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

Findings in the traffic safety literature suggest that people value traffic risk reductions less when framed as a public good (e.g. infrastructure improvements) compared to when framed as a private good (e.g. personal safety equipment). This study contributes to this literature by reporting empirical evidence for the importance of controlling for the attributes of the goods used in such valuations. We focus on risks faced by vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians and compare valuations across private and public goods that vary in their attributes. When the goods are of an identical nature, we find no significant difference in valuations, resolving the controversy in previous findings. We find significant effects on valuations from using private or public provision, from offering the good as voluntary or mandated in use, and from changing the framing of the good between the private and the public versions. This adds further weight to the importance of controlling for many attributes.