Newcastle University

Research Interests

The academic core of my research is applied welfare economics, centering on the use of surveys and experimental situations to understand how individuals make decisions affecting their economic welfare. The work is based in environmental economics, safety economics and health economics.

Key interests: Environmental Economics (non-market valuation), Experimental Economics, Safety Economics, Health Economics

Projects

• Financial incentives for improving uptake of health promoting behaviours
  Project Leader(s): Dr Jean Adams

Undergraduate Teaching

ECO1002 Economic Analysis

ECO206 Natural Resource and Environmental Economics

• Desaigues B, Ami D, Bartczak A, Braun-Kohlová M, Chilton S, Czajkowski M, Farreras V, Hunt A, Hutchison M, Jeanrenaud C, Kaderjak P, Máca V, Markiewicz O, Markowska A, Metcalf H, Navrud S, Nielsen JS, Ortiz R, Pellegrini S, Rabl A. Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecological Indicators 2011, 11(3), 902-910.
• Seested-Nielsen J, Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H. How would you like your gain in life expectancy to be provided? An experimental approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2010, 41(3), 195-218.
• Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. Necessary conditions for demand revelation in double referenda. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 57(2), 219-225.
• Baker R, Chilton SM, Jones-Lee MW, Metcalf HRT. Valuing lives equally in a benefit-cost analysis of safety projects: a method to reconcile theory and practice. Safety Science 2009, 47(6), 813-816.
• Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. Why do people non-demand reveal in hypothetical double referenda for public goods?. Applied Economics 2009, 41(27), 3561-3569.
• Baker R, Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H. Valuing lives equally: Defensible premise or unwarranted compromise?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2008, 36(2), 125-138.
• Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Kiraly F, Metcalf H, Pang W. Dread risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2006, 33(3), 165-182.
• Baker R, Chilton SM, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H. A face-validity test of response strategies to 'dread risks'. Revue d'Economie Politique 2007, 117(5), 781-794.
• Chilton S. Contingent valuation and social choices concerning public goods: An overview of theory, methods and issues. Revue d'Economie Politique 2007, 117(5), 655-674.
• Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 38(4), 513-525.
• Spencer A, Covey J, Chilton S, Taylor M. Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes: A comment to Oliver. Health Economics 2005, 14(2), 161-167.
• Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H, Loomes G, Robinson A, Covey J, Spencer A, Spackman M. Valuation of health and safety benefits: Dread Risks. Norwich: HSE Books, 2007. RR541.
• Chilton S, Covey J, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Metcalf H. Valuation of Health Benefits Associated with Reductions in Air Pollution. London: DEFRA, 2004. Final.
• Chilton S, Covey J, Hopkins L, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Pidgeon N, Spencer A. Public perceptions of risk and preference-based values of safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2002, 25(3), 211-232.
• Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 46(3), 472-489.
• Chilton SM, Burgess D, Hutchinson WG. The relative value of farm animal welfare. Ecological Economics 2006, 59(3), 353-363.
• Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quality of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology 2003, 24(1), 65-75.
• Scarpa R, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG, Buongiorno J. Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests. Ecological Economics 2000, 33(2), 237-250.
• Carthy T, Chilton S, Covey D, Hopkins L, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Pidgeon N, Spencer A. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 2 - The CV/SG "chained" approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1998, 17(3), 187-213.
• Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, McDonald R, Metcalf H. Does the WTA/WTP Ratio Diminish as the Severity of a Health Complaint is Reduced? Testing for Smoothness of the Underlying Utility of Wealth Function. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2012, 45(1), 1-24.
• Carson K, Chilton S, Hutchinson G, scarpa R. IS STATUS QUO BIAS DESIGN-INDUCED?RETHINKING THE ROLE OF DESIGN SELECTION IN CHOICE EXPERIMENTS. 2012. In Preparation.
• Bartczak A, Chilton S, Meyerhoff J. THE IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL RISK PREFERENCES ON CHOICES AND VALUES: AN APPLICATION TO THREATENED LYNX POPULATIONS IN POLAND. 2012. In Preparation.
• Carson KS, Chilton S, Hutchinson G. VALUATION UNDER FUZZY PREFERENCES: AN APPLICATION TO MULTIPLE BOUND UNCERTAINTY CHOICE ELICITATION. 2012. In Preparation.
• Baker R, Chilton S, Donaldson C, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Mason H, Metcalf H, Pennington M, Wildman J. Searchers vs surveyors in estimating the monetary value of a QALY: resolving a nasty dilemma for NICE. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2011, 6(4), 435-447.
• Nielsen JS, Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H. How would you like your gain in Life Expectancy to be provided? An experimental approach. In: Economic Science Association (ESA) World Meeting. 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark.
• Nielsen JS, Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H. How would you like your gain in Life Expectancy to be provided?An experimental approach. In: Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory (FUR). 2010, Newcastle upon Tyne.
• Nielsen JS, Chilton S, Jones-Lee M, Metcalf H. How do you prefer your gain in life expectancy to be delivered? An experimental approach linking hypothetical and incentivised choices. In: Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economist. 2009, Amsterdam.
• Chilton S, Spencer A. Empirical Evidence of Inconsistency in Standard Gamble Choices Under Direct and Indirect Elicitation Methods. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 2001, 137(1), 65-86.
• Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R, Chilton SM, McCallion T. Parametric and non-parametric estimates of willingness to pay for forest recreation in Northern Ireland: A discrete choice contingent valuation study with follow-ups. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2001, 52(1), 104-122.
• Scarpa R, Hutchinson WG, Chilton SM, Buongiorno J. Importance of forest attributes in the willingness to pay for recreation: A contingent valuation study of Irish forests. Forest Policy and Economics 2000, 1(3-4), 315-329.
• Burton AC, Chilton SM, Jones MK. The WTP/WTA discrepancy: A preliminary qualitative examination. Environmental Values 2000, 9(4), 481-491.
• Hutchinson WG, Chilton SM. Combining preference ordering and contingent valuation methods to assess non market benefit of alternative afforestation projects. Journal of Rural Studies 1999, 15(1), 103-109.
• Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. Do focus groups contribute anything to the contingent valuation process?. Journal of Economic Psychology 1999, 20(4), 465-483.
• Chilton SM, Hutchinson MG. Exploring divergence between respondent and researcher definitions of the good in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1999, 50(1), 1-16.
• Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. Focus groups and the contingent valuation process: A reply. Journal of Economic Psychology 1999, 20(4), 495-498.
• Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG. Some further implications of incorporating the warm glow of giving into welfare measures: A comment on the use of donation mechanisms by Champ et al. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 37(2), 202-209.