» Articles » PMID: 14652260

How Willing Are Parents to Improve Pedestrian Safety in Their Community?

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2003 Dec 4
PMID 14652260
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Objective: To determine how likely parents would be to contribute to strategies to reduce pedestrian injury risks and how much they valued such interventions.

Design: A single referendum willingness to pay survey. Each parent was randomised to respond to one of five requested contributions towards each of the following activities: constructing speed bumps, volunteering as a crossing guard, attending a neighbourhood meeting, or attending a safety workshop.

Setting: Community survey.

Participants: A sample of 723 Baltimore parents from four neighbourhoods stratified by income and child pedestrian injury risk. Eligible parents had a child enrolled in one of four elementary schools in Baltimore City in May 2001.

Main Results: The more parents were asked to contribute, the less likely they were to do so. Parents were more likely to contribute in neighbourhoods with higher ratings of solidarity. The median willingness to pay money for speed bumps was conservatively estimated at $6.43. The median willingness to contribute time was 2.5 hours for attending workshops, 2.8 hours in community discussion groups, and 30 hours as a volunteer crossing guard.

Conclusions: Parents place a high value on physical and social interventions to improve child pedestrian safety.

Citing Articles

Parental willingness to pay for child safety seats in Mashad, Iran.

Jarahi L, Karbakhsh M, Rashidian A BMC Public Health. 2011; 11:281.

PMID: 21548995 PMC: 3110571. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-281.


Child pedestrians: the role of parental beliefs and practices in promoting safe walking in urban neighborhoods.

Gielen A, DeFrancesco S, Bishai D, Mahoney P, Ho S, Guyer B J Urban Health. 2004; 81(4):545-55.

PMID: 15466837 PMC: 3455934. DOI: 10.1093/jurban/jth139.

References
1.
Roberts I . Who's prepared for advocacy? Another inverse law. Inj Prev. 1995; 1(3):152-4. PMC: 1067582. DOI: 10.1136/ip.1.3.152. View

2.
Phillips K, Homan R, Luft H, Hiatt P, Olson K, Kearney T . Willingness to pay for poison control centers. J Health Econ. 1997; 16(3):343-57. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00521-8. View

3.
Roberts I, Ashton T, Dunn R . Preventing child pedestrian injury: pedestrian education or traffic calming?. Aust J Public Health. 1994; 18(2):209-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1994.tb00228.x. View

4.
Malek M, Guyer B, Lescohier I . The epidemiology and prevention of child pedestrian injury. Accid Anal Prev. 1990; 22(4):301-13. DOI: 10.1016/0001-4575(90)90046-n. View

5.
Diener A, OBRIEN B, Gafni A . Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998; 7(4):313-26. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199806)7:4<313::aid-hec350>3.0.co;2-b. View