IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qmw/qmwecw/597.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Robinson

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Judith Covey

    (University of Durham)

  • Anne Spencer

    (Queen Mary, University of London)

  • Graham Loomes

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Previous research has shown that people wish a premium to be placed on the prevention of certain types of deaths as they perceive those deaths as 'worse' than others. The research reported in this paper is an attempt to quantify such a 'bad death' premium via a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The four underlying attributes included were: the age of the victim, who was most to blame for the death, the severity of the victim's pain and suffering in the period leading up to death, and the duration of the victim's pain and suffering in the period leading up to death. In addition, a fifth attribute - number of deaths - was included in order to provide a quantitative scale against which to measure the "bad death premium". The results show that each of the 4 underlying attributes did matter to respondents in determining whether deaths were worse than others, but also uncovered marked insensitivity to variations in the number of those deaths. The implication of our findings for the use of quantitative variables in DCEs is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:qmw:qmwecw:597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sef/media/econ/research/workingpapers/2007/items/wp597.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Hammitt & Jin-Tan Liu, 2004. "Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 73-95, January.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman & Peter Martinsson, 2004. "Is Transport Safety More Valuable in the Air?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 147-163, March.
    3. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    4. Jones-Lee, M W & Hammerton, M & Philips, P R, 1985. "The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(377), pages 49-72, March.
    5. 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.
    6. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    10. Savage, Ian, 1993. "An Empirical Investigation into the Effect of Psychological Perceptions on the Willingness-to-Pay to Reduce Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, January.
    11. Stirling Bryan & Tracy Roberts & Chris Heginbotham & Alison McCallum, 2002. "QALY‐maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 679-693, December.
    12. Mandy Ryan & Sarah Wordsworth, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-524, November.
    13. Chilton, Susan & Covey, Judith & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Spencer, Anne, 2002. "Public Perceptions of Risk and Preference-Based Values of Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 211-232, November.
    14. Cropper, Maureen L & Aydede, Sema K & Portney, Paul R, 1994. "Preferences for Life Saving Programs: How the Public Discounts Time and Age," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 243-265, May.
    15. repec:bla:scotjp:v:47:y:2000:i:5:p:504-24 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Ulla Slothuus Skjoldborg & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2003. "Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles' heel?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 479-491, June.
    17. Subramanian, Uma & Cropper, Maureen, 2000. "Public Choices between Life Saving Programs: The Tradeoff between Qualitative Factors and Lives Saved," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 117-149, July.
    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. Judith Covey & Angela Robinson & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2010. "Responsibility, scale and the valuation of rail safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 85-108, 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. Angela Robinson & Judith Covey & Anne Spencer & Graham Loomes, 2007. "Are Some Deaths Worse Than Others? Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Working Papers 597, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2010. "Value of Statistical Life and Cause of Accident: A Choice Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(6), pages 975-986, June.
    3. Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee & Shunji Matsuoka, 2005. "Risk Perceptions and Value of a Statistical Life for Air Pollution and Traffic Accidents: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 261-287, May.
    4. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    5. 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).
    6. Bosworth, Ryan & Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R., 2009. "Demand for environmental policies to improve health: Evaluating community-level policy scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 293-308, May.
    7. Takahiro Tsuge & Atsuo Kishimoto & Kenji Takeuchi, 2005. "A Choice Experiment Approach to the Valuation of Mortality," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 73-95, July.
    8. Barrientos, Manuel & Lavin, Felipe Vasquez & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2020. "Assessing the Incorporation of Latent Variables in the Estimation of the Value of a Statistical Life," EfD Discussion Paper 20-22, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    9. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    10. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    11. Concu, Giovanni B., 2007. "Investigating distance effects on environmental values: a choice modelling approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(2), pages 1-20.
    12. 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.
    13. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    14. James Hammitt & Jin-Tan Liu, 2004. "Effects of Disease Type and Latency on the Value of Mortality Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 73-95, January.
    15. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    16. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    17. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    18. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    19. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discrete choice experiment; Value of preventing a fatality; Relative weights; Insensitivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:qmw:qmwecw:597. 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: Nicholas Owen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deqmwuk.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.