1 / 20

Valuation 8: Defensive expenditures (HPF)

Valuation 8: Defensive expenditures (HPF). Revealed preference methods Defensive expenditures Damage costs Defensive expenditures: A simple model An example: Urban ozone. Last week. Contingent choice modelling and its variants Steps and design stages for choice modelling

mateo
Download Presentation

Valuation 8: Defensive expenditures (HPF)

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. Valuation 8: Defensive expenditures (HPF) • Revealed preference methods • Defensive expenditures • Damage costs • Defensive expenditures: A simple model • An example: Urban ozone

  2. Last week • Contingent choice modelling and its variants • Steps and design stages for choice modelling • Some econometrics • Application to green product choice

  3. Revealed preference methods • People make choices within markets: prices paid and quantities purchased • Derive values people place on environmental amenities and disamenities from purchase decisions • Stated preference methods: intended behaviour; non-use values • Four commonly used methods: TCM, HPM, defensive expenditures and damage costs

  4. Revealed preference methods -2

  5. The Household production function approach • A household combines an environmental good/bad with market goods to produce and „experience“ that directly provides utility • To enjoy a national park people must visit the park and this costs money • To defend against an environmental bad such as traffic noise money is spent on insulation • The household production function (HPF) approach involves investigating changes in the consumption of commodities that are substitutes or complements for the environmental good of interest

  6. Defensive expenditures • Measures the “demand” for environmental bads • A rational consumer buys self-protection up to the point where the marginal cost of additional measures exceeds the marginal benefits from the reduction • Averting inputs include air filters, water purifiers, noise insulation and other defensive or self-protection inputs; these are substitutes • In all these cases an individual combines quantities of a public bad with a quantity of a market good to produce what actually gives utility

  7. Excurse: Damage costs • The method estimates the resource cost associated with environmental change, rather than WTP • Does not include any estimate of consumer surplus or marginal prices • In the health context: cost of illness approach • This is the sum of direct and indirect costs associated with illness, injury, or death • Direct costs (out-of pocket expenses) • Diagnose, treat, rehabilitate, or support ill or injured persons • Indirect costs (the value of output that is not produced) • Mainly foregone earnings

  8. Defensive expenditure: A simple model • Noise pollution (P) from a nearby road • higher Ps are worse • The individual is only interested in the level of quiet within the house (Q) • higher Q is better • The homeowner buys noise insulation and other equipment to reduce the level of noise within the house • Defensive expenditure: D(Q,P) to achieve Q for a given P

  9. The homeowner’s problem • The homeowner’s problem to choose between conventional goods (X) and Q is: • Outdoor noise does not enter the utility function, it is outside of the control of the individual X Y D(Q*,P) X* U1=U(X,Q) U0=U(X,Q) Y=X+D(Q,P) Q Q*

  10. A simple model (2) • Suppose the level of noise (P) increases slightly • consumer has to spend more to achieve same noise level • If income increases • The level of utility is the same • Compensating surplus • What happens if income is not adjusted? • Lower level of utility • Substitution effects: Q drops • Defensive expenditure < true marginal WTP

  11. The effect of a change in pollution X P2 > P1 Y=X+D(Q,P2) Y=X+D(Q,P1) U1 U2 Q2* Q1* Q

  12. Algebraically • Suppose we change P slightly by DP • The consumer adjusts the choice of Q and X • Defensive expenditure changes byDD and indoor noise levels byDQ DD=D(Q+DQ, P + DP)-D(Q,P) =D(Q+DQ, P + DP)-D(Q, P + DP)+ D(Q, P + DP)-D(Q,P) =DQDQ+DPDP DQ=[D(Q+DQ, P + DP)-D(Q, P + DP)]/ DQ DP=[D(Q, P + DP)-D(Q,P)]/ DP The marginal WTP to avoid a change in P DD/DP =DQ(DQ/DP)+DP Generally: DD/DP <DP

  13. An example: Urban ozone • Significant extension to previous model • pollution level enters directly into the utility function • Study by Dickie and Gerking (1991) • Estimate the demand for ozone pollution for two cities in the metropolitan area of Los Angeles • Burbank and Glendora • Compare the results to out-of-pocket medical expenses (damage costs) associated with elevated ozone in each of the two cities

  14. Burbank and Glendora • Suppose Burbank Glendora New Standard Old Standard

  15. The basis of the analysis • Both cities have a significant amount of air pollution • What is the WTP for an average resident of each city to reduce the maximum ozone level during a year to either 12 or 9 pphm? • The analysis is based on people’s willingness to purchase health care to compensate for the health-related damage from ozone pollution • Ozone causes coughing and other breathing difficulties

  16. The modelling approach • Utility is a function of market goods (X), health (H) and exposure to air pollution (A) • Defensive expenditure (M) depends on health (H), air pollution (A) and the individuals health status (R) • We write this as a health production function which tells us how much health will result if M is spent on medical care • The budget constraint is defined on the basis of time available to generate income

  17. The modelling approach (2) • The indirect utility function giving maximum utility attainable is • If we could observe utility we could statistically estimate the equation • Dickie and Gerking compensate this by observing whether people visit a doctor • If they do, there must be a utility gain from visiting and V1 (M>0) > V0 (M=0) • They use a random probability model and estimate the probability to visit a doctor • The binary choice problem is M>0 if V1 - V0 > 0 and M=0 if V1 - V0 = 0

  18. The data • Sample of 256 residents of the two cities • All are household heads with full-time jobs • Married white males with compromised respiratory functions are oversampled • Respondents were asked about • long-term health status • contacts with the medical care delivery system • socio-economic/demographic and work environmental characteristics • typical out-of-pocket expenses incurred for a visit to their doctor • commuting and waiting time required to see their doctor • Each contact with a respondent was matched to daily measures of ambient air pollution concentrations

  19. The results

  20. Conclusion • Estimates are lower bounds • As expected, out-of-pocket medical expenses are much lower • Earlier studies on defensive expenditures found much smaller values • $0.04 to $4.00 per year per person • Other regions • Lower ozone levels • No oversampling of respiratory impaired • CV studies found similar values • The broad range of WTP estimates poses an awkward situation for policy makers

More Related