Abstract: Motivated by the 2006 report of a Work Group appointed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this paper examines the present state of meta-analysis in environmental economics and offers recommendations for its future use. To this end we summarize and assess 130 meta-analyses from 115 published and unpublished studies, covering seventeen topical categories in environmental and resource economics. We first provide several generic meta-analysis models as reference points and discuss major estimation issues. Second, a tabular summary is presented for 130 meta-analyses with respect to methodology and econometric methods. Five key issues are identified as part of a complete analysis: (1) sample selection criteria; (2) basic data summary; (3) primary data heterogeneity; (4) heteroskedasticity; and (5) non-independence of multiple observations from primary studies. Third, a narrative summary is presented for 19 meta-analyses, including the three value-of-statistical-life studies examined by the EPA Work Group and one analysis from each of sixteen other categories. Fourth, we offer a set of “best practice” guidelines for future meta-analyses in this and other areas of economics. Last, the paper comments on the use of meta-analytic methods for benefit transfers.
by Jon P. Nelson 1 and Peter E. Kennedy 2
1. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; Voice: 814-237-0157; E-mail: jpn@psu.edu; Web page: http://econ.la.psu.edu/people/biographies/nelson_bio.htm
2. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 (kennedy@sfu.ca)
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Economics http://econ.la.psu.edu/
Working Paper 32008
http://www.econ.psu.edu/people/biographies/nelson_bio.htm
http://envirovaluation.org/htsrv/trackback.php/5563
No Comments/Trackbacks/Pingbacks for this post yet...
Environmental Valuation & Cost Benefit News covers legal, academic, and regulatory developments pertaining to the valuation of environmental amenities and disamenities, such as clean air, trees, parks, congestion, and noise. We apprise the reader about ways in which costs and benefits are measured, and the results of empirical studies. We hope that this information will allow public and private organizations to comprehend the risks and benefits of various actions, help disputants to resolve conflicts equitably and efficiently, and improve the quality of public policies. We will only discuss issues related to the empirical quantification of private and social costs and benefits and damages, and summarize information from daily newspapers, academic journals, legal publications, court decisions, professional newsletters commissioned studies, and on-line services. This newsletter is dedicated to the principal that all policies place values upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe that more information, explicit specification of assumptions, and rigorous analysis can help our society to better meet these ends. This site will increasingly serve, in conjunction with others, as a valuation database. We will include a wide range of studies, including non-environmental reports, because omission of a factor effectively values it at zero, and biases decisions. Heavy traffic has caused several site crashes. We are attempting to correct these problems. Apologies for any inconvenience.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |