Updating the vpf and vpis

(2010) The Trade-Offs Embodied in J-Value Safety Analysis.

(2003) A Conceptual Approach to the Estimation of Societal Willingness-to-Pay for Nuclear Safety Programs.

(2006) The Extent of Regulatory Consensus on Health and Safety Expenditure: Part 2: Applying the J-Value Technique to Case Studies across Industries.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 88, 147-167.

That method has been shown elsewhere to be invalid, which returns the focus to the original study rejected by its authors.

This paper shows that the VPFs produced by the first study are fully explicable and cannot be dismissed if the stated preference approach is to be accepted. (2014) Explaining Perceived Inconsistencies in “Stated Preference” Valuations of Human Life.

However, in view of the difficulties experienced with stated preference techniques in the valuation of life, it is clear that an urgent reappraisal is needed of revealed preference techniques if people’s safety is to be safeguarded adequately. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 4, 442-473.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84, 337-343.

(2006) The Derivation and Calibration of the Life-Quality Index (LQI) from Economic Principles. Beattie, J., Covey, J., Dolan, P., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N., Robinson, A. (1998) On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1—Caveat Investigator. Carthy, T., Chilton, S., Covey, J., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N. (1999) On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2—The CV/SG “Chained” Approach.

A Report for the Inter-Departmental Group for the Valuation of Life and Health. M., Evans, A., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Holder, S. (2011) Updating the VPF and VPIs: Phase 1: Final Report: Department for Transport.

The Relative Utility Pricing model is used to explain the fact that when faced with two “safety packs”, the second giving three times the safety benefit of the first, discriminating respondents will place a value on the second pack that is, on average, twice the amount they say they will be prepared to pay for the first.

updating the vpf and vpis-19updating the vpf and vpis-43updating the vpf and vpis-11

When the safety packs reduce fatal accident frequencies, the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) figures deduced from the valuations of the two safety packs must then be significantly different. (2006) The Extent of Regulatory Consensus on Health and Safety Expenditure: Part 1: Development of the J-Value Technique and Evaluation of the Regulators’ Recommendations.

Join our conversation (55 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Updating the vpf and vpis.

Comments:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *