, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 499–521 | Cite as

Estimating the value of risk reductions for car drivers when pedestrians are involved: a case study in Spain

  • Rosa Marina González
  • Concepción Román
  • Francisco Javier Amador
  • Luis Ignacio Rizzi
  • Juan de Dios Ortúzar
  • Raquel Espino
  • Juan Carlos Martín
  • Elisabetta Cherchi


We estimated the benefits associated with reducing fatal and severe injuries from traffic accidents using a stated choice experiment where choice situations were generated through a statistically efficient design. Specifically, the risk variables were defined as the expected annual number of vehicle car-users that suffered their death or were severely injured in a traffic accident. In addition, and differing from previous research, the number of pedestrians that died or were severely injured in traffic accidents per year was also included as a risk attribute in the choice experiment, to attempt at measuring drivers’ willingness to pay to reduce the risk of hitting pedestrians in a crash. The empirical setting was a choice of route for a particular trip that a sample of car drivers periodically undertakes in Tenerife, Spain. Models were estimated accounting for random taste heterogeneity and pseudo-panel data correlation. The median of the distribution of simulated parameters was used to obtain a representative measure for the monetary valuation of risk reductions. We found that the ratio between the values of reducing the risk of suffering a serious injury and that of reducing a fatality was approximately 18 %. Further, and quite novel, we also found that the value of reducing a pedestrian fatality was 39 % of the value of reducing a car occupant fatality.


Value of risk reduction Stated choice experiment Efficient design Willingness to pay Road accidents Pedestrian victims 



The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the Project PT-2007-027-01CAPM from the public call: Convocatoria de Proyectos I+D+i - 2007 del Centro de Estudios y Experimentación de Obras Públicas (CEDEX), Ministerio de Fomento de España. We are also grateful for the support of the Institute in Complex Engineering Systems (ICM-FIC: P-05-004-F; CONICYT: FBO816), the Centre for Sustainable Urban Development, CEDEUS (Conicyt/Fondap/15110020) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The authors would like to thank Prof. Kip Viscusi and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.


