Grantee Research Project Results
2004 Progress Report: Combining Psychological and Economic Methods to Improve Understanding of Factors Determining Adults’ Valuation of Children’s Health
EPA Grant Number: R830823Title: Combining Psychological and Economic Methods to Improve Understanding of Factors Determining Adults’ Valuation of Children’s Health
Investigators: Asmus, Cheryl , Loomis, John , Cooney, Helen , Bell, Paul
Current Investigators: Asmus, Cheryl , Loomis, John , Bell, Paul
Institution: Colorado State University
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005
Project Period Covered by this Report: July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004
Project Amount: $399,727
RFA: Valuation of Environmental Impacts on Children's Health (2002) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Children's Health , Human Health , Environmental Justice
Objective:
The objective of this research project is to test a hybrid method that combines the theory of planned behavior and conjoint analysis for determining adult’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) to protect children’s health, with the method to be adapted for policymaking. For the development of this method, nitrate in drinking water serves as the risk factor because it only affects infants’ health. Data will be collected from pregnant women, parents with newborns, parents with young children, older adults with grandchildren, and older adults with no grandchildren in three different regions of Colorado: San Luis Valley, Eastern Plains, and the Front Range. An additional objective of this research project is to investigate possible cultural differences in WTP with respect to protection infants’ health from the risks associated with consuming drinking water that contains unsafe levels of nitrate.
Progress Summary:
Progress Summary/Accomplishments: To date, the survey developed in Year 1 of the project has been piloted and has undergone extensive revision. Year 2 of the project was intended to be devoted to survey administration and data analysis; however, there were some setbacks. The pilot testing for the project could not begin until the project had been approved by both Colorado State University’s and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s human research committees. The survey was piloted in the spring and early summer and substantial revisions needed to be made.
The initial pilot testing of the non-consequential treatment revealed that respondents were not sensitive to the levels of cost that had been used in the contingent valuation task ($50, $100, $150, and $250). Of 27 participants completing four tasks each, there was only one response that indicated a preference for the no-cost option. The survey was revised to increase the cost levels to $300, $400, $450, and $500. Participants did respond with more variability when the higher costs were used. In addition to those changes, two of the subscales (Urban Dweller and Modern Sensation Seeker) of the SEQUOIA environmental attitudes survey were dropped to decrease the overall length of the survey.
When the consequential treatment was piloted, we found that participants responded much as they did in the non-consequential treatment. Despite actually having been given $250 at the beginning of the session, respondents did not believe that the manipulation was “real.” For them, the contingent valuation tasks were hypothetical because they did not believe that they were really being given the money to keep. As a result, additional scripting was added to increase the credibility of the manipulation.
After the pilot testing had been completed, the team encountered another obstacle in trying to recruit sites/participants for survey administration. As a result of the reluctance of many of the different proposed sites (day care centers, preschools, childbirth classes, etc.), the recruitment procedure was revised to concentrate on Head Starts and Even Starts, as well as Salud clinics and churches in the areas of interest. Unfortunately, these sites were unable to become involved because of the length of time needed to complete the survey (approximately 1.5 hours) and their inability to provide contact information for prospective participants.
The survey was revised further to decrease the amount of time needed to complete it and the team decided to employ “in-person” recruitment tactics (a team member goes to the proposed site to interact with prospective participants directly and obtains contact information if they are interested in participating). Once the contact information has been obtained, the individuals are contacted again to schedule the actual data collection sessions. Sites have been much more receptive to this technique.
Because of the amount of time lost while these changes were being made, the team decided to attempt to simplify the method by eliminating the control condition (n = 90) and sampling from all of eastern Colorado. Rural areas with water quality issues are still prime targets for recruitment, but as a result of time constraints, other areas will be sampled as well. Because of the constraints arising from the need to increase the cost amounts, the number of participants in the consequential choice treatments also has been reduced by 50.
Future Activities:
Despite the delays that have occurred, the team is still expecting to finish the project on time according to the revised schedule below.
Survey Implementation | |
---|---|
Administer Survey (N = 380) Data Entry Coding Statistical Analysis Final Report and Manuscript Preparation Web Site Design |
October–December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April-June 2006 April-June 2006 |
The survey instrument we will be using to collect data during the next year consists of five sections. The first section has items pertaining to general information about the participants’ drinking water. Included in this section are items pertaining to well-water testing for the participant to answer if he/she obtains drinking water from a private well. The second section contains items that assess attitudes and beliefs about infants’ health. Section three assesses attitudes and beliefs about drinking water quality. The fourth section consists of the contingent valuation tasks. Participants with infants will be presented with a series of tasks where they must choose between purchasing a particular quantity of bottled water for their own infant, or doing nothing. Participants who do not have children will choose between purchasing a particular quantity of bottled water for an infant in a low-income family or doing nothing. A total of 150 of the 380 participants will be told that the choice they make on one of the tasks they complete is binding. Participants in this condition, who will have been given a sum of money in addition to the $25 participant stipend, will then either get to keep that money or purchase a specified quantity of bottled water depending on their choice on the target task. Section five contains basic demographic items such as ethnicity and income.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 9 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
drinking water, water, watersheds, groundwater, exposure, risk, risk assessment, health effects human health, vulnerability, sensitive populations, infants, children, susceptibility, chemicals, nitrogen oxides, nitrate, public policy, decisionmaking, conjoint analysis, contingent valuation, survey, psychological, willingness-to-pay, WTP, social psychology, environmental psychology, economics, Colorado, CO, Region 8,, RFA, Health, Economic, Social, & Behavioral Science Research Program, PHYSICAL ASPECTS, Scientific Discipline, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, HUMAN HEALTH, Exposure, Risk Assessments, Economics, Monitoring/Modeling, Physical Processes, decision-making, Ecology and Ecosystems, Children's Health, Environmental Policy, Economics & Decision Making, Social Science, contingent valuation, chemical exposure, multi-objective decision making, policy analysis, surveys, ecological risk assessment, theory of planned behavior, biomarkers, decision analysis, decision making, dose-response, pesticides, risk assessment model, population based dose response model, age-related differences, behavioral assessment, environmental risks, market valuation models, non-market valuation, standards of value, human exposue, human exposure, PCB, adult valuation of children's health, willingness to pay (WTP), ecological risk, environmental stress, water quality, dietary exposure, public policy, willingness to pay, conjoint analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis, fish-borne toxicants, human health riskRelevant Websites:
http://www.cahs.colostate.edu/fyi/ProgramsProjects/OtherProgramsEPA.htmProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe 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.