IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea07/9358.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infants' Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water

Author

Listed:
  • Loomis, John B.
  • Asmus, Cheryl
  • Bell, Paul

Abstract

The objective of this research was to estimate adults' willingness to pay to reduce health risks to their or other families's infants, the latter to test for altruism. A choice experiment was conducted by having adults pay for bottled water for infants to reduce infants' exposure to nitrates in drinking water. Since nitrates only affect infants' health, we have isolated the adults' willingness to pay just for infants' health by buying bottled water to avoid infants' nitrate intake. Respondents were separated into two treatments, one with hypothetical choices, and the other where respondents were told that one of their four choices would be binding, and they would actually buy bottled water using money given to them at the beginning of the experiment. Results indicate that the marginal willingness to pay for a .001 reduction in risk of shock, brain damage and mortality in the real cash treatment was $2, $3.50 and $10, respectively. In the hypothetical treatment these amounts were $13, $23 and $64, indicating substantial hypothetical bias for the risk reductions. Nonetheless, in both treatments the relative marginal values across the severity of risk reductions are sensible, with willingness to pay to avoid the less severe health effects (e.g., shock) being much less than for the more serious effects such as brain damage and death. While the ratio of hypothetical WTP to actual WTP was rather high at a factor of nearly seven, such degree of hypothetical bias has been found in other experiments (Neil et al., 1994). This high hypothetical bias may be due to the nature of the good being valued, i.e. infant health. Many people express a very strong desire to protect infants, since infants cannot control their own health outcomes. Several statistical tests consistently confirmed that the marginal WTP for the risk reduction was not influenced by whether the individual was buying for his or her own infant or buying for another infant. This suggests there is a high degree of altruism reflected in our WTP results. This altruism continued to hold even when we focused solely on the consequential treatment where real money was involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Loomis, John B. & Asmus, Cheryl & Bell, Paul, 2007. "A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infants' Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 9358, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea07:9358
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.9358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/9358/files/sp07lo01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.9358?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    2. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. 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).
    4. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Huang, Lu & Liu, Yizao, 2017. "Health information and consumer learning in the bottled water market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-24.
    6. Ritten, Chian Jones & Breunig, Ian M., 2013. "Willingness to Pay for Programs for the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine on a Rocky Mountain West College Campus," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15.
    7. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809258uvvpjn34ekm4 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    9. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Markus König & Christian Pfarr & Peter Zweifel, 2014. "Mutual Altruism: Evidence from Alzheimer Patients and Their Spouse Caregivers," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 141-160, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Niedermayr, A. & Schaller, L. & Kieninger, P. & Kantelhardt, J., 2018. "Integrating soil and climate-related aspects into the valuation of willingness to pay for public goods provided by agriculture in an intensive agricultural production region: The case of the Marchfeld," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276963, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. William Desvousges & Kristy Mathews & Kenneth Train, 2016. "From Curious to Pragmatically Curious: Comment on "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's "Dubious to Hopeless" Critique of Contingent Valuation"," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 174-182.
    14. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    15. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    17. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Denis Fougère & Arthur Heim, 2019. "L'évaluation socioéconomique de l'investissement social," Working Papers hal-03456048, HAL.
    19. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5lge9h8e809258uvvpjn34ekm4 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health Economics and Policy;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    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:ags:aaea07:9358. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.