IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v14y2013i5p739-748.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland: estimating willingness-to-pay using a discrete choice experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Trine Kjær
  • Mickael Bech
  • Christian Kronborg
  • Morten Mørkbak

Abstract

At present there are no nephrology facilities in Greenland. Greenlandic patients with renal failure needing dialysis thus have to travel to Denmark to obtain treatment. For patients in haemodialysis this necessitates a permanent residence in Denmark. Our study was aimed at examining Greenlanders’ preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland at Queen Ingrid’s Hospital in Nuuk, and to estimate the associated change in welfare. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). A random sample of 500 individuals of the general population was sent a postal questionnaire in which they were asked to consider the trade-offs of establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland as opposed to the current situation. This involved trading off the benefits of having such facilities in their home country against the costs of the intervention. Besides including a payment attribute described in terms of incremental tax payment, the DCE included two interventions attributes related to (1) the organisation of labour, and (2) the physical settings of the patients. Respondents succeeded in answering the DCE despite cultural and linguistic disparity. We found that all the included attributes had a significant effect on respondents’ choices, and that respondents’ answers to the DCE were in keeping with their values as stated in the questionnaire. DCE data was analyzed using a random parameter logit model reparametrized in willingness-to-pay space. The results showed that establishing facilities in Greenland were preferred to the current treatment in Denmark. The welfare estimate from the DCE, at DKK 18.74 million, exceeds the estimated annual costs of establishing treatment facilities for patients with chronic renal failure. Given the estimated confidence interval this result seems robust. Establishing facilities in Greenland therefore would appear to be welfare-improving, deriving positive net benefits. Despite the relatively narrow policy focus, we believe that our findings provide some insight into individuals’ preferences for decentralization of public services and on citizens’ views of ‘self-governance’ that go beyond the case of Greenland. More generally, this paper illustrates how DCE can be applied successfully to developing countries with culturally, demographically, and geographically distinct features. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Christian Kronborg & Morten Mørkbak, 2013. "Public preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland: estimating willingness-to-pay using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(5), pages 739-748, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:14:y:2013:i:5:p:739-748
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-012-0418-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-012-0418-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-012-0418-3?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. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    2. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Jayson Lusk & Leatta McLaughlin & Sara Jaeger, 2007. "Strategy and response to purchase intention questions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 31-44, June.
    7. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    8. Johnston, Robert J. & Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F., 1999. "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-120, July.
    9. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    10. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1991. "Three Methods for Calculating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Comparison," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 199-209.
    11. M. Morrison & R. Blamey & J. Bennett, 2000. "Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(4), pages 407-422, August.
    12. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    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. Elisa Borowski & Amanda Stathopoulos, 2022. "Protection or Peril of Following the Crowd in a Pandemic-Concurrent Flood Evacuation," Papers 2202.00229, arXiv.org.
    2. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    3. Peter Zweifel, 2022. "Health economics explained through six questions and answers," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 50-69, February.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Daan Hulshof & Machiel Mulder, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for $$\hbox {CO}_2$$CO2 Emission Reductions in Passenger Car Transport," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 899-929, April.
    3. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    4. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    9. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    10. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    11. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    12. Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Speelman, Stijn & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Tittonell, Pablo & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2021. "Quantifying farmers' preferences for cropping systems intensification: A choice experiment approach applied in coastal Bangladesh's risk prone farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Talevi, Marta & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Das, Ipsita & Lewis, Jessica J. & Singha, Ashok K., 2022. "Speaking from experience: Preferences for cooking with biogas in rural India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Waldman, Kurt B. & Ortega, David L. & Richardson, Robert B. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2017. "Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 222-230.
    15. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Lokina, Razack & Mtenga, Erica Louis & Tibanywana, Julieth Julius, 2023. "Stated preferences with survey consequentiality and outcome uncertainty: A split sample discrete choice experiment," EfD Discussion Paper 23-16, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    16. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    17. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    18. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    19. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! - The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," DARE Discussion Papers 1907, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    20. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; Willingness-to-pay space; Socital value; Publicly provided health care; Greenland; Nephrology facilities; D61; I38; O12;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    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:spr:eujhec:v:14:y:2013:i:5:p:739-748. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.