Willingness to pay for private and public traffic safety improvements: the importance of the underlying good

Figures & data

Table 1. Survey scenarios by attribute.

	Scenario A	Scenario B	Scenario C	Scenario D	Scenario E
Good	App	App	App	App	Infrastructure
Provision	Private	Public	Private	Public	Public
Payment	Private	Tax	Tax	Tax	Tax
Coercion	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
No. of resp.	253	1,022	254	259	256

Table 2. Willingness to pay (WTP) in SEK for reduced risk of accident by provision scenario.

	Full sample				WTP >0
	Mean	SD	Median	Proportion WTP = 0 (in %)	Mean	SD	Median
Scenario A	10.28	16.10	10	44.66	18.57	17.73	10
Scenario B	12.01	18.02	10	40.31	20.12	19.52	10
Scenario C	8.48	13.13	10	49.61	16.84	14.21	10
Scenario D	11.27	17.02	10	46.72	21.16	18.31	10
Scenario E	15.21	18.50	10	30.47	21.88	18.62	10

The proportion of WTP = 0 is reported as share of the number of respondents in each scenario: $n_A=253;n_B=1,022;\text{break}{n}_C=254;n_D=259;n_E=256$. SD stands for standard deviation.

Table 3. Tests of equality of distributions for WTP in the different scenarios.

	WTPA (1)	WTPC (2)	WTPD (3)	WTPB (4)
WTPA				1.687 (0.092)
WTPC	1.168 (0.243)			3.909 (0.000)
WTPD	−0.302 (0.763)	−1.431 (0.152)		2.658 (0.008)
WTPE	−4.030 (0.000)	−5.164 (0.000)	−3.529 (0.000)	−4.973 (0.000)

z-Value (p-value) reported. Comparisons between scenarios A, C, D and E, are conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with unmatched samples (Mann–Whitney two-sample statistic), while comparisons with scenario B are conducted using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.

Table 4. Panel interval regression with scenario dummies.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Scenario A	−1.650	−1.660	−1.672	−1.601	−1.533	−1.642	−0.583	−0.857
	(1.29)	(1.29)	(1.29)	(1.29)	(1.29)	(1.29)	(1.27)	(1.26)
Scenario C	−6.345***	−6.352***	−6.337***	−6.335***	−6.359***	−6.411***	−6.116***	−5.706***
	(1.33)	(1.33)	(1.33)	(1.33)	(1.33)	(1.33)	(1.30)	(1.30)
Scenario D	−3.426***	−3.409***	−3.345**	−3.419***	−3.508***	−3.425***	−3.747***	−3.778***
	(1.30)	(1.30)	(1.30)	(1.30)	(1.30)	(1.30)	(1.28)	(1.27)
Scenario E	6.038***	6.038***	5.976***	5.983***	6.052***	6.125***	5.780***	5.711***
	(1.26)	(1.26)	(1.26)	(1.26)	(1.26)	(1.26)	(1.24)	(1.23)
Order		yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Socio-demographic			yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Risk and Worriedness				yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Experiences					yes	yes	yes	yes
Consequentialities						yes	yes	yes
WTP others							yes	yes
Attitudes								yes
Constant	11.995***	11.541***	3.898	4.953	1.476	0.018	−3.193	−6.583*
	(0.96)	(1.30)	(3.04)	(3.26)	(3.32)	(3.29)	(3.20)	(3.48)
sigma_u	24.665***	24.659***	24.512***	24.241***	23.848***	23.324***	22.307***	21.420***
	(0.86)	(0.86)	(0.85)	(0.85)	(0.83)	(0.82)	(0.78)	(0.76)
sigma_e	11.964***	11.964***	11.968***	11.974***	11.974***	11.995***	11.692***	11.675***
	(0.27)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.26)	(0.29)	(0.29)
n	2044	2044	2044	2044	2044	2044	2044	2044
AIC	4976.9	4978.6	4982.3	4967.2	4948.8	4915.0	4815.8	4764.9
BIC	5016.2	5023.6	5072.3	5068.4	5072.5	5055.6	4962.0	4967.3
Log lik.	−2481.4	−2481.3	−2475.2	−2465.6	−2452.4	−2432.5	−2381.9	−2346.4
rho	0.810	0.809	0.808	0.804	0.799	0.791	0.784	0.771
LR-test panel	711.1	710.7	702.9	689.6	672.1	644.8	615.9	578.3

Standard errors given within parentheses, and * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Scenario B, which was given to and answered by all respondents, is left out and used as the reference scenario. A description of the scenarios is given in Table 1. See Table B2 in Appendix B for all estimated coefficients.