Lindhjem, Henrik and Navrud, Ståle (2007): How Reliable are Meta-Analyses for International Benefit Transfers? Published in: Ecological Economics , Vol. 2-3, No. 66 : pp. 425-435.
Download (205kB) | Preview
Meta-analysis has increasingly been used to synthesise the environmental valuation literature, but only a few test the use of these analyses for benefit transfer. These are typically based on national studies only. However, meta-analyses of valuation studies across countries are a potentially powerful tool for benefit transfer, especially for environmental goods where the domestic literature is scarce. We test the reliability of such international meta-analytic transfers, and find that even under conditions of homogeneity in valuation methods, cultural and institutional conditions across countries, and a meta-analysis with large explanatory power, the transfer errors could still be large. Further, international meta-analytic transfers do not on average perform better than simple value transfers averaging over domestic studies. Thus, we question whether the use of meta-analysis for practical benefit transfer achieves reliability gains justifying the increased effort. However, more meta-analytic benefit transfer tests should be performed for other environmental goods and other countries before discarding international meta-analysis as a tool for benefit transfer.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||How Reliable are Meta-Analyses for International Benefit Transfers?|
|Keywords:||benefit transfer, environmental valuation, meta-analysis, forest|
|Subjects:||H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects
|Depositing User:||Henrik Lindhjem|
|Date Deposited:||10. Nov 2008 00:01|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 08:35|
Bateman, I., Cole, M., Cooper, P., Georgiou, S., Hadley, D. and Poe, G. L., 2004. On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47; 71-93.
Bateman, I. J. and Jones, A. P., 2003. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. Land Economics, 79(2); 235-258.
Bergstrom, J. C. and Taylor, L. O., 2006. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 60; 351-360.
Bojö, J., 1985. Cost-benefit analysis of mountainous forests: the Vala Valley Case (In Swedish). Research Report, The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics.,
Bostedt, G. and Mattson, L., 1991. The importance of forests for tourism: A pilot cost-benefit analysis (In Swedish). Arbetsrapport 141, Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå,
Bostedt, G. and Mattsson, L., 1995. The value of forests for tourism in Sweden. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3); 671-680.
Brander, L. M., Florax, R. J. G. M. and Verrmaat, J. E., 2006. The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Environmental & Resource economics, 33; 223-250.
Brander, L. M., van Beukering, P. and Cesar, H., In press. The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics.
Brouwer, R., 2000. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ., 32(1); 137-152.
Goldberger, A. S., 1968. The interpretation and estimation of Cobb-Douglas functions. Econometrica, 36; 464-472.
Heberlein, T. A., Wilson, M. A., Bishop, R. C. and Schaeffer, N. C., 2005. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50; 1–22.
Hoehn, J. P., 2006. Methods to address selection effects in the meta regression and transfer of ecosystem values. Ecological Economics, 60(2); 389-398.
Hoen, H. F. and Veisten, K., 1994. A survey of the users of Oslomarka: attitudes towards forest scenary and forestry practices (In Norwegian). Skogforsk 6/94,
Hoen, H. F. and Winther, G., 1993. Multiple-use forestry and preservation of coniferous forests in Norway: A study of attitudes and Willingness-to-pay. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 8(2); 266-280.
Johansson, P. O., 1989. Valuing public goods in a risky world: an experiment, in H. Folmer and E. C. van Ierland, Eds, Evaluation methods and policy making in environmental economics. North Holland, Amsterdam, 39-48.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., Iovanna, R., Miller, C. J., Wardwell, R. F. and Ranson, M. H., 2005. Systematic variation in willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements and implications for benefit transfer: a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(2-3); 221-248.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y. and Ranson, M. H., 2006. Characterizing the effects of valuation methodology in function-based benefits transfer. Ecological Economics, 60(2); 407-419.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y. and Wardwell, R. F., 2003. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values for surface water quality: A meta-analysis. Water Resoures Research, 39(12).
Kniivilä, M., 2004. Contingent valuation and cost-benefit analysis of nature conservation: a case study in North Karelia, Finland. D.Sc. (Agr. and For.) thesis, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu: pp.
Kristofersson, D. and Navrud, S., 2005. Validity Tests of Benefit Transfer – Are We Performing the Wrong Tests? Environmental and Resource Economics, 30; 279-286.
Kristofersson, D. and Navrud, S., 2007. Can Use and Non-Use Values be Transferred Across Countries? in S. Navrud and R. Ready, Eds, Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kriström, B., 1990. A Nonparametric Approach To The Estimation Of Welfare Measures In Discrete Response Valuation Studies. Land Economics, 66(2); 135-139.
Kriström, B., 1990. Valuing Environmental Benefits Using the Contingent Valuation Method – An Econometric Analysis. PhD thesis, Doctoral thesis, Umeå Economic Studies No 219, Umeå University.: pp.
Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M. and Li, C. Z., 2003. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy, 6(3); 195-204.
Leidal, K., 1996. Valuation of an urban recreation area: a contingent valuation study of the Eige Lake area in Kristiansand municipality (In Norwegian). Master Thesis, Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences: pp.
Lindhjem, H., 2007. 20 Years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Forest Economics, 12; 251-277.
Loomis, J. B., 1992. The Evolution Of A More Rigorous Approach To Benefit Transfer - Benefit Function Transfer. Water Resour. Res, 28(3); 701-705.
Loomis, J. B. and White, D. S., 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 18(3); 197-206.
Mattsson, L. and Li, C. Z., 1993. The Non-Timber Value Of Northern Swedish Forests - An Economic-Analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 8(3); 426-434.
Mattsson, L. and Li, C. Z., 1994. How Do Different Forest Management-Practices Affect The Non-Timber Value Of Forests - An Economic-Analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 41(1); 79-88.
Moeltner, K., Boyle, K. and Paterson, R. W., 2007. Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation - addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53; 250-269.
Mäntymaa, E., Mönkkönen, M., Siikamäki, J. and Svento, R., 2002. Estimating the Demand for Biodiversity - Vagueness Band and Open-Ended Questions, in E. C. van Ierland, H. P. Weikard and J. Wesseler, Eds, Proceedings: Risk and Uncertainty in Environmental and Resource Economics.
Navrud, S. and Ready, R., 2007. Lessons learned for environmental value transfer, in S. Navrud and R. Ready, Eds, Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Springer.
Navrud, S. and Ready, R., 2007. Review of methods for value transfer, in S. Navrud and R. Ready, Eds, Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Springer.
Pouta, E., 2003. Attitude-behavior framework in contingent valuation of forest conservation. PhD, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki: 100 pp.
Pouta, E., 2004. Attitude and belief questions as a source of context effect in a contingent valuation survey. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25; 229-242.
Pouta, E., 2005. Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 7; 539– 550.
Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Kuuluvainen, J., Li, C. Z. and Tahvonen, I., 2002. Willingness to pay in different policy-planning methods: insights into respondents' decision-making processes. Ecological Economics, 40(2); 295-311.
Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Kuuluvainen, J., Tahvonen, O. and Li, C. Z., 2000. Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 nature conservation programme in Finland. Forestry, 73(2); 119-128.
Ready, R. and Navrud, S., 2006. International benefit transfer: Methods and validity tests. Ecological Economics, 60; 429-434.
Rekola, M. and Pouta, E., 2005. Public preferences for uncertain regeneration cuttings: a contingent valuation experiment involving Finnish private forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 7; 635-649.
Rosenberger, R. and Loomis, J., 2000a. Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: an investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32(1); 131-149.
Rosenberger, R. and Phipps, T. T., 2007. Correspondence and convergence in benefit transfer accuracy: Meta-analytic review of the literature, in S. Navrud and R. Ready, Eds, Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Springer.
Rosenberger, R. S. and Loomis, J. B., 2000b. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research, 36(4); 1097-1107.
Rosenberger, R. S. and Loomis, J. B., 2001. Benefit transfer of outdoor use values. U.S. Department of Agriculture & Forest Service,
Sandsbråten, L., 1997. Valuation of environmental goods in Oslomarka: a contingent valuation survey of private and municipality owned forest in inner Oslomarka (In Norwegian). Master Thesis, Department of Forestry, Norwegian University of Life Sciences: pp.
Santos, J. M. L., 1998. The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change. Theory and Policies for Land Use and Conservation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.
Santos, J. M. L., 2007. Transferring landscape values: How and how accurately? in S. Navrud and R. Ready, Eds, Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Springer.
Shrestha, R. K. and Loomis, J. B., 2001. Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation. Ecological Economics, 39(1); 67-83.
Shrestha, R. K. and Loomis, J. B., 2003. Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity. Environmental & Resource economics, 25; 79-100.
Shrestha, R. K., Rosenberger, R. and Loomis, J., 2007. Benefit transfer using meta-analysis in recreation economic valuation, in S. Navrud and R. Ready, Eds, Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Springer.
Siikamäki, J. and Layton, D., 2005. Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Methods. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper,
Simensen, K. and Wind, M., 1990. Attitudes and WTP for different forestry practices in mountainous forests: a survey of the Hirkjolen common (In Norwegian). Master Thesis, Department of Forestry, Norwegian University of Life Sciences: pp.
Skagestad, E., 1996. Recreation and Forestry - A survey of hikers in the outer Oslomarka, Romeriksåsen, in the winter time (In Norwegian). Master thesis, Department of Forestry, Norwegian University of Life Sciences: pp.
Smith, V. K. and Kaoru, Y., 1990. Signals Or Noise - Explaining The Variation In Recreation Benefit Estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72(2); 419-433.
Smith, V. K. and Osborne, L. L., 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a ''scope'' test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(3); 287-301.
Smith, V. K. and Pattanayak, S. K., 2002. Is Meta-Analysis a Noah’s Ark for Non-Market Valuation? Environmental and Resource Economics, 22; 271-296.
Strand, J. and Wahl, T. S., 1997. Valuation of municipality recreation areas in Oslo: A contingent valuation study (In Norwegian). SNF Report 82/97,
Tyrväinen, L., 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62(1); 75-92.
Tyrväinen, L. and Väänänen, H., 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43(1-3); 105-118.
Van Houtven, G., Powers, J. and Pattanayak, S. K., 2006. Valuing water quality improvements using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis? Kyoto, Japan
Veisten, K., Hoen, H. F., Navrud, S. and Strand, J., 2004. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Management, 73(4); 317-331.
Veisten, K., Hoen, H. F. and Strand, J., 2004. Sequencing and the adding-up property in contingent valuation of endangered species: Are contingent non-use values economic values? Environmental and Resource Economics, 29(4); 419-433.
Veisten, K. and Navrud, S., 2006. Contingent valuation and actual payment for for voluntarily provided passive-use values: assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats. Applied Economics, 38(7); 735-756.
Woodward, R. T. and Wui, Y.-S., 2001. The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37; 257-270.