100 likes | 260 Views
Benefit Transfer for the Analysis of Homeland Security Regulations. Jonathan Hecht, ICF International Federico Garcia, ICF International Carol Mansfield, RTI International. Background – U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Willingness to Pay Project.
E N D
Benefit Transfer for the Analysis of Homeland Security Regulations Jonathan Hecht, ICF International Federico Garcia, ICF International Carol Mansfield, RTI International
Background – U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Willingness to Pay Project • Note: This analysis does not represent the official view of the USCG. • “Analysis of Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Marine Transportation Safety and Security.” • Ongoing contract to support USCG’s efforts to better articulate the benefits of its safety and security regulations. • Reviewed literature on WTP for transportation safety and security. • Compiled database of 39 WTP studies. • Database contains summary, info. on explanatory variables, goodness of fit, validity tests, and measures of quality of the studies. • Evaluated studies for use as source data for benefit transfer.
Methods – Selection of Methods and Data Mapping • Use of benefit function transfer and preference calibration methods. • Literature review yielded studies of safety and security for transportation modes other than maritime. • Benefit value transfer approach not possible. • Mapping of database studies to USCG program areas: • Studies on nuclear safety, port security, or transportation of dangerous goods “Freight transport – Hazardous.” • Studies on mass transit by road, rail, or air, or studies dealing only with congestion “Passenger travel – Commuter.” • Studies on road travel in personal vehicles “Passenger travel – Other.” • Studies on marine-based recreation “Recreational boating.”
Methods – Selection of Source Data • Focused on the “Passenger travel – Commuter” USCG program area. • Evaluated the suitability of WTP estimates for benefit transfer. • Only one study was deemed suitable for use in a benefit transfer for maritime transportation. • Carlsson et al. (2004) estimated WTP for reductions in risk of traveling by air and by taxi for residents in Sweden. • WTP for reducing air travel risks was higher than WTP for reducing taxi travel risks.
Methods – Benefit Function Transfer • WTP function from Carlsson et al. study included socioeconomic variables (gender, age, income, educational level), and variables describing the scenarios used to estimate WTP. • We used various data sources (U.S. Census, etc.) to impute values for socioeconomic variables for the U.S. population into Carlsson et al.’s WTP function. • We used the WTP function to calculate new WTP values, converted them to U.S. dollars, and inflated them from 2002$ to 2009$.
Methods – Preference Calibration • We were able to implement this approach only for the air travel WTP estimates. • The income variable was not statistically significant for taxi travel model. • We assumed a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) utility function. • We solved the utility function for WTP for a change in passenger risk using values for the Swedish population, then substituted in values for the U.S. population.
Results – Transfer to U.S. Population • Benefit function transfer results (in 2009$): • Average WTP for reducing risk of air travel fatality by 1 in 500,000: $63.26. • Average WTP for reducing risk of taxi travel fatality by 1 in 500,000: $6.43. • Preference calibration results (in 2009$): • Average WTP for reducing risk of air travel fatality by 1 in 500,000: $67.73. • Greater sensitivity to changes in income than benefit function transfer results.
Results – Adaptation of Results to New Context and Risk Reduction Level • Adaptation of Air and Taxi Results to a Maritime Context: • Used evidence from the literature to determine the similarities between maritime transportation and other travel modes. • Estimated a lower-bound, mean, and upper-bound WTP for reducing risks of maritime transportation to account for uncertainty. • Adaptation of Results to a New Risk Reduction Level: • We scaled WTP proportionately with changes in the level of risk reduction. • Adapted the original results (risk reduction of 1 in 500,000) to a new risk reduction level of 1 in 100 million.
Results – WTP for Maritime Transportation Risk Reduction • Results for general U.S. population. • Results calibrated to demographics of U.S. maritime passenger population.
Concluding Remarks • Benefit transfer is a viable option for estimating the benefits of safety and security policies. • A next step would be to test the method in the context of a cost-benefit analysis of a USCG regulation using the benefit transfer results. • Benefit function transfer and preference calibration were preferred over the benefit value transfer method. • Limitations include: (1) Lack of source data for a maritime context; (2) Lack of U.S.-based data; and (3) Lack of information on the relevant change in risk for USCG regulations. • Other WTP studies provide useful context and additional information. • Smith et al. (2009) – Non-use benefits of transportation security. • Viscusi (2009) – Relative values of risks from different sources. • Jones-Lee and Loomes (1995) – Evidence of heterogeneity in WTP for risk reduction across transportation modes.