The influencing factors of the WTP for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents in China

Abstract

To explore the factors that influence respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents, a questionnaire survey combined with contingent valuation and psychometric paradigm methods were conducted in the city of Yancheng, Jiangsu Province, China. Both traditional socioeconomic variables and perceived characteristics of the hazards were considered in this study, and a Tobit model was used to find the factors influencing WTP under three risk reduction scenarios. The results showed that three demographic characteristics, age, gender, and income, significantly affected the WTP for chemical risk reduction. In addition, three extracted public risk perception factors, effect, knowledge, and trust, also strongly affected the WTP. The mean WTP value increased as the magnitude of the risk reduction increased. The number of factors influencing the WTP decreased as the reduction level improved, and only the effect factor had a significant influence on the WTP for a higher level (80%) of risk reduction. The cost for chemical safety management of Yancheng was calculated, and the optimized risk reduction level was determined. These findings can assist governments and policy makers to formulate suitable strategies for risk control, to reach target groups of people to develop effective communication, and to provide specific references for the best investment for the security of local residents.

Keywords

risk perception / willingness to pay / contingent valuation method / risk management school of the environment

References

[1] . National Bureau of Statistics of China.China Statistical Yearbook 2010, Beijing: China Statistics Press, 2010

[2] Liu T M, Zhong M H, Xing J J. Industrial accidents: Challenges for China’s economic and social development. Safety Science, 2005, 43(8): 503–522

[3] Zhou S P, Ji Q G. “7.28” explosion incident for security alarm sounded. Environment Protection, 2006, 8A: 1–4 (in Chinese)

[4] Zhang Z C, Sun X, Li Y F, Zhu X D. Analysis on the spatial and temporal change of chemical accidents and its suggestions: a case study in coastal areas of Jiangsu Province. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(8): 129–135 (in Chinese)

[5] Whittington D. Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2002, 22(1/2): 323–367

[6] Hammitt J K, Zhou Y. The economic value of air-pollution-related health risks in China: a contingent valuation study. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2006, 33(3): 399–423

[7] Wang X J, Zhang W, Li Y, Yang K Z, Bai M. Air quality improvement estimation and assessment using contingent valuation method, a case study in Beijing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2006, 120(1-3): 153–168

[8] Garming H, Waibel H. Pesticides and farmer health in Nicaragua: a willingness-to-pay approach to evaluation. The European Journal of Health Economics, 2009, 10(2): 125–133

[9] McDaniels T L, Kamlet M S, Fischer G W. Risk perception and the value of safety. Risk Analysis, 1992, 12(4): 495–503

[10] Venkatachalam L. The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2004, 24(1): 89–124

[11] Cameron T A, Deshazo J R, Stiffler P. Demand for health risk reductions: a cross-national comparison between the U.S. and Canada. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2010, 41(3): 245–273

[12] Wang H, Mullahy J. Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality: a contingent valuation study in Chongqing, China. Science of the Total Environment, 2006, 367(1): 50–57

[13] Zhai G F, Sato T, Fukuzono T, Ikeda S, Yoshida K. Willingness to pay for flood risk reduction and its determinants in Japan. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2006, 42(4): 927–940

[14] Angulo A M, Gil J M. Risk perception and consumer willingness to pay for certified beef in Spain. Food Quality and Preference, 2007, 18(8): 1106–1117

[15] Krupnick A, Alberini A, Cropper M, Simon N, O’Brien B, Goeree R, Heintzelman M. Age, health and the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: a contingent valuation survey of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2002, 24(2): 161–186

[16] Vassanadumrongdee S, Matsuoka S. Risk perceptions and value of a statistical life for air pollution and traffic accidents: evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2005, 30(3): 261–287

[17] Zhai G F, Suzuki T. Effects of risk representation and scope on willingness to pay for reduced risks: evidence from Tokyo Bay, Japan. Risk Analysis, 2008, 28(2): 513–522

[18] Slovic P, Feischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: 机构hwing R C, Albers W A, eds. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York: Springer Press, 1980, 181–216

[19] Griffin R C. The fundamental principle of cost-benefit analysis. Water Resources Research, 1998, 34(8): 2063–2071

[20] Duan W L, Chen G H, Ye Q, Chen Q G. The situation of hazardous chemical accidents in China between 2000 and 2006. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 186(2/3): 1489–1494

[21] McCall C H. Sampling and Statistics Handbook for Research. 1st ed. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1982

[22] Bateman I J, Burgess D, Hutchinson W G, Matthews D I. Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2008, 55(2): 127–141

[23] Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236(4799): 280–285

[24] Slovic P. The risk game. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2001, 86(1/3): 17–24

[25] Slovic P, Finucane M L, Peters E, MacGregor D G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(2): 311–322

[26] Huang L, Sun K, Ban J, Bi J. Public perception of blue-algae bloom risk in Hongze Lake of China. Environmental Management, 2010, 45(5): 1065–1075

[27] Kunreuther H, Easterling D, Desvousges W, Slovic P. Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 1990, 10(4): 469–484

[28] Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(1): 1–11

[29] Mcdonald J F, Moffitt R A. The uses of Tobit analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1980, 62(2): 318–321

[30] Browne M W, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 1992, 21(2): 230–258

[31] Andersson H. Perception of own death risk: an assessment of road-traffic mortality risk. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(7): 1069–1082

[32] Bhattacharya S, Alberini A, Cropper M L. The value of mortality risk reductions in Delhi, India. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2007, 34(1): 21–47

[33] Huang L, Bi J, Zhang B, Li F Y, Qu C S. Perception of people for the risk of Tianwan nuclear power plant. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2010, 4(1): 73–81

[34] Shabman L, Stephenson K. Searching for the correct benefit estimate: Empirical evidence for an alternative perspective. Land Economics, 1996, 72(4): 433–449

[35] Desaigues B, Bordeaux U, Rabl A. Reference values for human life: an econometric analysis of a contingent valuation in France. Nathalie Schwab and Nils Soguel, 1995: 1-17

[36] Hammitt J K, Liu J T, Lin W C. Sensitivity of willingness to pay to the magnitude of risk reduction: a Taiwan-United States comparison. Journal of Risk Research, 2000, 3(4): 305–320

[37] Lu C J, Luo H, Lv L H, He M M. Public risk perception and willingness to pay towards emergency environmental pollution: a case study in Nanjing chemical industry park. In: Proceedings of 2010 International Conference on Emergency Management and Management Science (ICEMMS), Beijing: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Press, 2010, 242–245

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg