Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?
作者： Lena Winslott Hiselius
DOI:
关键词:
摘要: This paper uses the choice experiment approach to assess people's preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials. In a mail survey, carried out in Stockholm, capital Sweden, changes exposure materials are used as proxy for accident risk. The results analysed light an earlier study on by rail. Special attention is given biases associated with method. presence hypothetical bias studied use self-reported degree confidence that respondent would vote same way real referendum. focusing effect inclusion information other fatal risks. indication there no major differences individual hazmat transported rail or road. estimates also dependent stated choices and interpreting this dependence bias, suggest type tends push estimated values downwards. findings show background data affect individuals expected ways effect.
参考文章(50)
Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, Sarah Lichtenstein, Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk Policy and practice in health and safety. ,vol. 3, pp. 181- 216 ,(2005) , 10.1007/978-1-4899-0445-4_9
David A. Hensher, Joffre D. Swait, Jordan J. Louviere, Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications ,(2000)
Gregory L. Poe, Jeremy E. Clark, Daniel Rondeau, William D. Schulze, Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation Environmental and Resource Economics. ,vol. 23, pp. 105- 131 ,(2002) , 10.1023/A:1020242907259
Fredrik Carlsson, Peter Martinsson, Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. ,vol. 41, pp. 179- 192 ,(2001) , 10.1006/JEEM.2000.1138
D. Mcfadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior Frontiers in Econometrics. pp. 105- 142 ,(1972)
David A. Hensher, William H. Greene, THE MIXED LOGIT MODEL: THE STATE OF PRACTICE Transportation. ,vol. 30, pp. 133- 176 ,(2003) , 10.1023/A:1022558715350
Patricia A. Champ, Richard C. Bishop, Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias Environmental and Resource Economics. ,vol. 19, pp. 383- 402 ,(2001) , 10.1023/A:1011604818385
Richard T. Carson, Nicholas E. Flores, Kerry M. Martin, Jennifer L. Wright, Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods Land Economics. ,vol. 72, pp. 80- 99 ,(1995) , 10.2307/3147159
Lena Winslott Hiselius, Using choice experiments to assess people's preferences for railway transports of hazardous materials. Risk Analysis. ,vol. 25, pp. 1199- 1214 ,(2005) , 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2005.00660.X
Ingemar Eckerlund, Magnus Johannesson, Per-Olov Johansson, Magnus Tambour, Niklas Zethraeus, Value for money? A contingent valuation study of the optimal size of the Swedish health care budget. Health Policy. ,vol. 34, pp. 135- 143 ,(1995) , 10.1016/0168-8510(95)00723-6