Abstract
This chapter provides an introductory overview of benefit transfer methods. It begins with a discussion of the different types of benefit transfer (such as unit value transfer and benefit function transfer) , including a review of these different approaches and the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. This is followed by a summary of foundations in welfare economics and valuation. Included in this methodological introduction are a discussion of stated and revealed preference valuation and how the results from each may be used for benefit transfer. Following this introductory material are discussions of the theoretical and informational requirements for benefit transfer, the steps required to implement a benefit transfer, the challenges of scaling, and sources of data. The chapter concludes with brief discussions of transfer validity and reliability, advanced techniques for benefit transfer, and common problems and challenges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For example, a significant proportion of the ecosystem services valuation literature is subject to this critique.
- 2.
Determining the relevant extent of the market, or size of the affected population is not always straightforward. Moreover, the size or location of the affected population can also be correlated with the size of \(\bar{y}_{js}\). For example, WTP for a given change in a non-market good often declines with distance from the affected area (Bateman et al. 2006). Hence, projecting unit values to a larger population or spatial area than that in the original primary study can lead to substantial errors.
- 3.
It is also possible for a single primary study to report multiple estimates for a single site and population, for example when multiple model specifications are estimated.
- 4.
- 5.
Johnston et al. (2006a) illustrate the potential risks of this approach related to the sensitivity of resulting transfer estimates.
- 6.
The difference between producer surplus and economic profits lies in the treatment of fixed costs of production.
- 7.
A good example of this pattern would be water levels in a river, which often have positive marginal values up to a point where flooding occurs, at which point marginal values for additional water become negative.
- 8.
In addition, non-linearities and thresholds in ecological systems can lead to nonconvexities when one considers ecosystem conservation at different geographical scales. This further complicates any scaling up or down of certain types of environmental values.
- 9.
For an example, see Johnston et al. (2005).
- 10.
One of the best known and well-developed of these tools is InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs ), although many others have been developed over recent years. Among the advantages of InVEST is documentation that clarifies the transfer methods that are used. Many other tools lack such clarity, and are effectively “black boxes” in terms of transfer methods and data.
- 11.
Transfer validity may also be viewed in terms of the underlying validity of the primary study estimates (i.e., lack of measurement error), although this is a less common use of the term.
- 12.
For a practical example, see Johnston et al. (2002).
- 13.
It can also require adjustments for systematic differences in values over time (cf. Brouwer 2006).
- 14.
Assume that one has metadata with n = 1…N unique observations. The first step is the omission of the nth observation from the metadata. The MRM is then estimated (using the original model specification) for the remaining N − 1 observations. This is iterated for each n = 1…N observation, resulting in a vector of N unique parameter estimates, each corresponding to the omission of the nth observation. For each n = 1…N model runs, the nth observation is an out-of-sample observation corresponding to the vector of parameter estimates resulting from that iteration. Parameter estimates for the nth model iteration are then combined with independent variable values for the nth observation to generate a WTP forecast for the omitted observation. The result is N out-of-sample WTP forecasts, each drawn from a unique MRM estimation. Transfer error is assessed through comparisons of the predicted and actual WTP value for each of the N observations.
- 15.
- 16.
Note that this is a very simple model used for basic illustration purposes only. Linear OLS models such as this are rarely suitable for applied recreation demand modeling. Most recreation demand research applies more sophisticated approaches such as count data or random utility models (Bockstael and McConnell 2010; Haab and McConnell 2002). For an applied example see Rosenberger and Loomis (2003).
References
Allen, B. P., & Loomis, J. B. (2008). The decision to use benefit transfer or conduct original valuation research for benefit-cost and policy analysis. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26, 1–12.
Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., Georgiou, S., & Lake, I. (2006). The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics, 60, 450–460.
Bateman, I. J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D. N., Dubgaard, A., et al. (2011). Making benefit transfers work: Deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environmental & Resource Economics, 50, 365–387.
Bergstrom, J. C., & De Civita, P. (1999). Status of benefit transfer in the United States and Canada: A review. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47, 79–87.
Bergstrom, J. C., & Taylor, L. O. (2006). Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 60, 351–360.
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bockstael, N. E., & McConnell, K. E. (2010). Environmental and resource valuation with revealed preferences. A theoretical guide to empirical models. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bockstael, N. E., Freeman, A. M., Kopp, R. J., Portney, P. R., & Smith, V. K. (2000). On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1384–1389.
