How much is your time worth?

Salaries show how much people want for the time they spend working, but how do they value their time doing other things outside work? Christian Krekel and George MacKerron analyse more than two million data points from a smartphone app that randomly asks people how they feel at any particular moment and what they are currently doing, to provide estimates of the value of time in 42 daily activities

Back to Edgeworth? Estimating the value of time using hedonic experiences

Following early economist Francis Y. Edgeworth's proposal to measure people's hedonic experiences as they go about their daily lives, we use a smartphone app that over eight years randomly asked a panel of 30, 936 UK residents (N = 2, 235, 733) about their momentary feelings and activities to estimate the value of time (VOT), a key input into cost-benefit analyses. Exploiting the randomised timing of surveys for identification, we arrive at a VOT of #12.2 (15.3) per hour of waiting, #8.4 (10.5) per hour of commuting, and #17.2 ($21.5) per hour of waiting during commuting (e.g. due to congestion). This resembles estimates from studies using revealed preferences, suggesting that using hedonic experiences leads to similar results as observed behaviour. Our unique data and method also allow us to estimate the VOT for 40 other daily activities as well as their interactions. We are the first to value time (or indeed anything) using hedonic experiences in real-time, which has the potential to value other intangibles too

A Handbook for Wellbeing Policy-Making

Around the world, governments are starting to directly measure the subjective wellbeing of their citizens and to use it for policy evaluation and appraisal. What would happen if a country were to move from using GDP to using subjective wellbeing as the primary metric for measuring economic and societal progress? Would policy priorities change? Would we continue to care about economic growth? What role would different government institutions play in such a scenario? And, most importantly, how could this be implemented in daily practice, for example in policy evaluations and appraisals of government analysts, or in political agenda-setting at the top level? This book provides answers to these questions from a conceptual to a technical level by showing how direct measures of subjective wellbeing can be used for policy evaluation and appraisal, either complementary in the short run or even entirely in the long run. It gives a brief history of the idea that governments should care about the happiness of their citizens, provides theories, makes suggestions for direct measurement, derives technical standards, shows how to conduct wellbeing cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, and gives examples of how real-world policy evaluations and appraisals would change if they were based on subjective wellbeing. In doing so, the book serves the growing interest of governments as well as non-governmental and international organizations in how to put subjective wellbeing metrics into policy practice

Machiavelli versus concave utility functions: should bads be spread out or concentrated?

Is wellbeing higher if the same number of negative events is spread out rather than bunched in time? Should positive events be spread out or bunched? We answer these questions exploiting quarterly data on six positive and twelve negative life events in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia panel. Accounting for selection, anticipation, and adaptation, we find a tipping point when it comes to negative events: once people experience about two negative events, their wellbeing depreciates disproportionally as more and more events occur in a given period. For positive events, effects are weakly decreasing in size. So for a person's wellbeing both the good and the bad should be spread out rather than bunched in time, corresponding to the classic economic presumption of concave utility rather than Machiavelli's prescript of inflicting all injuries at once. Yet, differences are small, with complete smoothing of all negative events over all people and periods calculated to yield no more than a 12% reduction in the total negative wellbeing impact of negative events

Do wind turbines have adverse health impacts

While wind power is considered key in the transition towards net zero, there are concerns about adverse health impacts on nearby residents. Based on precise geographical coordinates, we link a representative longitudinal household panel to all wind turbines in Germany and exploit their staggered rollout over two decades for identification. We do not find evidence of negative effects on general, mental, or physical health in the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12), nor on self-assessed health or doctor visits. We also do not find evidence for effects on suicides, an extreme measure of negative mental health outcomes, at the county level

Don’t let fears about the Indian variant stop us thinking rationally about risk

Now that those at greater risk of developing a serious case of COVID-19 have been vaccinated, B.1.617.2 – the ‘Indian variant’ – is less of a danger to the UK. Paul Dolan, Christian Krekel and George Wharton (LSE) argue that the biggest concern is now people whose lives and livelihoods are harmed by lockdowns. These harms are hard to quantify, but no less real

Quantifying the externalities of renewable energy plants using wellbeing data: the case of biogas

Although there is strong support for renewable energy plants, they are often met with local resistance. We quantify the externalities of renewable energy plants using well-being data. We focus on the example of biogas, one of the most frequently deployed technologies besides wind and solar. To this end, we combine longitudinal household data with novel panel data on more than 13,000 installations in Germany. Identification rests on a spatial difference-in-differences design exploiting exact geographical coordinates of households, biogas installations and wind direction and intensity. We find limited evidence for negative externalities: impacts are moderate in size and spatially confined to a radius of 2,000 metres around plants. We discuss implications for research and regional planning, in particular minimum setback distances and potential monetary compensations

Advances in breast cancer surgery:The decisive role of intra-operative ultrasound

Meijer, S. [Promotor]Tol, M.P. [Copromotor]van den Winters, H.A.H. [Copromotor