Eeing, B T and Kruse, J B (2006) Valuing self-protection: Income and certification effects for safe rooms. Construction Management and Economics, 24(10), pp. 1057-1068. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Survey data from Tulsa, Oklahoma residents are used to examine individual valuations of safe rooms. The study utilises two measures of individual valuations, the maximum willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) for safe rooms. The primary research questions are concerned with whether the willingness to pay measure exhibits income effects and whether certification standards make the safe room investment more desirable. The main findings can be summarised as follows. The mean willingness to pay for a safe room was $2,500. The value of certification by a national organisation increased willingness to pay for the safe room by $600 on average. There is no direct income effect in that respondents' stated willingness to pay does not bear a statistically significant relationship to reported income. There is evidence of a secondary income effect in that willingness to pay elicited from attendees of a suburban parade of homes was 7dollar;731 higher than attendees of an urban parade of homes. A mortgage payment-based WTA measure yields mean valuations of the safe room more than three times higher than the lump sum WTP valuation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | certification; safe room; valuation; willingness to accept; willingness to pay |
| Index terms: | income, mortgage, safe room, evidence, certification, willingness to pay, survey |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, administrative processes, price determination |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Procurement, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here