13.09.2014 Views

Keith Vodden Dr. Douglas Smith - Transports Canada

Keith Vodden Dr. Douglas Smith - Transports Canada

Keith Vodden Dr. Douglas Smith - Transports Canada

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Ontario Model<br />

Exhibit III-5 Core WTP Parameters for Human Consequences (2004$)<br />

Value by type of effect by scenario:<br />

Type of effect Upper bound Lower bound Mean value<br />

Death $19.7 million $7.5 million $13.6 million<br />

Activity day used for<br />

short term disabling<br />

injury below:<br />

$2,885 $577 $1,730<br />

Per major injury $215,510 $43,102 $129,231<br />

Per minor injury $43,275 $8,655 $25,950<br />

Per minimal injury $2,308 $462 $1,384<br />

Partial disability $1,201,977 $240,395 $721,186<br />

Total disability $2,403,954 $480,790 $1,442,372<br />

Note: Variables above are constructed as described in the text.<br />

In Exhibit III-5, the lower bound estimates consist of the updated values estimated<br />

by <strong>Vodden</strong> et al. (1994). These values, estimated using data from Statistics <strong>Canada</strong>’s<br />

1987 Labour Market Activity Survey, have been updated to 2004. The dependent<br />

variable in these regression model estimates is the wage rate so that we have inflated the<br />

1987 value of $4.7 million to $7.8 million using Statistics <strong>Canada</strong> data on wage rates<br />

(The Labour Market cat. No: 71-222-XWE). This adjustment includes an inflation<br />

adjustment to retain the real value of the value of statistical life variable and also includes<br />

an increasing real wage factor that captures the positive income elasticity of the demand<br />

for safety as described in Viscusi and Aldy (2003). The lower bound for the activity day<br />

variable and the severe injury variable are calculated in the same way.<br />

The upper bound estimates are based on the models estimated by Gunderson and<br />

Hyatt (2001). Their central point is that earlier estimates of the value of a statistical life<br />

may under-estimate the true value of this variable. The potential bias occurs because<br />

other models fail to account for risk preferences that may vary with income and do not<br />

control for selection factors based on risk preferences. In the case of the selection issue,<br />

this means that workers with less risk aversion will accept (self-select into) higher risk<br />

jobs and because they are less risk averse will demand a smaller compensating wage<br />

differential for exposure to risk. The smaller compensating wage differential then underestimates<br />

the required compensation of “average” members of the population for<br />

exposure to risk, thereby under-estimating the costs associated with workplace and other<br />

risks including motor vehicle risks.<br />

TNS Canadian Facts, Social and Policy Research 31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!