Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2002 May 1;93(3):223–228. doi: 10.1007/BF03405005

Using Willingness to Pay to Evaluate the Implementation of Canada’s Residential Radon Exposure Guideline

Jerry M Spiegel 114,✉, Daniel Krewski 214
PMCID: PMC6979815  PMID: 12050992

Abstract

Background: The objective of this investigation was to determine the effectiveness of Canada’s residential radon exposure guideline in influencing individuals’ health protection decisions.

Method: Homeowners with known exposure levels in a high residential radon area (Winnipeg, Manitoba) were surveyed to document what they had done and spent to reduce their exposure to radon. The 507 respondents were then re-surveyed to elucidate their response to hypothetical scenarios. Logistic regression was used to model risk reduction decisions as a function of exposure and other explanatory variables.

Results: Homeowners were only likely to have taken action to reduce exposure at levels exceeding 1,100 Bq/m3, well above Canada’s guideline of 800 Bq/m3. However, when informed of the guideline, respondents indicated they would act at exposures of 702 Bq/m3.

Interpretation: The Canadian residential radon exposure guideline, as it has been implemented, has not effectively prompted homeowner actions to reduce exposures to radon.

References

  • 1.National Research Council. Health Effects of Exposure to Radon: BEIR VI. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lubin JH, Boice J Jr. Lung cancer risk from residential radon: Meta-analysis of eight epidemi-ologic studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:49–57. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lubin JH, Boice JD, Jr, Edling C, et al. Lung cancer in radon-exposed miners and estimation of risk from indoor exposure. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:817–27. doi: 10.1093/jnci/87.11.817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.IARC. Man-Made Fibres and Radon. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1988. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Krewski D, Rai SN, Zielinski JM, et al. Characterization of uncertainty and variability in residential radon cancer risks. Ann NY Academ Sci. 1999;895:245–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08090.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Canada MortgageHousing Corporation CMHC. Radon — A Guide for Canadian Homeowners. Ottawa: CMHC and Health Canada Report C97-090282-2; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Spiegel JM. A Comparison of Economic Valuation Methods for Environmental Health Risk Reduction: Assessing Residential Radon Mitigation in Manitoba [dissertation] Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Letourneau EG, et al. A Radon Standard for Canada. In: Walkinshaw DS, et al., editors. Transactions of Indoor Air Quality in Cold Climates: Hazards and Abatement Measures. 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yuill GK. A Survey of Radon Concentrations in Manitoba Outside Winnipeg. 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Health Canada Medical Services Branch. Radon Study of Manitoba Reserves. 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Letourneau EG, Krewski D, Choi NW, et al. Case-control study of residential radon and lung cancer in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:310–22. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.MTS Advanced Inc. Who Called Me? Directory. 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tolley G, Fabian R. Future directions for health value research. In: Tolley G, Kenkel D, Fabian R, editors. Valuing Health for Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988. pp. 300–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hannemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichoto-mous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ. 1991;73:1255–63. doi: 10.2307/1242453. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bennett P, Calman C, editors. Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Menard S. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. London: Sage Publications; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Weinstein ND, Rothman AJ, Sutton SR. Stages theories of health behaviour: Conceptual and methodological issues. Health Psychology. 1998;17(3):290–99. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.17.3.290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Weinstein ND, Sandman PM. Experimental evidence for stages of health behaviour change: The precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing. Health Psychology. 1998;17(5):445–53. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.17.5.445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Burton P, Gurrin L, Sly P. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: An introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modeling. Statistics in Medicine. 1998;17:351–63. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980615)17:11<1261::AID-SIM846>3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Williamson DS, Bangdiwala SI, Marshall SW, et al. Repeated measures analysis of binary outcomes: Applications to injury research. Accid Anal and Prev. 1996;28(5):571–79. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(96)00023-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Krewski D, Oxman D, Torrance GW. A decision-oriented framework for evaluating environmental risk management strategies: A case study of lead in gasoline. In: Paustenbach DJ, editor. The Risk Assessment of Human Health Hazards: A Textbook of Case Studies. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Adler RS, Pittle RD. Cajolery or command: Are education campaigns an adequate substitute for regulation? Yale J Regulation. 1984;1:159–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Johnson FR. Risk communication and regulatory culture clash. In: Garrick BJ, Gekler WC, editors. The Analysis, Communication and Perception of Risk. New York: Plenum Press; 1991. pp. 441–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Stieb DM, Paola J, Neuman K. Do smog advisories work? Results of an evaluation of the Canadian Smog Advisory Program. Can J Public Health. 1996;87(3):166–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Akerman J, Johnson FR, Bergman L. Paying for safety: Voluntary reduction of residential radon risks. Land Economics. 1991;67(4):435–46. doi: 10.2307/3146550. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Analysis. 1995;15:369–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00330.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Letourneau EG, Krewski D, Zielinski JM, McGregor RG. Cost-effectiveness of radon mitigation in Canada. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 1992;45:593–98. doi: 10.1093/rpd/45.1-4.593. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ford ES, Kelly AE, Teutsch SM, et al. Radon and lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(3):351–57. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.3.351. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES