IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v70y2022ics0160791x22001543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How are high-tech assistive devices valued in an aging society? Exploring the use and non-use values of equipment that aid limb disability

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Justine Jihyun
  • Lee, Jongsu
  • Shin, Jungwoo
  • He, Meihan

Abstract

The aging of the population structure and the increase in acquired disabilities lead to a greater need for assistive devices that promote social inclusion, which undeniably requires investment in high-tech assistive devices to promote social welfare. However, consistent efforts to develop methodologies for economic valuation of assistive technologies have been crippled by the lack of concepts associated with cost analysis, which is an essential aspect of economic valuation. This study examines the economic value of high-tech assistive devices that aid limb disability by proposing a new valuation framework that incorporates both the use and the non-use values and explores how the values vary with age. The use and the non-use value of high-tech assistive devices were estimated based on the theory of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs and the contingent valuation method. The average use value of high-tech assistive devices was approximately KRW 126,265.7 (USD 110.5) per month, which is 5.22% of the average income in South Korea, and the non-use value was approximately KRW 3055.8 (USD 2.7) per month. Whereas the use values decreased with age, the non-use value remained constant. In addition, while the average use value was higher than the non-use value, the percentage of non-use value in the total value of assistive devices increased with age, reflecting the higher possibility of using the device by oneself due to acquired disability.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Justine Jihyun & Lee, Jongsu & Shin, Jungwoo & He, Meihan, 2022. "How are high-tech assistive devices valued in an aging society? Exploring the use and non-use values of equipment that aid limb disability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:70:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x22001543
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X22001543
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Toms, G. & Verity, F. & Orrell, A., 2019. "Social care technologies for older people: Evidence for instigating a broader and more inclusive dialogue," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. Justin Grider & Bruce Wydick, 2016. "Wheels of fortune: the economic impacts of wheelchair provision in Ethiopia," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 44-66, March.
    3. Brown, Suzana & Vairis, Achilles & Masoumifar, Ali M. & Petousis, Markos, 2020. "Common problems with the conventional design of crutches: Proposing a safer design and discussing the potential impact," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. JongRoul Woo & Sesil Lim & Yong-Gil Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2018. "Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Natter, Martin & Kaufmann, Katharina, 2015. "Voluntary market payments: Underlying motives, success drivers and success potentials," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 149-157.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Helen Larkin & Danielle Hitch & Valerie Watchorn & Susan Ang, 2015. "Working with Policy and Regulatory Factors to Implement Universal Design in the Built Environment: The Australian Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Temple Jones, Chelsea & Rice, Carla & Lam, Margaret & Chandler, Eliza & Jiwon Lee, Karen, 2021. "Toward TechnoAccess: A narrative review of disabled and aging experiences of using technology to access the arts," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    9. Howard R. Bowen, 1943. "The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 58(1), pages 27-48.
    10. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    11. S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1947. "Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(4_Part_II), pages 1181-1196.
    12. Huang, Chun-Yao & Wu, Chang-Kang & Liu, Ping-Yu, 2022. "Assistive technology in smart cities: A case of street crossing for the visually-impaired," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Sukkird, Vatcharapong & Shirahada, Kunio, 2015. "Technology challenges to healthcare service innovation in aging Asia: Case of value co-creation in emergency medical support system," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 122-128.
    14. Jungwoo Shin & Yeunjoong Kim & Heekoo Nam & Youngsang Cho, 2016. "Economic evaluation of healthcare technology improving the quality of social life: the case of assistive technology for the disabled and elderly," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(15), pages 1361-1371, March.
    15. (Boni) Li, Yushi & Perkins, Amanda, 2007. "The impact of technological developments on the daily life of the elderly," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 361-368.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Marek Zabłocki & Bogdan Branowski & Przemysław Kurczewski & Jarosław Gabryelski & Maciej Sydor, 2022. "Designing Innovative Assistive Technology Devices for Tourism," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Changsok Yoo & Yelim Kim & Jee Hoon Sohn, 2021. "Evaluating the Social Cost of Conflict between New Media and Society: The Case of Gaming Disorder in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.
    2. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    3. Abay Asfaw & Joachim Braun, 2005. "Innovations in Health Care Financing: New Evidence on the Prospect of Community Health Insurance Schemes in the Rural Areas of Ethiopia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-253, September.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    8. Taale, Francis & Kyeremeh, Christian, 2016. "Households׳ willingness to pay for reliable electricity services in Ghana," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 280-288.
    9. Huang, Chun-Yao & Wu, Chang-Kang & Liu, Ping-Yu, 2022. "Assistive technology in smart cities: A case of street crossing for the visually-impaired," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    10. Jeongbin Lee & Jungwoo Shin, 2023. "The Economic Value of New Sustainable Products: The Case of Photovoltaic Thermal (PVT) Hybrid Solar Collectors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-12, July.
    11. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    12. Khalil, Fares Georges, 2024. "Socio-technical platforms for care transformation: An integrative synthesis and conceptualization," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    13. Nick Hanley & Felix Schlapfer, "undated". "Calibration of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods with Voting and Tax Liability Data: Provision of Landscape Amenities in Switzerland," Working Papers 2002_2, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    14. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    15. Agnieszka Lorek & Paweł Lorek, 2021. "Social Assessment of the Value of Forests and Protected Areas on the Example of the Silesian Voivodeship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    16. Clive L Spash, 2008. "The Contingent Valuation Method: Retrospect and Prospect," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-04, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    17. Wu, S. L. & Chen, J. H. & Chen, C. T. & Kan, C. E., 2003. "Study on environmental benefit of shallow groundwater resource conservation by deep water irrigation in paddy field," IWMI Books, Reports H033357, International Water Management Institute.
    18. Perdana, Arif & Mokhtar, Intan Azura, 2022. "Seniors’ adoption of digital devices and virtual event platforms in Singapore during Covid-19," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    19. Pandit, Ram & Dhakal, Maheshwar & Polyakov, Maksym, 2015. "Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: The case of Chitwan National Park," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Jakub Głowacki, 2018. "Monetization of social effects," Ekonomia Społeczna/Social Economy, Collegium of Economy and Public Administration, vol. 2, pages 33-40.

    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:eee:teinso:v:70:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x22001543. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.