Valuation Of Safety Research Articles

Correlated random parameters model with heterogeneity in means for analysis of factors affecting the perceived value of road accidents and travel time

Road safety funding and management have become important issues in improving the quality of life of road users and there is evidence of a difference in driving behavior and the factor of road use between urban and rural areas, which is, in turn, reflected in different road safety evaluations. The purpose of this study is to assess the financial losses caused by road accidents on Thailand’s highways and the related factors empirically, deploying the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach. Data were obtained from 640 urban and 960 rural car drivers using a stated choice questionnaire and face-to-face interviews. This study used Correlated Random Parameters Binary Logit with Heterogeneity in Means (CRPBLHM) approach to analyze factors affecting WTP. According to the results, the value of a statistical life and injury for urban drivers was 1.63 times higher than that for rural drivers, and the value of travel time reduction per hour for urban drivers is ∼1.14 times higher than that found for rural drivers. Furthermore, the results of the CRPBLHM model reported that there are significant differences between urban and rural drivers’ safety intentions and WTP. In the urban model, it was found that driving behavior (ticket, seatbelts, and speed) and weekday trips significantly increase the WTP, whereas household size and gender are unobserved characteristics among drivers. The rural model revealed that a driver’s education (bachelor’s and master’s degrees held), and a necessary trip were significantly associated with drivers’ valuation of safety; moreover, it was found that household size, sole earner status, own accident, in possession of a doctoral degree, and being young were significant in acting as unobserved characteristics. The results demonstrated differences in the value of road safety and unobserved heterogeneity among drivers, which influence risk perception and valuation with reference to the area context. Relevant agencies can use the results as a guideline for budget allocation and practical policy-related road safety management.

A test–retest analysis of stated preferences in uncertain times

In environmental valuation, the issue of the temporal stability of stated preferences to changes in environmental (dis)amenities is important because their results can be employed to inform decision-making. This includes cost–benefit analysis for large infrastructure projects such as coastal protection. A couple of studies have investigated stability of stated preferences over varying time periods. However, less evidence is available for temporal stability of stated preferences for (dis)amenities in uncertain times, i.e., times that are characterized by larger degrees of uncertainty regarding the (near) future. Using a choice experiment on coastal adaptation to climate change, this paper examines the test–retest reliability of individual preferences and resulting welfare estimates over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. We do so by surveying the same respondents at two points in time five months apart during the ongoing pandemic. Using a latent class model, we find similar preference heterogeneity patterns but different class sizes. While the welfare measure of an adaptation scenario that focuses on safety increases across survey waves, scenarios that centre on recreation or nature have decreasing welfare effects. This suggests that individuals set other priorities in uncertain times. • We study temporal stability of stated preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic. • We record preferences for coastal adaptation to climate change at the Baltic Sea. • We find similar preference heterogeneity patterns for both survey waves. • In the second wave, however, more respondents focus on the heightening of dykes. • Overall, results point to an increased valuation of safety during uncertain times.

Valuation of Safety and Preliminary Effectiveness of Point-of-Care Cell Processing System: An Observational Study

valuation of Safety and Preliminary Effectiveness of Point-of-Care Cell Processing System: An Observational Study

Valuing safety: principal limitations of the J-value model

During recent years, advocates of the so-called 'J-value' approach to the valuation of safety in the UK have argued that the value of preventing a statistical fatality (VPF) employed by a number of UK public sector bodies is too low and should be replaced with the higher value of safety implied by the J-value model. However, a recent review of the J-value literature commissioned by the UK Health and Safety Executive concluded that the model underpinning the J-value approach is 'too simplistic'. In particular, the review argues that the approach's exclusive focus on the impact on the remaining life expectancy of those who benefit from the improvement is too narrow to capture adequately the effect of all of the key factors that should be considered in valuing a safety improvement. The purpose of this paper is to consider this and other basic limitations of the J-value approach in more detail.

The role of quantitative safety evaluation in regulatory decision making of drugs

ABSTRACTEvaluation of safety is a critical component of drug review at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Statisticians are playing an increasingly visible role in quantitative safety evaluation and regulatory decision-making. This article reviews the history and the recent events relating to quantitative drug safety evaluation at the FDA. The article then focuses on five active areas of quantitative drug safety evaluation and the role Division of Biometrics VII (DBVII) plays in these areas, namely meta-analysis for safety evaluation, large safety outcome trials, post-marketing requirements (PMRs), the Sentinel Initiative, and the evaluation of risk from extended/long-acting opioids. This article will focus chiefly on developments related to quantitative drug safety evaluation and not on the many additional developments in drug safety in general.

Valuation of safety under reference-dependent evaluation of income

We analyze data of a Spanish nationally-representative survey where subjects reported their willingness to pay (WTP) for road safety improvements, specifically they hypothetically paid for a reduction of the risk of a road fatality and several injuries. Respondents also reported their current income (CI) and permanent income (PI). The latter refers to their normal income once they considered various stages of low/high earnings throughout their entire lives. Consequently, we define relative income as the comparison of CI with respect to PI. Three income frames are generated as explanatory variables: gain (with CI>PI); neutral (with CI=PI); and loss scenario (with CI<PI). Surprisingly, we find that conditional on current income, and on a set of characteristics, those respondents in gain frame reported higher WTP than those in neutral and loss scenario. Further analysis shows that the income frames effect is higher and more significant for the older half-sample (>45), being about three or four times higher than for the younger subset. Possible interpretations of the role of PI as a reference point are considered given the results. A reference-dependent utility function of income, where PI is the reference point, is proposed to describe the monetary valuation of safety within the theoretical framework previously developed in the safety economics literature.

Welfare and Market Impacts of Food Safety Measures in China: Results from Urban Consumers' Valuation of Product Attributes

This study provides an economics assessment of various food safety measures in China. A choice experiment approach is used to elicit Chinese consumer preferences for various food safety attributes using data from a 2008 urban consumer survey. An alternative welfare calculation is used to model aggregate market impacts of select food safety measures. Our results show that the largest welfare gains are found in the current government-run certification program. The implementation of a third-party certification system, a traceability network and a product label would generate significant value and would help reduce current system inefficiencies in China. This study builds on previous research and provides an alternative approach for calculating consumer valuation of safety and quality attributes that can be used to estimate aggregate economic and welfare impacts.

Major Transportation Accidents in Norway

This paper discusses how the long-term frequency of major transportation accidents can be estimated for a small country such as Norway, for which the observed frequency may not be a good estimate for long-term frequency. A major transportation accident is defined as an accident in which there are at least five fatalities. Estimates of the long-term expected frequency of major transportation accidents in Norway are developed by combining information from three sources. They consist of historical records: for Norway for the period 1970 to 2001 (32 years), for Great Britain for 1967 to 2001 (35 years), and for Europe for 1991 to 2003 (12.5 years). The use of formal techniques for decision analysis to help in setting policy priorities in prevention of major transportation accidents is discussed. Also, trade-offs between three safety-related policy objectives are discussed: preventing major accidents, reducing differences in accident risk, and seeking a maximum reduction of the total number of accidents. A trade-off between these policy objectives cannot be made by reliance on a single monetary valuation of safety, but it can in principle be made by treatment of the objectives as attributes of a multi-attributive goal structure that can be maximized by application of multi-attribute utility analysis. Utility values obtained in such an analysis in turn imply a set of monetary valuations reflecting the relative importance of the different policy objectives.

General attributes of safe organisations

In analysing the safety strategies of organisations successfully managing hazardous systems it is apparent that safety itself is a problematic, and even risky, concept. It is less the valuation of safety per se than the disvalue surrounding mis-specification, misidentification, and misunderstanding that drives reliability in these organisations. Two contrasting models of high reliability can be identified in precluded event and resilience focused organisations. Each model is adapted to different properties in the raw material, process variances, and knowledge base of the organisation. These two models bound the reliability approaches available to medicine. The implications of each for medical reliability strategy are explored, and the possible adaptation of features from each for medical organisations are assessed.

Three Questions About the Economics of Relative Position: A Response to Frank and Sunstein

Cost-benefit analyses typically ignore the importance of relative position. That is, they do not take into account the possibility that people value particular goods, services, or other determinants of well-being through comparisons with others. Robert Frank and Cass Sunstein have recently concluded that taking into account positional issues implies that the benefits of health and safety regulations may be twice as large as the levels commonly found in cost-benefit analyses. However, the effects of positional externalities on the valuation of safety and health regulations, and hence the correct modifications to cost-benefit analyses, are theoretically ambiguous. Frank and Sunstein assume that people like others to become worse off and that the incomes of others are more important for comparison than their health and safety on the job. Because different assumptions can lead to opposite conclusions about the value of additional regulations, this response addresses whether the evidence supports Frank and Sunstein's assumptions. The nature of relative position can be described as answers to three questions. First, what is the relevant group to which people compare themselves? Second, which characteristics of the comparison group matter? Third, how strongly do these comparisons affect people? This paper evaluates Frank and Sunstein's evidence on all three questions. People inclined to favor the model of positional externalities espoused by Frank and Sunstein may find their evidence convincing, but there are appealing alternative explanations. There is also direct evidence that only a minority of people act in the way they assume. They estimate that people should be willing to spend $6,000 of a $10,000 raise to prevent their coworkers from getting the same raise. Though some people might pay to reduce the salaries of their coworkers, others would surely pay to raise them. That many people display altruistic behavior in many situations is completely ignored by Frank and Sunstein. Particularly because of the variation in preferences across individuals, the evidence is at present too limited to permit the precise characterization necessary to evaluate the effects of policy. Under some plausible models, the policies suggested by Frank and Sunstein make people worse off; in others, better off. Though it is premature to incorporate positional externalities in policy analysis, such issues undoubtedly will become a formal part of policy analysis as our understanding improves.

