Reporting of the CV methods

Although methodological research in CV surveys is ample there is still room to refine CV methods such as the risk communication. Reporting of the CV methods used in each CV study in road safety will contribute to the advancement of CV methods and potentially identify strategies unique to road safety research.

3. Conclusion

Lessons learnt from the applications of CV surveys in environmental and health economics are relevant in the applications of CV surveys in road safety research. The literature suggests that potential methodological issues can be addressed and managed in the design and analyses of CV surveys to maximize the validity and reliability of WTP estimates. Employing evidence-based survey designs and question forms are critical to obtain the best possible willingness to pay data in road safety research.

References

1. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Economics. 2001;10(1):39-52.

2. Svensson M, Johansson MV. Willingness to pay for private and public road safety in stated preference studies: Why the difference? Accident Analysis and Prevention.

2010;42(4):1205-12.

3. Andersson H, Lindberg G. Benevolence and the value of road safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2009;41(2):286-93.

4. Andersson H. Willingness to pay for road safety and estimates of the risk of death:

evidence from a Swedish contingent valuation study. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2007;39(4):853-65.

5. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Ortuzar JdD, Rizzi LI. Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment. Transportation Research Part A. 2009;43:692-707.

6. Gafni A. Using Willingness-to-pay as a Measure of Benefits: What is the Relevant Question to Ask in the Context of Public Decision Making About Health Care Programs? 1990.

7. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A Review and Classification of the Literature. Health Economics. 1998;7(4):313-26.

8. de Blaeij A, Florax RJGM, Rietveld P, Verhoef E. The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2003;35(6):973-86.

9. Lockwood M, Loomis J, DeLacy T. A Contingent Valuation Survey and Benefit-Cost Analysis of Forest Preservation in East Gippsland, Australia. Journal of

Environmental Management. 1993;38(3):233-43.

10. Kartman B, Stalhammar N-O, Johannesson M. Valuation of Health Changes with the Contingent Valuation Method: A Test of Scope and Question Order Effects. Health Economics. 1996;5(6):531-41.

11. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy.

1999;47(2):97-123.

12. Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL. Eliciting willingness to pay: Comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making. 2003;23(2):150-.

13. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment.

Journal of Health Economics. 2001;20(3):441-57.

14. Kennedy CA. Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation:

radon-induced lung cancer prevention. Health Economics. 2002;11(7):585-98.

15. Hultkrantz L, Lindberg G, Andersson C. The value of improved road safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2006;32(2):151.

16. List JA, Gallet CA. What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Environmental and Resource Economics.

2001;20(3):241-54.

17. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. 1993.

18. Dalmau-Matarrodona E. Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. Estimating the

determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Economics. 2001;10(2):101-18.

19. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence.

Environmental and Resource Economics. 2001;19(2):173-210.

20. Pedersen LB, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjær T. The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study. Health Policy. 2011;101(3):277-89.

21. Beattie J. On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1--Caveat Investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

1998;17(1):5-25.

22. Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The Insensitivity of 'Willingness-to-Pay' to the Size of the Good: New Evidence for Health Care. Journal of Economic Psychology.

2004;25(4):445-60.

23. de Blaeij AT, van Vuuren DJ. Risk perception of traffic participants. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2003;35(2):167-75.

24. Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Philips PR. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: Contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers.

1995;47(4):676.

25. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1992;22(1):57-70.

26. Baron J, Greene J. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 1996;2(2):107-25.

27. Donaldson C, Thomas R, Torgerson DJ. Validity of Open-Ended and Payment Scale Approaches to Eliciting Willingness to Pay. Applied Economics. 1997;29(1):79-84.

28. Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL, Frew E. Evidence of Range Bias in Contingent Valuation Payment Scales. Health Economics. 2004;13(2):183-90.

29. Silberman J, Klock M. The Behavior of Respondents in Contingent Valuation:

Evidence on Starting Bids. Journal of Behavioral Economics. 1989;18(1):51-60.

30. Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy.

2004;68(3):289-98.

31. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP. Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games. Land Economics. 1985;61(2):188-94.

32. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Ananlysis of Decision Under RIsk.

Econometrica (pre-1986). 1979;47(2):263.

33. Stewart JM, O'Shea E, Donaldson C, Shackley P. Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care? Journal of Health Economics.

2002;21(4):585-99.

34. Carson RT, Flores NE, Mitchell RC. The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG, editors. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the USA, EC, and Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999. p. 97-130.

35. Powe NA, Bateman IJ. Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism. Land Economics. 2004;80(2):258.

36. Johansson P-O. Evaluating Health Risks: An Economic Approach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press; 1995.

37. Zerbe RO. Is cost-benefit analysis legal? Three rules. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1998;17(3):419-56.

38. Guria J, Jones W, Jones-Lee MW, Keall M, Leung J, Loomes G. The New Zealand Values of Statistical Life and of Prevention of Injuries. Wellington: Land Transport Safety Authority, 2003.

39. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction:

Frequency formats. Psychological Review. 1995;102(4):684-.

40. Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD. Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation. Journal of Risk and

Uncertainty. 2001;23(2):165-84.

41. Alberini A. Does the Value of a Statistical Life Vary with Age and Health Status?

Evidence from the US and Canada. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2004;48(1):769-92.

42. Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Health Economics.

2003;22(4):555-74.

43. Smith RD. It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Economics. 2006;15(3):281-93.

44. Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle WS. A Test for Payment Card Biases. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1996;31(2):178-85.

45. Kanninen BJ. Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1995;28(1):114-25.

46. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1991;73(4):1255-63.

47. Hackl F, Pruckner GJ. Warm glow, free-riding and vehicle neutrality in a health-related contingent valuation study. Health Economics. 2005;14(3):293-306.

48. Johannesson M, Liljas B, Johansson P-O. An Experimental Comparison of

Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions.

Applied Economics. 1998;30(5):643-7.

49. Johannesson M. Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1999;18(1):21-32.

50. Poe GL. Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2002;23(1):105-31.

51. Blomquist GC, Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias Using Follow-Up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between

Probably/Definitely and a 10-Point Certainty Scale. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2009;43(4):473-502.

52. Blamey RK, Bennett JW, Morrison MD. Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys.

Land Economics. 1999;75(1):126-41.