Valuing Reductions of Public Risks: The Case of Hazardous Waste

  • Anselm U. Römer
  • Werner W. Pommerehne
Conference paper


Natural risks have always been and are part of our daily lives. With increasing human abilities a new type of risks has appeared: technological risks. Thus, our society has been labelled as “risk society”. At the same time the possibilities to reduce both types of risks have increased. Consequently, two types of decisions with respect to risks have to be made: on the one hand it has to be decided what types of new risks society is prepared to bear, on the other hand it must be decided how to handle existing risks. Since the reduction of risks requires resources, this is clearly a problem economists should address.


Risk Reduction Hazardous Waste Contingent Valuation Contingent Valuation Method Percent Confidence Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acton, Jan P. (1973), Evaluating Public Progressto Save Lives: The Case of Heart Attack. Santa Monica.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association (1974), Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1964), The Role of Securities in the Optimal Allocation of Risk Bearing, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, Gary S. (1974), A Theory of Social Interactions, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82, No. 6, pp. 1063–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, Mark C.,Blomquist, Glenn C.,Kenkel, Don, Tolley, George S. (1987), Valuing Changes in Health Risks; A Comparison of Alternative Measures, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 967–984.Google Scholar
  6. Brookshire, David S.,Thayer, Mark A.,Schulze, William and D’Arge, Ralph S. (1982), Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches, American Economic Review, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 165–177.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, D.W.,Berger, L.A.,Flanegan, A.M.,Pancoast, S.,Schatz, A.D. and Sullivan, J.A. (1982), Risk Estimation: W.R. Grace Lagoons, Action, Ma. Unpublished Manuscript, Dept. of Environmental Health Sciences, Havard School of Public Health, Boston.Google Scholar
  8. Courant, Paul N. and Porter, Richard C. (1981), Averting Expenditures and the Cost of Pollution, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 8, No. 4,pp. 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummings, Ronald G., Brookshire, David S. and Schulze, William D. [eds.] (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods. An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa.Google Scholar
  10. Dardis, Rachel A. (1980), The Value of Life. New Evidence From the Market Place, American Economic Review, Vol. 70, No. 5,pp. 1077–1082.Google Scholar
  11. Debreu, Gerard (1959), Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. New York.Google Scholar
  12. Eisner, Robert and Strotz, Robert H. (1961), Flight Insurance and the Theory of Choice, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, Ann, Chestnut, Lauraine G. and Violette, Daniel M. (1989), The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New Evidence, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1,pp. 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman, Myrick A. (1986), On Assessing the State of the Arts of the Contingent Valuation Method of Valuing Environmental Changes. In: Cummings, Ronald G., Brookshire, David S. and Schulze, William D. (eds.), Valuing Environmental Goods. An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, pp. 148–161.Google Scholar
  15. Harrison, David Jr. (\9%3), Housing Values and the Willingness to Pay for Hazardous Wastes Regulation. Draft, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  16. Heckman, James (1979), Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error, Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirshleifer, Jack S. (1970), Investment, Interest and Capital. Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  18. Hoehn, John P. and Randall, Alan (1987), A Satisfactory Benefit Cost Indicator from Contingent Valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 14, No. 3,pp. 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones-Lee, Michael W. (1974), The Value of Changes in the Probability of Death or Injury, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 835–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones-Lee, Michael W. and Hammerton, Max (1987), The Value of Transport Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey. Newbury, Berkshire.Google Scholar
  21. Jones-Lee, Michael W., Hammerton, Max and Phillips, P.R. (1985), The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey, The Economic Journal, Vol.95, No. l,pp. 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos (1979), Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kami, Edi (1985), Decision Making Under Uncertainty: The Case of State-Dependent Preferences. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  24. Michaels, R. Gregory and Smith, V. Kerry (1988), Market Segmentation and Valuing Amenities With Hedonic Models: The Case of Hazardous Waste Sites. Faculty Working Paper No. 134, Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, Robert C. and Carson, Richard T. (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, Jon P. (1981), Three Mile Island and Residential Property Values. Empirical Analysis and Policy Implications, Land Economics, Vol. 57,No. 3,pp. 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pommerehne, Werner W. (1987), Präferenzen ßr öffentliche Güter. Ansätze zu ihrer Erfassung. Tübingen.Google Scholar
  28. Pommerehne, Werner W. (1988), Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Comparison of Hedonic Technique and Contingent Valuation. In: Bös, Dieter, Rose, Manfred and Seidl, Christian [eds.]: Welfare Efficiency and Public Economics. Berlin.,pp.363–400.Google Scholar
  29. Raucher, Robert L. (1986), The Benefits and Costs of Policies Related to Groundwater Contamination, Land Economics, Vol. 62, No. 1,pp. 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Römer, Anselm U. (1991), Der kontingente Bewertungsansatz: eine geeignete Methode zur Bewertung umweltverbessernder Maßnahmen? Zeitschrifi für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht (Journal of Environmental Policy and Law), Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 411–456.Google Scholar
  31. Römer, Anselm U. (1992), How to Handle Strategie and Protest Bids in Contingent Valuation Studies? An Application of the Two-Step Heckman Procedure. In: Applied Econometric Association [ed.], XXXIIth International Conference: Econometrics of Europe 2000. Proceedings. Brussels, pp. 311–317.Google Scholar
  32. Römer, Anselm U. (1993), Was ist den Bürgern die Verminderung eines Risikos wert?Eine Anwendung des kontingenten Bewertungsansatzes auf das Giftmüllrisiko. Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  33. Sellar, Christine, Stoll, John R. and Chavas, John-Paul (1985), Validation of Empirical Measures of Welfare Change: A Comparison of Nonmarket Techniques. Land Economics, Vol. 61, No. 2,pp. 156–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shechter, Mordechai (1985), An Anatomy of a Ground Water Contamination Episode, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.12, No. l,pp. 72–88.Google Scholar
  35. Shogren, Jason F. and Crocker, Thomas D. (1992), Risk, Self-Protection and Ex Ante Economic Value, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Slovic, Paul (1987), Perception of Risk, Science, Vol. 236, No. 2, pp. 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, V. Kerry and Desvousges, William H. (1987), An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.95, No. l,pp. 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, V. Kerry, Desvousges, William H. and Freeman, A. Myrick (1985), Valuing Changes in Hazardous Waste Risks: A Contingent Valuation Analysis. Vol. I and II. Van- derbilt, EPA Cooperative Agreement No.CR-811075.Google Scholar
  39. Thaler, Richard and Rosen, Sherwin (1976), The Value of Saving a Live. Evidence from the Labour Market. In: Terleckyi, Nestor E. [ed.], Household Production and Consumption. NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, No.40,New York, pp.265–298.Google Scholar
  40. Viscusi, W. Kip (1979), Employment Hazards. An Investigation of Market Performance. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  41. Weinstein, Milton C.,Shepard, Donald S. and Pliskin, Joseph S. (1980), The Economic Value of Changing Mortality Probabilities: A Decision-Theoretic Approach, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 373–396.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anselm U. Römer
  • Werner W. Pommerehne

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations