Multi-country willingness to pay study on road-Traffic environmental health effects: Are people willing and able to provide a number?

Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Istamto, Tifanny ^a,b   Houthuijs, Danny ^b   Lebret, Erik ^a,b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Air pollution; Contingent valuation; Don't know; Noise; Open ended; Protest vote; Questionnaire; Survey; Uncertainty; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECOSYSTEM HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; HEALTH IMPACT; POLICY MAKING; POPULAR PROTEST; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RISK PERCEPTION; ROAD TRAFFIC; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; AIR POLLUTION; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EUROPE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; NOISE POLLUTION; OPEN ENDED QUESTIONNAIRE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TRAFFIC; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; ADOLESCENT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EXHAUST GAS; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR VEHICLE; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; TRAFFIC NOISE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AIR POLLUTION; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; EUROPE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR VEHICLES; NOISE, TRANSPORTATION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; VEHICLE EMISSIONS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84906685998     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1476069X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-13-35     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Pearce D: Economic valuation and health damage from air pollution in the developing world. Energy Policy 1996, 24(7 SPEC):627-630.
2. Pearce D, Maddison D: Valuing Air Pollution Damage. Great Britain: Elsevier Science Ltd; 1996.
3. Externalities of Energy/ExternE: New Elements for the Assessment of External Costs from Energy Technologies. Stuttgart: 2004. http://www.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/newext-final.pdf.
4. Health Effect Institute: Special Report 17: Traffic-related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects. http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=334 2010.
5. World Health Organization/WHO, JRC European Commission: Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise: Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in Europe. In The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health. Europe, Denmark: WHO Regional Office; 2011.
6. Brunekreef B, Beelen R, Hoek G, Schouten L, Bausch-Goldbohm S, Fischer P, Armstrong B, Hughes E, Jerrett M, van den Brandt P: Effects of long-Term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on respiratory and cardiovascular mortality in the Netherlands: The NLCS-AIR study. Research report (Health Effects Institute) 2009, (139):5-71. discussion 73-7189.
7. Levy JI, Buonocore JJ, Von Stackelberg K: Evaluation of the public health impacts of traffic congestion: A health risk assessment. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2010, 9(1):1-12.
8. World Health Organization WHO: Considerations in Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Environmental Health Interventions. In Protection of the Human Environment. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2000. http://www.who.int/quantifying-ehimpacts/publications/en/wsh00-10.pdf?ua=1.
9. Hoevenagel R: The Contingent Valuation Method: Scope and Validity. The Netherlands: Amsterdam Vrije Universiteit; 1994.
10. Carson RT: Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar; 2007.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A Framework for the Economic Assessment of Ecological Benefts. 2002. http://www.epa.gov/spc/pdfs/feaeb3.pdf.
12. Navrud S: The economic value of noise within the European union-A review and analysis of studies. Acta Acustica (Stuttgart) 2003, 89:S20-S21.
13. De Nazelle A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Antó JM, Brauer M, Briggs D, Braun-Fahrlander C, Cavill N, Cooper AR, Desqueyroux H, Fruin S, Hoek G, Panis LI, Janssen N, Jerrett M, Joffe M, Andersen ZJ, van Kempen E, Kingham S, Kubesch N, Leyden KM, Marshall JD, Matamala J, Mellios G, Mendez M, Nassif H, Ogilvie D, Peiró R, Pérez K, Rabl A, Ragettli M, et al: Improving health through policies that promote active travel: A review of evidence to support integrated health impact assessment. Environ Int 2011, 37(4):766-777.
14. Briggs DJ: A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2008, 7(61):1-17.
15. Ladenburg J, Olsen SB: Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: evidence from an empirical study. J Environ Econ Manage 2008, 56(3):275-285.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USEPA: Cost of Illness Handbook. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/coi/pubs/view.html.
17. Dziegielewska DA, Mendelsohn R: Does "no" mean "no"? a protest methodology. Environ Resource Econ 2007, 38(1):71-87.
18. Atkinson G, Morse-Jones S, Mourato S, Provins A: 'When to take "no" for an answer'? using entreaties to reduce protests in contingent valuation studies. Environ Resource Econ 2012, 51(4):497-523.
19. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U: Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation. Ecol Econ 2006, 57(4):583-594.
20. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U: Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? Environ Resource Econ 2008, 39(4):433-446.
21. Desaigues B, Ami D, Bartczak A, Braun-Kohlová M, Chilton S, Czajkowski M, Farreras V, Hunt A, Hutchison M, Jeanrenaud C, Kaderjak P, MácA V, Markiewicz O, Markowska A, Metcalf H, Navrud S, Nielsen JS, Ortiz R, Pellegrini S, Rabl A, Riera R, Scasny M, Stoeckel M-E, Szántó R, Urban J: Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecol Indicators 2011, 11(3):902-910.
22. Navrud S, Traedal Y, Hunt A, Longo A, Gremann A, Leon C, Espino R, Markovits-Somogyi R, Meszaros F: Economic Values for Key Impacts Valued in the Stated Preference Surveys. In Deliverable Four Vol. Norway: HEATCO: Developing Harmonised European Approaces for Transport Costing and Project Assessment: SWECO-Norway; 2006.
23. Georgiou S, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK: Determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for perceived reductions in environmental health risks: A case study of bathing water quality. Environ Planning A 1998, 30(4):577-594.
24. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE: Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resource Econ 1999, 14(1):131-150.
25. Venkatachalam L: The contingent valuation method: A review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004, 24(1):89-124.
26. Ready RC, Navrud S, Dubourg WR: How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Land Econ 2001, 77(3):315-326.
27. Ajzen I, Brown TC, Rosenthal LH: Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. J Environ Econ Manage 1996, 30(1):43-57.
28. Carlsson F, Martinsson P: Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ 2003, 12(4):281-294.
29. Jim CY, Chen WY: Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landscape Urban Plann 2006, 78(4):422-434.
30. Longo A, Markandya A, Petrucci M: The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecol Econ 2008, 67(1):140-152.
31. Klose T: The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999, 47(2):97-123.
32. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM: The RAND 36-item health survey 1.0. Health Econ 1993, 2(3):217-227.
33. Little RJA: Survey nonresponse adjustments for estimates of means. Int Stat Rev 1986, 54:139-157.
34. Levy PS, Lemeshow S: Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications. 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1999.
35. Milusheva B, Gal P: Eurostat: Statistics in Focus. In Economy and Finance. Luxembourg: 2012.
36. Liberman N, Sagristano MD, Trope Y: The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. J Exp Soc Psychol 2002, 38(6):523-534.
37. Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM: Easy on the mind, easy on the wallet: The roles of familiarity and processing fluency in valuation judgments. Psychon Bull Rev 2008, 15(5):985-990.
38. Trope Y, Liberman N: Construal-level theory of psychological distance. PsychologR 2010, 117(2):440-463.
39. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S, Ruud PA, Smith VK, Conaway M, Martin K: Referendum design and contingent valuation: The NOAA panel's no-vote recommendation. Rev Econ Statist 1998, 80(2):335-338.
40. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A: Health care contingent valuation studies: A review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998, 7(4):313-326.
41. Bateman IJ, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG, Matthews DI: Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. J Environ Econ Manage 2008, 55(2):127-141.
42. Lindhjem H, Navrud S, Braathen N: Valuing lives Saved from Environmental, Transport and Health Policies: A Meta-Analysis of Stated Preference Studies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development (OECD); 2010.
43. Welsh MP, Poe GL: Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 1998, 36(2):170-185.
44. Bijlenga D, Bonsel GJ, Birnie E: Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes. Health Econ 2011, 20(11):1392-1406.