On the benefit transfer of the value of a statistical life

Abstract

Objective: International and domestic benefit transfers of the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) are conducted and the transfer errors are examined for Turkey. Methods: For the international transfers, (1) unit-value transfer with income adjustment, (2) the method developed by ECOTEC (2001) for EU candidate counties and (3) Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) derived for Turkey by recent literature are examined. For the domestic transfers, transfer errors are compared between unit-value transfer with income adjustment and function transfer methods. Results: While the lower-bound ECOTEC estimate results in the least transfer error, the unit-value transfer with income adjustment using the lower bound OECD value is also confirmed as “Very Good Fit” transfer if the income elasticity of VSL is 2.0-2.5 for the international benefit transfer. For the domestic transfer, unit-value transfer with income adjustment with base value = 740,838 TL (in 2012 TL) and the elasticity = 0.5 resulted in “Good Fit”. When the transfer is necessary between the sites with different background risks, the function transfer with the basic demographic variables could improve the transfer results. Conclusions: We confirmed the applicability of benefit transfer practices for Turkey in both international and domestic context and identified the recommended methods of transfers together with the specific level of the income elasticities of VSL.

Keywords

• Value of Statistical Life
• Income Elasticity of VSL
• Benefit Transfer
• ; Turkey

İstatistiksel yaşam değerinin fayda transferi

Abstract

Amaç: Türkiye’de İstatistiksel Yaşam Değeri (İYD) için uluslararası ve ulusal fayda transferleri yapılmakta ve transfer hataları incelenmektedir. Yöntem: Uluslararası transferler için, (1) gelir ayarlamalı birim değer transferi, (2) AB aday ülkeleri için ECOTEC (2001) tarafından geliştirilen yöntem ve (3) Türkiye için yakın zamanda türetilen İYD incelenmektedir. Ulusal transferlerde, gelir ayarlamalı birim değer transferi ve fonksiyon transferi yöntemleri arasında transfer hataları karşılaştırılmaktadır. Bulgular: Uluslararası fayda transferi için alt sınır ECOTEC tahmini en az transfer hatasıyla sonuçlanırken, İYD'nin gelir esnekliği 2.0-2.5 aralığında olduğunda, alt sınır OECD değeri kullanılarak gelir ayarlamalı birim değer transferi de “Çok İyi Uyum” transferi olarak doğrulanmaktadır. Ulusal transfer ise, gelir ayarlamalı birim değer transferi baz değeri = 740.838 TL (2012 TL) ve esneklik = 0.5 ile “İyi Uyum” sağlanmaktadır. Farklı mevcut riskleri olan bölgeler arasında transfer gerektiğinde, temel demografik değişkenlerle fonksiyon aktarımı transfer sonuçlarını iyileştirebilmektedir. Sonuç: Türkiye için fayda transferi uygulamalarının hem uluslararası hem de ulusal bağlamda uygulanabilirliği doğrulanmış ve İYD'nin gelir esnekliklerinin belirli düzeyleri ile birlikte önerilen transfer yöntemleri belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• İstatistiksel Yaşam Değeri
• fayda transferi
• İYD'nin gelir esnekliği
• Türkiye

References

1. 1. Tekeşin C, Ara S. Measuring the Value of Mortality Risk Reductions in Turkey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(7):6890-6922. doi:10.3390/ijerph110706890
2. 2. Ostro B. Estimating the health effects of air pollutants : a method with an application to Jakarta. May 1994:1. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/355391468752348015/Estimating-the-health-effects-of-air-pollutants-a-method-with-an-application-to-Jakarta. Accessed June 18, 2018.
3. 3. Hammitt JK, Robinson LA. The Income Elasticity of the Value per Statistical Life: Transferring Estimates between High and Low Income Populations. J Benefit-Cost Anal. 2011;2(01):1-29. doi:10.2202/2152-2812.1009
4. 4. Navrud S, Ready RC. Environmental Value Transfer : Issues and Methods. Springer; 2007.
5. 5. OECD. Economic Cost of the Health Impact of Air Pollution in Europe: Clean Air, Health and Wealth. Copenhagen; 2015.
6. 6. Viscusi WK, Masterman CJ. Income Elasticity and the Global Value of a Statistical Life. SSRN Electron J. May 2017. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2975466
7. 7. Miller TR. Variations between Countries in Values of Statistical Life. J Transp Econ Policy. 34:169-188. doi:10.2307/20053838
8. 8. Vassanadumrongdee S, Matsuoka S. Risk Perceptions and Value of a Statistical Life for Air Pollution and Traffic Accidents: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. J Risk Uncertain. 2005;30(3):261-287. doi:10.1007/s11166-005-1155-0

