Jump to main content.

Research Project Search
 Enter Search Term:
   
 NCER Advanced Search

Combining Psychological and Economic Methods to Improve Understanding of Factors Determining Adults’ Valuation of Children’s Health

EPA Grant Number: R830823
Title: Combining Psychological and Economic Methods to Improve Understanding of Factors Determining Adults’ Valuation of Children’s Health
Investigators: Asmus, Cheryl , Bell, Paul , Loomis, John
Institution: Colorado State University
EPA Project Officer: Wheeler, William
Project Period: July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005
Project Amount: $399,727
RFA: Valuation of Environmental Impacts on Children's Health (2002)
Research Category: Children's Health , Economics and Decision Sciences , Health Effects

Description:

Objective:

The objective of the proposed research is to test a hybrid method that combines the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and conjoint analysis for determining adults' willingness-to-pay (WTP) to protect children's health, with the method to be adapted for policy-making. For the development of this method nitrates in drinking water will serve as the risk factor because it only affects children’s health. It is hypothesized that combined responses on the various sections of the questionnaire will have predictive value for the respondents’ WTP. It is also expected that WTP will be higher for adults with children than for adults with no children but that the WTP of these adults will still be greater than zero and that the explanatory power of TPB (via regression) and conjoint analysis will be greater if the choice is consequential.

Approach:

Two experimental groups from areas of Colorado with nitrate-contaminated drinking water and one control group from an urban area with nitrate-free drinking water will be tested. A questionnaire will be used to assess knowledge and beliefs about the risk factor, as well as the components of TPB. Respondents will also complete a choice task for a conjoint analysis to assess their preferred choices of behavior for averting this risk. Upon completion of the task, half the sample (consequential choice group) will actually be given the opportunity to purchase one of their averting choices (a water filter or a year's supply of bottled water) to test the effect of making the choices consequential.

Expected Results:

In addition to expecting WTP to be higher for adults with children and that the explanatory power of TPB to be greater for the consequential choice treatment conditions, it is also expected that this research will result in the development of a model that can be used by policy makers to investigate averting option preferences with respect to other stressors.

Publications and Presentations:

Publications have been submitted on this project: View all 6 publications for this project

Supplemental Keywords:

risk assessment, conjoint analysis, economics, social psychology, environmental psychology, environmental attitudes. , Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, HUMAN HEALTH, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Scientific Discipline, Health, RFA, PHYSICAL ASPECTS, Risk Assessments, Social Science, decision-making, Physical Processes, Children's Health, Economics & Decision Making, Environmental Policy, Exposure, Monitoring/Modeling, Ecology and Ecosystems, Economics, biomarkers, fish-borne toxicants, water quality, risk assessment model, policy analysis, public policy, human exposue, decision analysis, ecological risk, ecological risk assessment, multi-criteria decision analysis, decision making, age-related differences, human health risk, willingness to pay, conjoint analysis, dietary exposure, dose-response, market valuation models, environmental risks, environmental stress, non-market valuation, pesticides, chemical exposure, theory of planned behavior, multi-objective decision making, willingness to pay (WTP), surveys, PCB, behavioral assessment, adult valuation of children's health, contingent valuation, human exposure, standards of value, population model

Progress and Final Reports:
2003 Progress Report
2004 Progress Report
Final Report

Top of page

The perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.