A Contingent Valuation Study for Use in Valuing Public Goods with Health Externalities: The Case of Street Pianos

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Aikaterini Papadopoulou, Helen Mason, Cam Donaldson
{"title":"A Contingent Valuation Study for Use in Valuing Public Goods with Health Externalities: The Case of Street Pianos","authors":"Aikaterini Papadopoulou,&nbsp;Helen Mason,&nbsp;Cam Donaldson","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00909-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Clinical healthcare is not the only way to improve an individual’s health. Community-based interventions can have health and wellbeing impacts as well; however, the nature of these interventions, which have public good characteristics, poses challenges for the typical ways in which we value outcomes for use in (health) economic evaluations. The approaches to valuation of these type of interventions should allow for the incorporation of all types of values including option value, externalities and individual use-value.</p><h3>Objective</h3><p>This is a feasibility study with the objective to re-consider the importance of health externalities when valuing public health interventions that are treated as public goods from an economic perspective.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A contingent valuation (CV) survey was designed to elicit individual willingness to pay (WTP) for the public piano programme (PPP). Five different scenarios were designed; three scenarios focussed on individual use–value, while the other two (scenarios 4 and 5) covered option values and externalities. An online survey was conducted with a sample of 105 people.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Preferences differed across the different scenarios. The mean WTP for scenario 1 was £0.81, for scenario 2 £3.65, for scenario 3 £3.07, for scenario 4 £7.26 and for scenario 5 £6.02. The WTP results for each scenario are presented and discussed regarding the nature of the good, user and non-user perspectives, payment vehicles and individual characteristics.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study provides evidence that all types of use are necessary for inclusion in an economic evaluation, especially when the good in question is a public good where its benefits can be obtained from all community members.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":"22 6","pages":"871 - 883"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-024-00909-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Clinical healthcare is not the only way to improve an individual’s health. Community-based interventions can have health and wellbeing impacts as well; however, the nature of these interventions, which have public good characteristics, poses challenges for the typical ways in which we value outcomes for use in (health) economic evaluations. The approaches to valuation of these type of interventions should allow for the incorporation of all types of values including option value, externalities and individual use-value.

Objective

This is a feasibility study with the objective to re-consider the importance of health externalities when valuing public health interventions that are treated as public goods from an economic perspective.

Methods

A contingent valuation (CV) survey was designed to elicit individual willingness to pay (WTP) for the public piano programme (PPP). Five different scenarios were designed; three scenarios focussed on individual use–value, while the other two (scenarios 4 and 5) covered option values and externalities. An online survey was conducted with a sample of 105 people.

Results

Preferences differed across the different scenarios. The mean WTP for scenario 1 was £0.81, for scenario 2 £3.65, for scenario 3 £3.07, for scenario 4 £7.26 and for scenario 5 £6.02. The WTP results for each scenario are presented and discussed regarding the nature of the good, user and non-user perspectives, payment vehicles and individual characteristics.

Conclusion

This study provides evidence that all types of use are necessary for inclusion in an economic evaluation, especially when the good in question is a public good where its benefits can be obtained from all community members.

用于评估具有健康外部性的公共产品的权宜估值研究:街头钢琴案例。
背景:临床医疗并非改善个人健康的唯一途径。以社区为基础的干预措施也会对健康和福利产生影响;然而,这些干预措施具有公益特征,其性质对我们在(健康)经济评估中使用的典型结果估值方法提出了挑战。对这类干预措施进行估值的方法应允许纳入所有类型的价值,包括选择价值、外部性和个人使用价值:这是一项可行性研究,目的是在从经济学角度对被视为公共产品的公共卫生干预措施进行估值时,重新考虑健康外部性的重要性:方法:设计了一项或然估价(CV)调查,以了解个人对公共钢琴计划(PPP)的支付意愿(WTP)。设计了五种不同的情景,其中三种情景侧重于个人使用价值,另外两种情景(情景 4 和情景 5)涉及选择价值和外部性。对 105 个样本进行了在线调查:不同方案的偏好各不相同。方案 1 的平均 WTP 为 0.81 英镑,方案 2 为 3.65 英镑,方案 3 为 3.07 英镑,方案 4 为 7.26 英镑,方案 5 为 6.02 英镑。对每种方案的 WTP 结果进行了介绍,并就商品性质、用户和非用户观点、支付工具和个人特征进行了讨论:本研究提供的证据表明,所有类型的使用都有必要纳入经济评价,特别是当有关物品属于公共物品时,所有社区成员都可以从中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信