An Empirical Model of Perceived Mortality Risks for Selected U.S. Arsenic Hot Spots

Risk Analysis

Volumn 30, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1550-1562

  Nguyen, To N ^a   Jakus, Paul M ^b   Riddel, Mary ^c   Shaw, W Douglass ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^d TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Arsenic; Mortality rate; Perceived risk

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ARSENIC CONTAMINATION; DRINKING WATER; EMPIRICAL MODEL; FORMAL MODEL; HOT SPOT; MODELING APPROACH; MORTALITY RATE; MORTALITY RISK; PERCEIVED RISK; PERCEPTIONS OF RISKS; SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION;

ARSENIC; POTABLE WATER; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; RANDOM VARIABLES; RISK PERCEPTION;

HEALTH RISKS;

ARSENIC; DRINKING WATER; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HEALTH RISK; HOT SPOT; MORTALITY RISK; PROBABILITY; RISK PERCEPTION;

ARSENIC POISONING; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; WATER POLLUTION; WATER SUPPLY;

ARSENIC POISONING; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MORTALITY; NEVADA; NEW MEXICO; OKLAHOMA; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY; WATER POLLUTION; WATER SUPPLY; WISCONSIN;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 78650492827     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01450.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Riddel M, Shaw WD. A theoretically-consistent empirical model of generalized expected utility: An application to nuclear waste transport. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2006; 32(2):131-150.
2. Cameron TA. Individual option prices for climate change mitigation. Journal of Public Economics, 2005; 89(2-3):283-301.
3. Wilcox NT. Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. Pp. 197-292 in Cox J, Harrison GW (eds). Risk Aversion in Experiments: Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 12. Bingley, UK Emerald Group Publishing, 2008.
4. Harrison GW, Rutström EE. Risk aversion in the laboratory. Pp. 41-196 in Cox J, Harrison GW (eds). Risk Aversion in Experiments: Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 12. Bingley, UK Emerald Group Publishing, 2008.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Arsenic in Drinking Water, 2006. Available at:, Accessed on September 1, 2007.
6. Burnett JK, Hahn RW. A costly benefit. Regulation, 2001; 24(3):44-49.
7. Wilson R. Underestimating arsenic risk. Regulation, 2001; 24(3):50-53.
8. National Research Council. Arsenic in Drinking Water, 2001 Update. Washington, DC National Academy Press, 2001.
9. Gilboa I, Postlewaite AW, Schmeidler D. Probability and uncertainty in economic modeling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2008; 22(3):173-188.
10. Morgan MG, Henrion M. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. New York Cambridge University Press, 1990.
11. Casman EA, Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H. Mixed levels of uncertainty in complex policy models. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(1):33-42.
12. Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication. Pp. 940-952 in Detels R, Beaglehole R, Lansang MA, Gulliford M (eds). Oxford Textbook of Public Health, 5th ed. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2009.
13. Heckman JJ, Willis RJ. A beta-logistic model for the analysis of sequential labor force participation by married women. Journal of Political Economy, 1977; 85(1):27-58.
14. Dosman DM, Adamowicz WL, Hurdley SE. Socioeconomic determinants of health-and-food safety related risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(2):307-317.
15. Nguyen TN. Essays on Econometric Modeling of Subjective Perceptions of Risks in Environment and Human Health. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2008.
16. Jakus PM, Shaw WD, Nguyen T, Walker M. Risk perceptions of arsenic in tap water and bottled water consumption. Water Resources Research, 2009; 45. doi:, Accessed on May 7, 2009.
17. Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48(4):85-100.
18. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. New York Cambridge University Press, 2001.
19. Ibrekk H, Morgan MG. Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to nontechnical people. Risk Analysis, 1987; 7(4):519-529.
20. Connelly NA, Knuth BA. Evaluating risk communication: Examining target audience perceptions about four presentation formats for fish consumption health advisory information. Risk Analysis, 1999; 18(5):649-659.
21. Loomis JB, DuVair PH. Evaluating the effect of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: Results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment. Land Economics, 1993; 69(3):287-298.
22. Sandman PM, Weinstein ND, Miller P. High risk or low: How location on a "risk ladder" affects perceived risk. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:35-45.
23. Shaw WD, Walker M, Benson M. Treating and drinking well water in the presence of health risks from arsenic contamination: Results from a U.S. hot spot. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(6):1531-1543.
24. Gustafson PE. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(6):805-811.
25. Riddel M. Risk perception, ambiguity, and nuclear-waste transport. Southern Economic Journal, 2009; 75(1):781-797.
26. Jianakoplos NA, Bernasek A. Are women more risk averse Economic Inquiry, 1998; 36(10):620-630.
27. Slovic P. Cigarette smokers: Rational actors or rational fools? Chapter 6 in Slovic P (ed). Smoking: Risk, Perception and Policy. London Sage, 2001.
28. Lillard LA, Willis RJ. Cognition and wealth: The importance of probabilistic thinking. Michigan Retirement Research Center Working Paper No.WP2001-007, 2001.
29. Bell K, Huang S, Boyle K. Public Responses to Newspaper Coverage of Arsenic Concentrations in Groundwater. University of Maine Discussion Paper, 2008.
30. Smith VK, Taylor DH Jr., Sloan FA, Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. Do smokers respond to health shocks Review of Economics and Statistics, 2001; 83(4):675-687.
31. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York Cambridge University Press, 1982.
32. Sjöberg L, Engelberg E. Risk perception and movies: A study of availability as a factor in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(1):95-106.
33. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The risk of death by age, sex, and smoking status in the United States: Putting health risks in context. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2008; 100:845-853.
34. Curley SP, Yates JF. The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1985; 3:273-287.
35. Smith VK. Environmental risk perception and valuation: Conventional versus prospective reference theory. Chapter 6 in Bromley DW, Segerson K (eds). The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty. Boston Kluwer Academic Press, 1992.
36. Jindapon P, Shaw WD. Ex ante welfare measures without expected utility. Economics Letter, 2008; 100(September):165-168.
37. Alberini A, Cropper M, Krupnick A, Simon NB. Willingness to pay for mortality risk reduction: Does latency matter Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2006; 32:231-245.
38. Bostrom A, Löfstedt RE. Communicating risk: Wireless and hardwired. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(2):241-248.
39. Fischhoff B, Beyth-Marom R. Hypothesis evaluation from a Bayesian perspective. Psychological Review, 1983; 90:239-260.