IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v32y2000i6p777-787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation

Author

Listed:
  • Phil Shackley
  • Simon Dixon

Abstract

The methods and results of a contingent valuation survey to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation are reported. The study demonstrates that not only is it important to acknowledge that there will be losers from the introduction of such a programme but that losers must be allowed to express a value for the magnitude of their perceived loss. Two methods of valuing this loss are explored. Conventional willingness to accept compensation questions are compared with questions in which losers are asked to state their willingness to pay to prevent their water being fluoridated. The results provide tentative support for asking willingness to pay to prevent questions instead of willingness to accept questions when evaluating certain types of public good. The issue of protest responses in contingent valuation surveys is also highlighted and discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2000. "Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 777-787.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:6:p:777-787
    DOI: 10.1080/000368400322408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/000368400322408
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/000368400322408?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Parkinson, Bonny & Goodall, Stephen, 2011. "Considering consumer choice in the economic evaluation of mandatory health programmes: A review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 236-244, August.
    2. Joan Costa-Font & Joan Rovira, 2005. "Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the 'willingness to assign' approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(14), pages 1571-1583.
    3. Cam Donaldson & Helen Mason & Phil Shackley, 2012. "Contingent Valuation in Health Care," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 40, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.
    5. Weatherly, Helen & Drummond, Michael & Claxton, Karl & Cookson, Richard & Ferguson, Brian & Godfrey, Christine & Rice, Nigel & Sculpher, Mark & Sowden, Amanda, 2009. "Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 85-92, December.
    6. Paula K. Lorgelly & Kenny D. Lawson & Elisabeth A.L. Fenwick & Andrew H. Briggs, 2010. "Outcome Measurement in Economic Evaluations of Public Health Interventions: a Role for the Capability Approach?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Denise L. Stanley, 2005. "Local Perception of Public Goods: Recent Assessments of Willingness‐to‐pay for Endangered Species," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(2), pages 165-179, April.
    8. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    9. Phil Shackley & Cam Donaldson, 2000. "Willingness to pay for publicly-financed health care: how should we use the numbers?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(15), pages 2015-2021.
    10. David Cohen & Mirella F Longo & John Williams & Wai‐yee Cheung & Hayley Hutchings & I.T. Russell, 2003. "Estimating the marginal value of ‘better’ research output: ‘designed’ versus ‘routine’ data in randomised controlled trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 959-974, November.

    More about this item

    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:taf:applec:v:32:y:2000:i:6:p:777-787. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.