Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics

, Volume 149, Issue 3, pp 357–379 | Cite as

Spatial effects in willingness to pay for avoiding nuclear risks

  • Yves Schneider
  • Peter Zweifel
Open Access


How to deal with the risks associated with nuclear energy is a major policy issue. This paper investigates the effect of an individual’s distance from nuclear power plants on willingness to pay for increased insurance coverage against nuclear accidents (MWP C ) as well as on willingness to pay for solving the nuclear waste disposal problem (MWP W ). Using data from a discrete choice experiment conducted in Switzerland, we find evidence that MWP C values decrease with distance from plant once attitudes influencing choice of residential location are controlled for. However, distance from plant has no effect on MWP W values.


R3 L94 C9 


citation discrete choice experiment liability insurance nuclear accident willingness to pay 


  1. Bishop, Richard C., and Thomas A. Heberlein (1979), “Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5), pp. 926–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, David E., and Tim Allison (1999), “Spent Nuclear Fuel and Residential Property Values: The Influence of Proximity, Visual Cues and Public Information”, Papers in Regional Science, 78(4), pp. 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, Lucas W. (2004), “The Effect of Health Risk on Housing Values: Evidence from a Cancer Cluster”, American Economic Review, 94(5), pp. 1693–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Bekker-Grob, Esther W, Mandy Ryan, and Karen Gerard (2010), “Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature”, Health Economics, 21(2), pp. 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diamond, Peter A., and Jerry A. Hausman (1994), “Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), pp. 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dionne, Georges, and Louis Eeckhoudt (1985), “Self-Insurance, Self-Protection and Increased Risk Aversion”, Economics Letters, 17(1–2), pp. 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrlich, Isaac, and Gary S. Becker (1972), “Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection”, The Journal of Political Economy, 80(4), pp. 623–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farber, Stephen (1998), “Undesirable Facilities and Property Values: A Summary of Empirical Studies”, Ecological Economics, 24(1), pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Folland, Sherman, and Robbin Hough (2000), “Externalities of Nuclear Power Plants: Further Evidence”, Journal of Regional Science, 40(4), pp. 735–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamble, Hays B., and Roger H. Downing (1982), “Effects of Nuclear Power Plants on Residential Property Values”, Journal of Regional Science, 22(4), pp. 457–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gawande, Kishore, and Hank Jenkins-Smith (2001), “Nuclear Waste Transport and Residential Property Values: Estimating the Effects of Perceived Risks”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42(2), pp. 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, and Ulla Slothuus (2002), “The Citizen’s Preferences for Financing Public Health Care: A Danish Survey”, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 2(1), pp. 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanemann, W. Michael (1984), “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), pp. 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardin, R. H., and N. J. A. Sloane (1991–2003), GOSSET: A General-Purpose Program for Designing Experiments,ñjas/gosset/.
  15. Hartog, Joop, Ada Ferrer-i Carbonell, and Nicole Jonker (2002), “Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics”, Kyklos, 55(1), pp. 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ida, Takanori, and Toshifumi Kuroda (2006), “Discrete Choice Analysis of Demand for Broadband in Japan”, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 29(1), pp. 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly, Mary, and Anne E. Kleffner (2003), “Optimal Loss Mitigation and Contract Design”, The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 70(1), pp. 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Louviere, Jordan, David Hensher, and Joffre Swait (2000), Stated Choice Methods— Analysis and Applications, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Louviere, Jordan J., David Pihlens, and Richard Carson (2010), “Design of discrete choice experiments: A discussion of issues that matter in future applied research”, Journal of Choice Modelling, 4(1), pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson, Jon (1981), “Three Mile Island and Residential Property Values: Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications”, Land Economics, 57(3), pp. 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen, Jesper B., Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen, and Jørgen Nexøe (2003), “Impact of Socio-demographic Factors on Willingness to Pay for the Reduction of a Future Health Risk”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(1), pp. 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riddel, Mary, Christine Dwyer, and W. Douglass Shaw (2003), “Environmental Risk and Uncertainty: Insights from Yucca Mountain”, Journal of Regional Science, 43(3), pp. 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schneider, Yves, and Peter Zweifel (2004), “How Much Internalization of Nuclear Risk Through Liability Insurance?”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29(3), pp. 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, Kerry, and William H. Desvousges (1986), “The Value of Avoiding a LULU: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(2), pp. 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Telser, Harry, and Peter Zweifel (2002), “Measuring Willingness-To-Pay For Risk Reduction: An Application of Conjoint Analysis”, Health Economics, 11(2), pp. 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Lucerne and PolynomicsOltenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Emeritus, Department of EconomicsUniversity of ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations