Listening to the vocal citizens: how do politically active individuals choose between lifesaving programmes?

Large disparities in the cost per life saved for different lifesaving interventions have been reported in many studies. According to some researchers, these differences reflect the public's preoccupation with selected qualitative aspects of risk. However, it is not obvious that these disparities reflect public preferences. In studies of the variation in cost per life saved the public accepts, most respondents are willing to trade qualitative characteristics for lives saved, but there is a small but significant group of respondents who will not make the tradeoff, i.e. assign infinite value to one or more of the qualitative factors. It has been suggested that this group could be particularly vocal, which might account for the large variation in cost per life saved. In the first attempt to address this issue, a survey of people living under a power line in Stockholm was undertaken. This population was chosen because the local government had decided to remove the power line after being pressured by the citizens and an interest group. Tests of how more politically active individuals differ from less active were undertaken. Most importantly, it was found that more politically active respondents were less likely to trade qualitative characteristics for lives saved, but only for the risk in which they were active and only up to a point.