9. 9. Bhattacharya S, Alberini A, Cropper ML. The Value Of Mortality Risk Reductions In Delhi, India. The World Bank; 2006. doi:10.1596/1813-9450-3995
10. 10. Mahmud M. On the contingent valuation of mortality risk reduction in developing countries. Appl Econ. 2009;41(2):171-181. doi:10.1080/00036840600994252
11. 11. Hoffmann S, Qin P, Krupnick A, et al. The willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions in Mongolia. Resour Energy Econ. 2012;34(4):493-513. doi:10.1016/J.RESENEECO.2012.04.005
12. 12. Hammitt JK, Zhou Y. The Economic Value of Air-Pollution-Related Health Risks in China: A Contingent Valuation Study. Environ Resour Econ. 2006;33(3):399-423. doi:10.1007/s10640-005-3606-0
13. 13. Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons : Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(6):557-565. doi:10.1007/s40258-015-0194-1
14. 14. Bowland BJ, Beghin JC. Robust estimates of value of a statistical life for developing economies. J Policy Model. 2001;23(4):385-396. doi:10.1016/S0161-8938(01)00072-2
15. 15. Wang H, Mullahy J. Willingness to pay for reducing fatal risk by improving air quality: A contingent valuation study in Chongqing, China. Sci Total Environ. 2006;367(1):50-57. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.049
16. 16. Narain U, Sall C. Methodology for valuing the health impacts of air pollution : discussion of challenges and proposed solutions. 2016:1-69. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/832141466999681767/Methodology-for-valuing-the-health-impacts-of-air-pollution-discussion-of-challenges-and-proposed-solutions. Accessed June 19, 2018.
17. 17. Lindhjem H, Navrud S, Biausque V, Braathen NA. Meta-Analysis of Stated Preference VSL Studies: Further Model Sensitivity and Benefit Transfer Issues. Paris; 2010. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2010)10/FINAL&doclanguage=en.
18. 18. Lindhjem H, Navrud S, Braathen NA, Biausque V. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions from Environmental, Transport, and Health Policies: A Global Meta-Analysis of Stated Preference Studies. Risk Anal. 2011;31(9):1381-1407. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01694.x
19. 19. OECD. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies.; 2012. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/mortality-risk-valuation-in-environment-health-and-transport-policies_9789264130807-en.
20. 20. Milligan C, Kopp A, Dahdah S, Montufar J. Value of a statistical life in road safety: A benefit-transfer function with risk-analysis guidance based on developing country data. Accid Anal Prev. 2014;71:236-247. doi:10.1016/J.AAP.2014.05.026
21. 21. Brajer V, Rehmathan M. From Diye to Value of Statistical Life: A Case Study for the Islamic Republic of Iran.; 2003. https://iwlearn.net/documents/6053. Accessed June 18, 2018.
22. 22. OECD. Valuing Mortality Risk Reductiosn in Regulatory Analysis of Environmental, Helath and Transport Policies: Policy Implications. Paris; 2011. https://www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/48279549.pdf.
23. 23. Ecotech. The Benefits of Compliance with Teh EU Environmental Acquis for the Candidate Countries.; 2001. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/enlarg/pdf/benefit_long.pdf.
24. 24. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. The Cost of Air Pollution: Health Impacts of Road Transport. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.; 2014. doi:10.1787/9789264210448-en