  1. Abellán, J.M., Martínez, J.E., Méndez, I., Pinto, J.L., Sánchez, F.I.: El valor monetario de una vida estadística en España. Informe Final, Dirección General de Tráfico, Madrid (2011). in Spanish Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, W.L., Boxall, P.C., Williams, M., Louviere, J.D.: Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 64–75 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert, C., Malo, M.A.: Diferencias salariales y valoración de la vida humana en España. Moneda y Crédito 201, 87–125 (1995). in Spanish Google Scholar
  4. Anscombe, F., Aumann, R.: A definition of subjective probability. Ann. Math. Stat. 34, 199–205 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beattie, J., Covey, J., Dolan, P., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N., Robinson, A., Spencer, A.: On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1—caveat investigator. J. Risk Uncertain. 17, 5–25 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bierlaire, M.: BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  7. Cantos, P., Alvárez, O.: El valor del tiempo en congestión: el caso de la radial-3. Revista de Economía Aplicada 17, 55–80 (2009). in Spanish Google Scholar
  8. Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P.: Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 12, 281–294 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Liljenstolpe, C.: Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 47, 95–103 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carthy, T., Chilton, S., Covey, J., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N., Spencer, A.: On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 2—the CV/SG “chained” approach. J. Risk Uncertain. 17, 187–214 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ChoiceMetrics: Ngene 1.0. User Manual and Reference Guide. The Cutting Edge in Experimental Design (, Sydney (2009)
  12. De Blaeij, A.T., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E.T., Nijkamp, P.: The valuation of a statistical life in road safety: a stated preference approach. Proceedings 30th European Transport Forum. PTRC, London (2002)Google Scholar
  13. De Blaeij, A., Florax, R.J.G.M., Rietveld, P., Verhoef, E.: The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 35, 973–986 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Ortúzar, J.D., Willumsen, L.G.: Modelling Transport, 4th edn. Wiley, Chichester (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Domencich, T., McFadden, D.: Urban Travel Demand: a Behavioural Analysis. North Holland, Amsterdam (1975)Google Scholar
  16. Espino, R., Román, C., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Analysing demand for suburban trips: a mixed RP/SP model with latent variables and interaction effects. Transportation 33, 241–261 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flügel, S., Elvik, R., Veisten, K., Rizzi, L.I., Meyer, S.F., Ramjerdi, F., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Asymmetric preferences for road safety: evidence from a stated choice experiment among car drivers. Transp. Res. 31F, 112–123 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. Goett, A., Hudson, K., Train, K.E.: Customer choice among retail energy suppliers: the willingness-to-pay for service attributes. Energy J. 21, 1–28 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grisolía, J.M., López, F., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Increasing the acceptability of a congestion charging scheme. Transp. Policy 39, 37–47 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grisolía, J.M., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Forecasting versus observed outturn: studying choice in faster inter-island connections. Transp. Res. Part A 44, 159–168 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. Hammitt, J., Graham, J.: Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? J. Risk Uncertain. 18, 33–62 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hensher, D.A., Greene, W.H.: Mixed logit models: the state of practice. Transportation 30, 133–176 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., de Ortúzar, J.D., Rizzi, L.I.: Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment. Transp. Res. Part A 43, 692–707 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hojman, P., de Ortúzar, J.D., Rizzi, L.I.: On the joint valuation of averting fatal and serious injuries in highway accidents. J. Saf. Res. 36, 377–386 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The importance of utility balance and efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 33, 307–317 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hultkrantz, L., Lindberg, G., Andersson, C.: The value of improved road safety. J. Risk Uncertain. 32, 151–170 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iragüen, P., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Willingness-to-pay for reducing fatal accident risk in urban areas: an internet-based web page stated preference survey. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36, 513–524 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones-Lee, M.W.: Paternalistic altruism and the value of statistical life. Econ. J. 102, 80–90 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones-Lee, M.W., Loomes, G., Philips, P.R.: Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation versus standard gamble. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 47, 676–695 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kanninen, B.J.: Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J. Mark. Res. 39, 214–217 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Braathen, N.A., Biausque, V.: Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental, transport, and health policies: a global meta-analysis of stated preference studies. Risk Anal. 31, 1381–1407 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manual de Evaluación Económica de Proyectos de Transporte: (in Spanish) (2010)
  33. Martínez, J., Abellán, J., Pinto, J.: El valor monetario de la vida estadística en España a través de las preferencias declaradas. Revista de Economía Pública 183, 125–144 (2007). in Spanish Google Scholar
  34. Persson, U.: Valuing Reductions in the Risk of Traffic Accident Based on Empirical Studies in Sweden. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Technology and Society, Lund University (2004)Google Scholar
  35. Persson, U., Norinder, A., Hjalte, K., Gralén, K.: The value of a statistical life in transport: findings from a new contingent valuation study in Sweden. J. Risk Uncertain. 23, 121–134 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plan Territorial Especial de Ordenación de Transportes de Tenerife. (in Spanish) (2009)
  37. Rizzi, L.I., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Stated preference in the valuation of interurban road safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 35, 9–22 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rizzi, L.I., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Estimating the willingness-to-pay for road safety improvements. Transp. Rev. 26, 471–486 (2006a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rizzi, L.I., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Road safety valuation under a stated choice framework. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 40, 71–96 (2006b)Google Scholar
  40. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J.: Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp. Rev. 29, 587–617 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J., Hensher, D.A., Collins, A.C.: Designing efficient stated choice experiments involving respondent based reference alternatives. Transp. Res. Part B 42, 395–406 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sælensminde, K.: Inconsistent choices in stated choice data. Use of the logit scaling approach to handle resulting variance increases. Transportation 28, 269–296 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sælensminde, K.: The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environ. Resour. Econ. 23, 403–420 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sándor, Z., Wedel, M.: Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J. Mark. Res. 38, 430–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sillano, M., de Ortúzar, J.D.: Willingness to pay estimation with mixed logit models: some new evidence. Environ. Plan. 37A, 525–550 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Svensson, M.: The value of a statistical life in Sweden: estimates from two studies using the ‘certainty approach’ calibration. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 430–437 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Train, K.E.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Train, K.E., Sonnier, G.: Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In: Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (eds.) Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol. 6, pp. 117–134. Springer, Dordrecht (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trawen, A., Maraste, P., Person, U.: International comparison of costs of fatal accidents in 1990 and 1999. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34, 323–332 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veisten, K., Flügel, S., Rizzi, L.I., de Ortúzar, J.D., Elvik, R.: Valuing casualty risk reductions from estimated baseline risk. Res. Transp. Econ. 43, 50–61 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Viscusi, W.K., Aldy, J.E.: The value of statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J. Risk Uncertain. 27, 5–76 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Viscusi, W.K., Magat, W.A., Hube, J.: Pricing environmental health risks: surveys assessments of risk–risk and risk–dollar trade offs for chronic bronchitis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 21, 32–51 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walker, J.L., Ben-Akiva, M., Bolduc, D.: Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models. J. Appl. Econom. 22, 1095–1125 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weber, M., Eisenfuhr, F., von Winterfeldt, D.: The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multi-attribute utility measurement. Manag. Sci. 34, 431–445 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang, T., Curtin, R., Jans, M.: Trends in income nonresponse over two decades. J. Off. Stat. 26, 145–164 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosa Marina González
    • 1
    • 5
  • Concepción Román
    • 2
  • Francisco Javier Amador
    • 1
  • Luis Ignacio Rizzi
    • 3
  • Juan de Dios Ortúzar
    • 3
  • Raquel Espino
    • 2
  • Juan Carlos Martín
    • 2
  • Elisabetta Cherchi
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Universitario de Desarrollo RegionalUniversidad de La LagunaLa LagunaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto de Turismo y Desarrollo Económico SostenibleUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran CanariaLas Palmas De Gran CanariaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Ingeniería de Transporte y Logística, Centro de Desarrollo Urbano Sustentable (CEDEUS)Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Transport Operations Research Group (TORG), School of Civil Engineering and GeoscienceNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  5. 5.Facultad de Economía, Empresa y TurismoLa LagunaSpain

Personalised recommendations