Goods,” Resource and Energy Economics 20, 85-116.Google Scholar
  12. Hammitt, James K. (1990). “Risk Perceptions and Food Choice: An Exploratory Analysis of Organic-versus Conventional-Produce Buyers,” Risk Analysis 10, 367-374.Google Scholar
  13. Hammitt, James K. and John D. Graham. (1999). “Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 18, 33-62.Google Scholar
  14. Hanemann, W. Michael. (1994). “Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 19-43.Google Scholar
  15. Harsanyi, John C. (1982). “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior.” In Amartaya Sen and Bernard Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Harsanyi, John C. (1995). “A Theory of Prudential Values and a Rule Utilitarian Theory of Morality,” Social Choice and Welfare 12, 319-333.Google Scholar
  17. Hartog, Joop, Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, and Nicole Jonker. (2002). “Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics,” Kyklos 55, 3-26.Google Scholar
  18. Jianakoplos, Nancy A. and Alexandra Bernasek. (1998). “Are Women More Risk Averse,” Economic Inquiry 36, 620-630.Google Scholar
  19. Johansson-Stenman, Olof. (2002). “What Should We do with Inconsistent, Non-Welfaristic and Undeveloped Preferences?” In Daniel W. Bromley and Juoni Paavola (eds.), Economics, Ethics, and Environmental Policy: Contested Choices. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 103-119.Google Scholar
  20. Jones-Lee, M., M. Hammerton, and P. Philips. (1985). “The Value of Safety: Results of a National Survey,” Economic Journal 95, 49-72.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, Daniel. (1992). “Reference Points, Anchors, Norms, and Mixed Feelings,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51, 296-312.Google Scholar
  22. Kahneman, Daniel, and Jack L. Knetsch. (1992). “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Managements 22, 57-70.Google Scholar
  23. Kahneman, Daniel, Peter P. Wakker, and Rakesh Sarin. (1997). “Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 375-405.Google Scholar
  24. McDonald, John F. and Robert A. Moffitt. (1980). “The Uses of Tobit Analysis,” Review of Economics and Statistics 62, 318-321.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, Ted. R. (2000). “Variations between Countries in Values of Statistical Life,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 34, 169-188.Google Scholar
  26. Northcraft, Gregory B. and Margaret A. Neale. (1987). “Expert, Amateurs, and Real Estate: An Anchoring-and-Adjustment Perspective on Property Pricing Decisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39, 228-241.Google Scholar
  27. Persson Ulf, Anna Norinder, Krister Hjalte, and Katarina Gralén. (2001). “The Value of a Statistical Life in Transport: Findings from a New Contingent Valuation Study in Sweden,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 121-134.Google Scholar
  28. Slovic, Paul. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  29. Subramanian, Uma and Maureen Cropper. (2000). “Public Choices Between Lifesaving Programs: The Tradeoff Between Qualitative Factors and Lives Saved,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21, 117-149.Google Scholar
  30. Sunstein, Cass R. (1997). “Bad Deaths,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 259-282.Google Scholar
  31. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1974). “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, 1124-1131.Google Scholar
  32. Viscusi, W. Kip. (1992).Fatal Tradeoffs, Public and Private Responsibilities for Risk. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Viscusi, W. Kip. (1998). Rational Risk Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Carlsson
    • 1
  • Olof Johansson-Stenman
    • 1
  • Peter Martinsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsGöteborg UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations