Pitfalls in the application of utility functions to the valuation of human life

Abstract Safety strategies in the process and other industries depend ultimately on how much the owners and operators decide should be spent on protection systems to protect workers and the public from potential plant hazards. An important input to decisions of this sort is the value of life, which needs to be assessed in a valid manner so that safety decisions can be made properly. A key reference point for decisions on safety investment decisions in the UK is a 1999 study on the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF), which employs a two-injury chained model that has been shown previously by the present authors to possess internal inconsistencies. The 1999 study made extensive use of utility functions to interpret survey data, and it is this feature that is explored in this paper. It will be explained here how different forms of utility function of the Exponential family can produce the same figure for an intermediate parameter in the calculation of the VPF from the two-injury chained model. Exponential utility functions are, however, unlikely to provide a realistic representation if their calculated risk-aversions need to be negative or zero in order to match survey data, which would imply an incautious attitude amongst those taking decisions on safety. The use of an incompletely specified wealth threshold in the utility modelling is explored in the light of a proposal by the authors of the 1999 study that a second utility function can be used to determine the individual's utility when his wealth lies below the threshold, which constitutes the lower limit of validity of the first utility function. The proposition is shown to be untenable. The results presented in this paper raise further concerns about the lack of validity of the 1999 study on which the UK VPF is based and hence on the safety decisions that have been made in consequence.

[1]  The Quantum of Wealth , 2010 .

[2]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2 - The CV/SG "Chained" Approach , 1998 .

[3]  J. Wolff,et al.  Cross-Sector Weighting and Valuing of QALYs and VPFs A Report for the Inter-Departmental Group for the Valuation of Life and Health , 2009 .

[4]  R. D. Jones,et al.  The limits to risk aversion: Part 2: The permission point and worked examples , 2010 .

[5]  David W. Stupples,et al.  The Extent of Regulatory Consensus on Health and Safety Expenditure: Part 2: Applying the J-Value Technique to Case Studies Across Industries , 2006 .

[6]  D. Bernoulli.  Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk , 1954 .

[7]  R. B. Jongejan,et al.  How safe is safe enough , 2008 .

[8]  P. Thomas,et al.  An absolute scale for measuring the utility of money , 2010 .

[9]  Mahesh D. Pandey,et al.  The derivation and calibration of the life-quality index (LQI) from economic principles , 2006 .

[10]  N. Kaldor.  The Philosophy of Economics: Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility , 1939 .

[11]  Geoff Vaughan,et al.  All in the balance: assessing schemes to protect humans and the environment , 2013 .

[12]  Mahesh D. Pandey,et al.  Engineering Decisions for Life Quality , 2009 .

[13]  Sw Orr,et al.  Cross-Sector Weighting of Valuing QALYs and VPFs , 2009 .

[14]  Philip Thomas,et al.  Testing the validity of the "value of a prevented fatality" (VPF) used to assess UK safety measures , 2015 .

[15]  R. D. Jones,et al.  Extending the J-value framework for safety analysis to include the environmental costs of a large accident , 2010 .

[16]  C. Sunstein,et al.  Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay , 2003 .

[17]  農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.  The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government , 2003 .

[18]  J. Hicks,et al.  Value and Capital , 2017 .

[19]  Jatin Nathwani,et al.  A conceptual approach to the estimation of societal willingness-to-pay for nuclear safety programs , 2003 .

[20]  Philip Thomas,et al.  The Extent of Regulatory Consensus on Health and Safety Expenditure: Part 1: Development of the J-Value Technique and Evaluation of Regulators’ Recommendations , 2006 .

[21]  Response to ‘Testing the validity of the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) used to assess UK safety measures’ , 2015 .

[22]  P J Thomas.  The importance of risk-aversion as a measurable psychological parameter governing risk-taking behaviour , 2013 .

[23]  ‘Testing the validity of the “value of a prevented fatality” (VPF) used to assess UK safety measures’: Reply to the comments of Chilton, Covey, Jones-Lee, Loomes, Pidgeon and Spencer , 2015 .

[24]  C. Sunstein.  Valuing life: a plea for disaggregation. , 2004, Duke law journal.

[25]  Philip Thomas,et al.  The trade-offs embodied in J-value safety analysis , 2010 .

[26]  Philip J Thomas BSc CEng Fiee FInstMC,et al.  Simulation of Industrial Processes for Control Engineers , 1999 .