Modeling the Variation in Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reduction in the Context of Improving the Accuracy of Value of Statistical Life Estimates in Russia

Artur R. Nagapetyan, Polina S. Poplavko

Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia

Abstract

The study attempts to explain and demonstrate the reasons for the observed variation in the estimates of the value of a statistical life in the literature, the range of which in Russia varies from 5 million RUB to 50 million RUB and above. Such discrepancies create barriers to the formation of legislative regulation of the "value of life," which is particularly relevant in light of the need to achieve national goals for increasing life expectancy. The aim of the study is to develop economic and mathematical tools for modeling the variation in willingness to pay for reducing the risk of death, in the context of improving the accuracy of approaches to valuing life. Based on the established All-Russian database on willingness to pay for reducing pollution levels in Russian port cities and the application of quasi-experimental methods, it is demonstrated that, in general, a 1% increase in the level of risk reduction leads to a 0.15% increase in willingness to pay. Moreover, the difference between the corresponding indicators in the context of use and non-use value, within the analysis of responses from residents of port and non-port cities, exceeds 0.1 percentage points. The confirmation of the formulated hypotheses regarding the dependence of use and non-use values of life on the magnitudes of risk reduction presented to respondents allowed for the development of an approach to determining the value of life. This approach accounts for the disproportionality between the increase in willingness to pay and the increase in the level of risk reduction, thereby demonstrating the reason for the variation in corresponding estimates by up to a factor of six when using the standard model. The theoretical value of the research lies in its contribution to the literature analyzing the causes of the significant variation in value of a statistical life estimates. The practical significance of the study is the ability to employ more accurate and justified approaches to estimating the statistical value of life, taking into account the identified inelasticity of willingness to pay.

Keywords

value of life; mortality risk; willingness to pay; port cities; use value; air pollution; disproportionality.

JEL classification

References

1. Popov, N.A. (2019). Measuring socio-economic costs of road accidents: approaches and methods. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, 252–260. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2019-3-252-260

          2. Hammitt, J.K., Liu, J.-T., Liu, J.-L., Wang, J.-T. (2019). Valuing mortality risk in China: Comparing stated-preference estimates from 2005 and 2016. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 58, Issue 2, 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-019-09305-5

          3. Keller, E., Newman, J.E., Ortmann, A., Jorm, L.R. (2021). How much is a human life worth? A systematic review. Value in Health, Vol. 24, Issue 10, 1531–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.04.003

          4. Zubets, A.N., Novikov, A.V. (2018). Quantitative assessment of the value of human life in Russia and in the world. Finance: Theory and Practice. Vol. 22, No. 4, 52–75. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2018-22-4-52-75

          5. Kosyakina, A., Ponomareva, E. (2021). The value of a statistical life: estimates based on the concept of human capital. Economic Policy, Vol. 16, No. 6, 94–119. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2021-6-94-119

          6. Masterman, C.J., Viscusi, W.K. (2018). The income elasticity of global values of a statistical life: stated preference evidence. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Vol. 9, Issue 3, 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2018.20

          7. Zubova, E.A. (2022). Estimation of the value of statistical life in Russia based on microdata. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 1, 163–179. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2022-53-1-8

          8. Nagapetyan, A.R., Subbotovsky, D.A., Pavlova, T.I., Li, C. (2024). How does the incidence rate affect real income across russian regions? Terra Economicus, Vol. 22, No. 2, 77–95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2024-22-2-77-95

          9. Nagapetyan, A.R., Poplavko, P.S., Subbotovsky, D.A. (2025). How to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Governance in the Regions of the Russian Federation in the Context of a Given Indicator of Socio-Economic Development? Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1280–1311. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2025.24.4.042

          10. Ghanem, S., Ferrini, S., Di Maria, C. (2023). Air pollution and willingness to pay for health risk reductions in Egypt: A contingent valuation survey of Greater Cairo and Alexandria households. World Development, Vol. 172, 106373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106373

          11. Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Krupnick, A., Simon, N.B. (2004). Does the value of a statistical life vary with age and health status? Evidence from the US and Canada. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 48, Issue 1, 769–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2003.10.005

          12. Hammitt, J.K., Graham, J.D. (1999). Willingness to pay for health protection: Inadequate sensitivity to probability? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 18, Issue 1, 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007760327375

          13. Krupnick, A. (2007). Mortality-risk valuation and age: Stated preference evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rem016

          14. Vassanadumrongdee, S., Matsuoka, S. (2005). Risk perceptions and value of a statistical life for air pollution and traffic accidents: Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 30, Issue 3, 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-005-1155-0

          15. Lopes, A.F., Kipperberg, G. (2020). Diagnosing insensitivity to scope in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 77, Issue 1, 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00470-9

          16. Herrera-Araujo, D., Rheinberger, C.M., Hammitt, J.K. (2022). Valuing non-marginal changes in mortality and morbidity risk. Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 84, 102627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2022.102627

          17. Smith, K., Osborne, L. (1996). Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a “Scope” Test? A Meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 31, Issue 3, 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0045

          18. Mahmud, M. (2009). On the contingent valuation of mortality risk reduction in developing countries. Applied Economics, Vol. 41, Issue 2, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600994252

          19. Daniere, A. (1965). GARY S. BECKER. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. Pp. xvi, 187. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1964. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 360, No. 1, 208–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271626536000153

          20. Murphy, K., Topel, R. (2006). The value of health and longevity. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 114, No. 5, 871–904. https://doi.org/10.1086/508033

          21. Schultz, T. (1999). Health and Schooling Investments in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 3, 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.3.67

          22. Yuzhakova, E.V., Bagirova, A.P. (2019) Human and social capital formation in the course of parenting: similarities and differences of the process, costs and results. Social Area, No. 4, 3. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2019.4.21.3

          23. Viscusi, W.K. (2004). The Value of Life: Estimates with Risks by Occupation and Industry. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 42, Issue 1, 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cbh042

          24. Viscusi, W.K., Aldy, J.E. (2003). The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 27, Issue 1, 5–76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025598106257

          25. Kniesner, T.J., Viscusi, W.K., Ziliak, J.P. (2012). Willingness to accept equals willingness to pay for labor market estimates of the value of statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 44, Issue 3, 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-014-9192-1

          26. Hanemann, W.M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, Issue 3, 332–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1240800

          27. Carson, R.T., Flores, N., Meade, N. (2000). Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 19, Issue 2, 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243

          28. Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Krupnick, A., Simon, N.B. (2004). Willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: does latency matter? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 28, Issue 3, 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-9521-0

          29. Andersson, H., Hole, A.R., Svensson, M. (2016). Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 75, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.11.001

          30. Hammitt, J.K. (2000). Valuing mortality risk: Theory and practice. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 34, Issue 8, 1396–1400. https://doi.org/10.1021/es990733n

          31. Otrachshenko, V., Tyurina, E., Nagapetyan, A. (2022). The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches. Ecological Economics, Vol. 198, 107466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107466

          32. Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, M., Kopp, R.J., Presser, S., Ruud, P.A. (2003). Contingent valuation and lost passive use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 25, 257–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024486702104

          33. Andersson, H., Svensson, M. (2014). Scale sensitivity and question order in the contingent valuation method. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 57, Issue 11, 1746–1761. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.839442

          34. De Lima M.R. (2020). The value of a statistical life in Mexico. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 9., Issue 2, 140–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2019.1617196

          35. Hoffmann, S., Qin, P., Krupnick, A., Badrakh, B., Batbaatar, S., Altangerel, E., Sereeter, L. (2012). The Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions in Mongolia. Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 34, Issue 4, 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.04.005

          36. Kahneman, D., Knetsch J.L. (1992). Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 22, Issue 1, 57–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(92)90019-S

          37. Carson, R.T. (1997). Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In: Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Edited by R.J. Kopp, W.W. Pommerehne, N. Schwarz. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 127–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.148791

          38. Ducruet, C. (2024). Ports and their influence on local air pollution and public health: A global analysis. Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 915, 170099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170099

          39. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, W.M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., Swanson, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Cheltenham,: Edward Elgar, 480. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781009727

          40. Carson, R.T., Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 37, 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9124-5

          41. Hanemann, M., Loomis, J., Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, Issue 4, 1255–1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Project No. ASP-25-03-5.02-0027, under the strategic academic leadership program “Priority 2030” of the Far Eastern Federal University).

About Authors

Artur Rubikovich Nagapetyan

Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Socio-Economic Research and Regional Development, School of Economics and Management, Head of the Laboratory of Data Analysis and Applied Econometric Research, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia (690922, Primorsky Krai, Vladivostok, Russky Island, Ayaks settlement, 10); ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7885-2460 e-mail: nagapetyan_ar@dvfu.ru

Polina Sergeevna Poplavko

Post-Graduate Student, Assistant, Department of Socio-Economic Research and Regional Development, School of Economics and Management, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia (690922, Primorsky Krai, Vladivostok, Russky Island, Ayaks settlement, 10); ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5520-4943 e-mail: poplavko.ps@dvfu.ru

For citation

Nagapetyan, A.R., Poplavko, P.S. (2026). Modeling the Variation in Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reduction in the Context of Improving the Accuracy of Value of Statistical Life Estimates in Russia. Journal of Applied Economic Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, 655-686. https://doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2026.25.2.022

Article info

Received February 9, 2026; Revised March 6, 2026; Accepted March 10, 2026.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/vestnik.2026.25.2.022

Download full text article: