Share This Article:

Explaining Perceived Inconsistencies in “Stated Preference” Valuations of Human Life

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:2969KB) PP. 442-473
DOI: 10.4236/ajibm.2014.49052    4,181 Downloads   4,724 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The Relative Utility Pricing model is used to explain the fact that when faced with two “safety packs”, the second giving three times the safety benefit of the first, discriminating respondents will place a value on the second pack that is, on average, twice the amount they say they will be prepared to pay for the first. When the safety packs reduce fatal accident frequencies, the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) figures deduced from the valuations of the two safety packs must then be significantly different. Such response patterns on the part of respondents were found in a high-profile study carried out on behalf of a number of UK Government Departments. However, the authors of that study considered the responses “aberrant”, and dismissed their survey in favour of their later one, which they based on a novel elicitation technique and which led to a VPF that was lower by a factor of between 5 and 10. That method has been shown elsewhere to be invalid, which returns the focus to the original study rejected by its authors. This paper shows that the VPFs produced by the first study are fully explicable and cannot be dismissed if the stated preference approach is to be accepted. However, in view of the difficulties experienced with stated preference techniques in the valuation of life, it is clear that an urgent reappraisal is needed of revealed preference techniques if people’s safety is to be safeguarded adequately.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Thomas, P. and Vaughan, G. (2014) Explaining Perceived Inconsistencies in “Stated Preference” Valuations of Human Life. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 4, 442-473. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2014.49052.

References

[1] Thomas, P.J., Stupples, D.W. and Alghaffar, M.A. (2006) The Extent of Regulatory Consensus on Health and Safety Expenditure: Part 1: Development of the J-Value Technique and Evaluation of the Regulators’ Recommendations. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84, 329-336.
[2] Thomas, P.J., Stupples, D.W. and Alghaffar, M.A. (2006) The Extent of Regulatory Consensus on Health and Safety Expenditure: Part 2: Applying the J-Value Technique to Case Studies across Industries. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84, 337-343.
[3] Thomas, P.J., Jones, R.D. and Kearns, J.O. (2010) The Trade-Offs Embodied in J-Value Safety Analysis. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 88, 147-167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2010.02.001
[4] Nathwani, J.S., Lind, N.C. and Pandey, M.D. (1997) Affordable Safety by Choice: The Life Quality Method. Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
[5] Nathwani, J.S., Lind, N.C. and Pandey, M.D. (2008) Engineering Decisions for Life Quality. How Safe Is Safe Enough? Springer, Dordrecht.
[6] Pandey, M.D. and Nathwani, J.S. (2003) A Conceptual Approach to the Estimation of Societal Willingness-to-Pay for Nuclear Safety Programs. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 224, 65-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(03)00062-1
[7] Pandey, M.D., Nathwani, J.S. and Lind, N.C. (2006) The Derivation and Calibration of the Life-Quality Index (LQI) from Economic Principles. Structural Safety, 28, 341-360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2005.10.001
[8] Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. (1947) Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29, 1181-1196.
[9] Beattie, J., Covey, J., Dolan, P., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N., Robinson, A. and Spencer, A. (1998) On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1—Caveat Investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 5-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007711416843
[10] Sunstein, C.R. (2004) Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay. Columbia Law Review, 104, 205-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4099352
[11] Sunstein, C.R. (2004) Valuing Life: A Plea for Disaggregation. Duke Law Journal, 54, 385-445.
[12] Thomas, P. and Vaughan, G. (2013) All in the Balance: Assessing Schemes to Protect Humans and the Environment. Nuclear Future, 9, 41-51.
[13] Department for Transport (2013) WebTAG Data Book, WebTAG Table A 4.1.1.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag-data-book
[14] Carthy, T., Chilton, S., Covey, J., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N. and Spencer, A. (1999) On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2—The CV/SG “Chained” Approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 187-214.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007782800868
[15] Wolff, J. and Orr, S. (2009) Cross-Sector Weighting and Valuing of QALYs and VTPFs. A Report for the Inter-Departmental Group for the Valuation of Life and Health. Final Report, 8 July 2009.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cpjh/docs/IGVLH.pdf
[16] Spackman, M., Evans, A., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Holder, S. and Webb, H. (2011) Updating the VPF and VPIs: Phase 1: Final Report: Department for Transport. NERA Economic Consulting.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr-economics-rdg-updatingvpfvpi-pdf/vpivpfreport.pdf
[17] Thomas, P.J. and Vaughan, G.J. (2014) Testing the Validity of the “Value of a Prevented Fatality” (VPF) Used to Assess UK Safety Measures. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, in Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.07.0011
[18] Thomas, P. and Chrystal, A. (2013) Explaining the “Buy One Get One Free” Promotion: The Golden Ratio as a Marketing Tool. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3, 655-673.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.38075
[19] Thomas, P. and Chrystal, A. (2013) Using Relative Utility Pricing to Explain Multibuy Prices in Supermarkets and on the Internet. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3, 687-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.38078
[20] Cookson, C. (2014) Mystery of Supermarket Egg Pricing Cracked. Financial Times, UK Edition, London,
4 January, 41. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ec12addc-6c2a-11e3-a216-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38gP
HLvPR
[21] Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1914185
[22] Thaler, R.H. (1985) Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199-214. Republished 2008 in Marketing Science, 27, 15-25.
[23] Wallop, H. (2008) Buy-One-Get-One-Free Offers Are One of the Most Effective Marketing Tools in the Supermarket Industry. The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2263645/
[24] Thomas, P. and Chrystal, A. (2013) Generalized Demand Densities for Retail Price Investigation. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3, 279-294.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajibm http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.33034
[25] Thomas, P. and Chrystal, A. (2013) Retail Price Optimization from Sparse Demand Data. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3, 295-306.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajibm http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.33035
[26] Weisstein, E. (2014) Uniform Distribution. Wolfram MathWorld.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UniformDistribution.html
[27] Dunn, O.J. (1965) Basic Statistics: A Primer for the Biomedical Sciences. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.