1 / 13

The Value of Preventing a Farm Fatality in Northern Ireland

The Value of Preventing a Farm Fatality in Northern Ireland. C. Cockerill & Prof G. Hutchinson (QUB) Prof S. Chilton (University of Newcastle upon Tyne). Background/Rationale. Agriculture is a significant component of NI economy

Download Presentation

The Value of Preventing a Farm Fatality in Northern Ireland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Value of Preventing a Farm Fatality in Northern Ireland C. Cockerill & Prof G. Hutchinson (QUB) Prof S. Chilton (University of Newcastle upon Tyne)

  2. Background/Rationale • Agriculture is a significant component of NI economy • High occupational fatality rate: 24.1 fatalities/10,000 workers ie. 6/21 occupational fatalities in one year between 2002/3 (HSENI) • Valuation is important to ensure costs of policy to reduce risk of accidents are outweighed by the benefits • Valuation techniques are well developed eg. DETR (UK) adopted value for the prevention of a road fatality from Carthy et al (1999) • Previous efforts (Monk et al, 1986 (UK); Tormoehlen & Field, 1995 (US); Low & Griffith, 1996 (Australia)) to calculate a value for farm safety are general deficient.

  3. Aims • To generate a value for reducing the risk of a fatal farm accident to farmers in Northern Ireland • To investigate if this estimate is transferable to other accident contexts or if a context premium exists This study will provide a prototype that can be applied for all farm accidents types as a means of obtaining a more accurate value for a prevented farm fatality

  4. Methods • Stated preference techniques: • Contingent Valuation - Modified Standard Gamble • Matching • CV-MSG: • CV elicits a value for the pain, grief and suffering associated with a non-fatal farm injury • MSG elicits a risk-risk trade-off between the pain, grief and suffering associated with a non-fatal injury and chance of recovery of death • These results are “chained” to estimate the value of preventing a farm fatality • Matching: • elicits preference based values for preventing farm fatalities caused by one accident context relative to another accident context • asks respondent to state the number of deaths prevented from one type of accident that is equivalent to x deaths prevented from another accident

  5. Advantages of Adopted Methods • Captures the costs of pain, grief and suffering • Does not rely on wage rates (human capital approach) or the purchase of a safety product (revealed preference approach) • Avoids difficulty of directly trading off risk of death for wealth, e.g. • lack of comprehension of small probabilities associated with fatal risk (Beattie et al, 1998) • Provides estimates for different accident contexts without the need to repeat the CV-MSG task, which would be time consuming and potentially result in respondent fatigue.

  6. Survey • Face to face interviews • 2 versions of the questionnaire to allow checks for scope insensitivity, sequencing effects, internal consistency Table 1: Summary Descriptions of severity associated with non fatal injuries (Jones Lee et al, 1985)

  7. Sample • 293 Farms in Northern Ireland • Representative of full time, commercial, specialised farms, where farmer, spouse and at least one child under 18 years of age resided on the farm site • Farms selected using a 3 stage approach: • Geographical clusters of 3-4 electoral wards in each of 12 rural districts (i.e. 2 per county) • Farms selected by systematic sampling with proportional allocation in relation to six strata (3 types: Dairy; Cattle & Sheep; Cereal and 2 sizes: 16-40 ESU and 40+ ESU) • Farms were then contacted by telephone to ensure that a spouse and child under 18 years resided on the farm site

  8. Results: Value for Preventing a Fatality Table 4: Estimates for Value of Preventing a Farm Machinery Fatality Table 5: Lower and Upper bounds for Value of Preventing a Farm Machinery Fatality

  9. Results: Context Effects Table 6: Mean relativities (VPF1/VPF2) M = Machinery Accident F = Fall L = Livestock Accident D = Drowning in Slurry

  10. Conclusions • Conservative estimate of Machinery VPF is £1.5 – 2.5 million (€2.2 - 3.6 million) • Total cost requires addition of direct costs, e.g. medical costs • VPF from a road accident was £1 – 1.6 million (Carthy et al, 1999). • Why is road fatality valued less than farm fatality? • Farmers are less constrained by budget • Farmers place a higher value on life and good health • Farmers are self-employed • Farmers sampled were parents • Inflation • No significant context premium, therefore the Machinery VPF could be applied to other types of fatal accidents

  11. Questions?

  12. Calculating a Value for Preventing a Fatality • VPF = pop. mean of marginal rates of substitution of wealth for risk of death (md) • CV elicits: • WTA compensation for sustaining non-fatal injury (upper bound) • WTP for treatment which provides a quick recovery (lower bound) • mi marginal rate of substitution of wealth for risk of injury, mi is calculated from WTA and WTP for 4 functional forms of utility (Carthy et al, 1999) • MSG elicits a trade off between risk of death for risk of injury • Offers a choice between 2 treatments with chances of success or failure • Treatment 1: Probability of injury i v. Given probability of Death • Treatment 2: Probability of normal health v. Probability of Death • What is the maximum acceptable probability of death for Treatment 2? • This elicits a ratio md/mi (Carthy et al, 1999) • These results are chained: md = md/mi * mi (Direct Approach) • Indirect Approach: md = md/mX * mX/mF * mF

More Related