Consumer affairs and the valuation of safety

An appraisal of past work on the value of a statistical life has been conducted for the purpose of assisting decisions in the consumer safety sector. Although contingent valuation is nowadays often cited as the preferred approach for valuing the dominant, human cost, element of safety, a range of other valuation techniques is recognised and used, both in Britain and elsewhere. It is argued that all valuation techniques entail considerable uncertainty for a variety of reasons, some methodological and some attributable to the fact that the value of safety is an ill-defined and fuzzy concept for the individual. In view of this, plus the need to appeal to a diverse constituency, it is proposed that the value of consumer safety be based upon a broad appreciation of the outcomes from the various techniques which exist, rather than pinning all hopes upon any single methodology. Furthermore, in the interests of sound consumer risk management practice and public credibility, it is recommended that uncertainty be openly acknowledged by expressing the value of safety as a range rather than a point value. The range proposed is from £1 million to £10 million, with the expectation that for most consumer applications values used might lie within a narrower bandwidth from about £2 million to £4 million. It is suggested that the specification of a range, while not everyone’s nor every sector’s preferred approach, nonetheless has a number of useful attributes. These include endowing decision makers with a degree of flexibility in arriving at safety decisions, considered to be an important issue within the consumer safety sphere where complex contextual factors frequently arise, and which are arguably best handled by a thoughtful and sensitive approach and negotiation, rather than by the application of any more formulaic recipe.

On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2 - The CV/SG "Chained" Approach

This article reports the results of a study aimed at estimating a willingness-to-pay based value of statistical life for road risks using a multi-stage approach which involves “chaining together” responses to contingent valuation and standard gamble questions. The rationale for employing a multi-stage approach is to break the wealth/risk of death trade-off down into a number of conceptually manageable steps, thereby trying to attenuate the various biases that appear to be pervasive in responses to more direct contingent valuation questions in the health and safety field.

On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1 -- Caveat Investigator

This article reports the results of two studies aimed at testing and refining a procedure for estimating willingness-to-pay based monetary values of safety using the contingent valuation method. In spite of the fact that respondents were given the opportunity to discuss various safety issues and key concepts in focus group meetings held in advance of individual interviews, and were also given ample opportunity to revise their responses in the light of the overall pattern of these responses, the results show clear evidence of extensive and persistent insensitivity to the scale and scope of the safety improvements that were specified in the contingent valuation questions, as well as vulnerability to framing effects. This clearly casts serious doubt on the reliability and validity of willingness-to-pay based monetary values of safety estimated using conventional contingent valuation procedures.

The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk.

This book is concerned with the underlying economic questions which arise when decisions are made about the allocation of scarce resources to safety improvement. It examines contributions from other disciplines and explores the interrelationship between them and the economic analysis of safety. The book presents valuable theoretical and empirical results on attitudes to risk and the valuation of safety, and assesses the implications of recent work for public policy in such areas as transport, medical care and radiological protection. The subject matter of the book crosses various disciplinary boundaries and the author's findings will be of interest to a wide range of professionals.

Debate: Sizewell B inquiry; Valuation of safety; The peacock committee and the BBC; Public sector as employer

Debate: Sizewell B inquiry; Valuation of safety; The peacock committee and the BBC; Public sector as employer

The political economy of physical risk

The purpose of this paper is to examine the various approaches available to decision makers for taking account of safety effects in public sector allocative and legislative decisions of the type that have to be made by those involved in radiological protection. The case in favour of the explicit costing of risk and valuation of safety is developed and suggestions are made concerning the way in which such costs and values might be defined and used, in conjunction with a 'decision analysis' approach, in cases involving potential catastrophes. Finally, recent recommendations of the ICRP and NRPB are examined in the light of the results of empirical and theoretical work on the costing of risk and valuation of safety.