Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:49:49.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

John Loomis ,
Paul Bell ,
Helen Cooney  and
Cheryl Asmus
John Loomis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Paul Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Helen Cooney
Affiliation:
Department of Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO
Cheryl Asmus
Affiliation:
Health District of Northern Larimer County, Fort Collins, CO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We estimate adults' willingness to pay (WTP) to reduce health risks to their own or other families' infants to test for altruism. A conjoint analysis of adults paying for bottled water found marginal WTP for reduction in risk of shock, brain damage, and mortality in the cash treatment of $2, $3.70, and $9.43, respectively. In the hypothetical market these amounts were $14, $26, and $66, indicating substantial hypothetical bias, although not unexpected due to the topic of infant health. Statistical tests confirm a high degree of altruism in our WTP results, and altruism held even when real money was involved.

Keywords

altruismconjointdrinking waternitratesvaliditywillingness to payI10Q53
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , December 2009 , pp. 697 - 712
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I. “A Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(1991): 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauder, T., Waskom, R., and Ceplecha., Z. “Assessing Colorado Ground Water Quality and Vulnerability.” Colorado Water Resources Research Institute. Colorado Water 19(2002): 16–19.Google Scholar
Becker, G. “Altruism, Egoism and Genetic Fitness: Economics and Sociobiology.” Journal of Economic Literature 15(1976):817–826.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J., and Dorfman., J. “Commodity Information and Willingness-to-Pay for Groundwater Quality Protection.” Review of Agricultural Economics 16(1994):413–25.Google Scholar
Cummings, R., and Taylor., L. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods.” The American Economic Review 89(1999):649–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, R., and Shapiro., P. “Private Preferences for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda.” The American Economic Review 65(1975):943–55.Google Scholar
Dickie, M., and Messman., V.L. “Parental Altruism and the Value of Avoiding Acute Illness: Are Kids Worth More than Parents?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48(2004): 1146–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D. Groundwater Quality Study—Phase II. Fort Collins, CO: Northern Front Range Water Quality Planning Association, 1990.Google Scholar
Green, P. “On the Design of Choice Experiments Involving Multifactor Alternatives.” The Journal of Consumer Research 1(1974):56–67.Google Scholar
Hanemann, M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(1984):332–41.Google Scholar
Holmes, T., and Adamowicz., V. “Attribute-Based Methods.” A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Champ, P., Boyle, K., and Brown, T., eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
Hultsch, D., MacDonald, S., Hunter, M., Maitland, S., and Dixon., R. “Sampling and Generalis-ability in Developmental Research: Comparison of Random and Convenience Samples of Older Adults.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 26(2002):345–59.Google Scholar
Hurley, T., Otto, D., and Holtkamp., J. “Valuation of Water Quality in Livestock Regions: An Application to Rural Watersheds in Iowa.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(1999):177–84.Google Scholar
Johnson, R., Banzhaf, M.R., and Desvousges., W. “Willingness to Pay for Improved Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health.” Health Economics 9(2000) :295–317.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” The Journal of Political Economy 74(1966): 132–57.Google Scholar
Loomis, J., and duVair., P. “Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay.” Land Economics 69(1993): 287–98.Google Scholar
Mapp, H. “Impact of Production Changes on Income and Environmental Risk in the Southern Plains.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(1999):263–73.Google Scholar
McCaul, K.D., Sandgren, A.K., O'Neill, H.K. “The Value of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Perceived Control, and Self-Efficacy for Predicting Health-Protective Behaviors.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 14(1993):231–52.Google Scholar
Morgan, C., Coggins, J., and Eidman., V. “Tradable Permits for Controlling Nitrates in Groundwater at the Farm Level: A Conceptual Model.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 32(2000):249–58.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., and Stevens., T. “Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(2004): 182–92.Google Scholar
Murphy, J., Allen, G., Stevens, T., and Weatherhead., D. “A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 30(2005):315–25.Google Scholar
Neil, H., Cummings, R., Ganderton, P., Harrison, G., and McGuckin., T. “Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments.” Land Economics 70(1994):145–54.Google Scholar
Nicholson, W. Microeconomic Theory, 5th ed. Fort Worth, Texas: Dryden Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Richard, L., Dedobbeleer, N., and Champagne., F. “Predicting Child Restraint Device Use: A Comparison of Two Models.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24(1994): 1837-47.Google Scholar
O'Conor, R., and Blomquist., G. “Measurement of Consumer-Patient Preferences Using a Hybrid Contingent Valuation Method.” Journal of Health Economics 16(1997):667–83.Google Scholar
Paris, Q., Caputo, M., and Holloway., G. “Keeping the Dream of Rigorous Hypothesis Testing Alive.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(1993):25–40.Google Scholar
Pruchno, R., Brill, J., Shands, Y., Gordon, J., Genderson, M.W., Rose, M., and Cartwright., F. “Convenience Samples and Caregiving Research: How Generalizable Are the Findings?” The Gerontologist 48(2008):820–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Children's Health Valuation Handbook. EPA 100-R-03–003. Washington, D.C., 2003.Google Scholar
Varian, H. Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach, 2nd ed. New York: WW Norton Company, 1990.Google Scholar
Wu, J., Mapp, H., and Bernardo., D. “A Dynamic Analysis of the Impact of Water Quality Policies on Irrigation Investment and Crop Choice Decisions.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 26(1994):506— 25.Google Scholar