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626.
Boyle, K. J., & Bergstrom, J. C. (1992). Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism and idealism. Water Resources Research, 28, 657–663.
Brander, L. M., van Beukering, P., & Cesar, H. (2007). The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 63, 209–218.
Brouwer, R. (2000). Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics, 32, 137–152.
Brouwer, R. (2006). Do stated preference methods stand the test of time? A test of the stability of contingent values and models for health risks when facing an extreme event. Ecological Economics, 60, 399–406.
Brouwer, R., & Bateman, I. J. (2005). Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: A cross-country study. Journal of Health Economics, 24, 591–611.
Brouwer, R., & Spaninks, F. A. (1999). The validity of environmental benefits transfer: Further empirical testing. Environmental & Resource Economics, 14, 95–117.
Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., & Brown, T. C. (Eds.). (2003). A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Colombo, S., & Hanley, N. (2008). How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Economics, 84, 128–147.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). Australians and National Resource Management 2002. Braddon, Australia: National Land and Water Resources Audit.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
Desvousges, W. H., Johnson, F. R., & Banzhaf, H. S. (1998). Environmental policy analysis with limited information: Principles and applications of the transfer method. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Florax, R. J. G. M., Nijkamp, P., & Willis, K. G. (Eds.). (2002). Comparative environmental economics assessment. Chelthenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Freeman, A. M. III. (1984). On the tactics of benefit estimation under Executive Order 12291. In V. K. Smith (Ed.), Environmental policy under Reagan’s Executive Order: The role of benefit-cost analysis (pp. 167–186). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Freeman, A. M. III., Herriges, J. A., & Kling, C. L. (2014). The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Griffiths, C., & Wheeler, W. (2005). Benefit-cost analysis of regulations affecting surface water quality in the United States. In R. Brouwer & D. Pearce (Eds.), Cost-benefit analysis and water resources management (pp. 223–250). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources: The econometrics of nonmarket valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hanley, N., & Barbier, E. B. (2009). Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hanley, N., Schlapfer, F., & Spurgeon, J. (2003). Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: Distance-decay functions for use and nonuse values. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 297–304.
Holland, D. S., Sanchirico, J. N., Johnston, R. J., & Joglekar, D. (2010). Economic analysis for ecosystem based management: Applications to marine and coastal environments. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
Iovanna, R., & Griffiths, C. (2006). Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits transfer: A work in progress at the U.S. EPA. Ecological Economics, 60, 473–482.
Johnston, R. J. (2007). Choice experiments, site similarity and benefits transfer. Environmental & Resource Economics, 38, 331–351.
Johnston, R. J., & Besedin, E. Y. (2009). Estimating willingness to pay for aquatic resource improvements using benefits transfer. In H. W. Thurston, M. T. Heberling, & A. Schrecongost (Eds.), Environmental economics for watershed restoration (pp. 95–122). New York: CRC Press.
Johnston, R. J., & Duke, J. M. (2008). Benefit transfer equivalence tests with non-normal distributions. Environmental & Resource Economics, 41, 1–23.
Johnston, R. J., & Duke, J. M. (2009). Willingness to pay for land preservation across states and jurisdictional scale: Implications for benefit transfer. Land Economics, 85, 217–237.
Johnston, R. J., & Duke, J. M. (2010). Socioeconomic adjustments and choice experiment benefit function transfer: Evaluating the common wisdom. Resource and Energy Economics, 32, 421–438.
Johnston, R. J., & Moeltner, K. (2014). Meta-modeling and benefit transfer: The empirical relevance of source-consistency in welfare measures. Environmental & Resource Economics, 59, 337–361.
Johnston, R. J., & Ramachandran, M. (2014). Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environmental & Resource Economics, 59, 363–387.
Johnston, R. J., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2010). Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24, 479–510.
Johnston, R. J., & Russell, M. (2011). An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values. Ecological Economics, 70, 2243–2249.
Johnston, R. J., & Thomassin, P. J. (2009). Evaluating the environmental valuation reference inventory (EVRI): Results from a survey of actual and potential users. AERE (Association of Environmental and Resource Economists) Newsletter, 29, 33–38.
Johnston, R. J., & Thomassin, P. J. (2010). Willingness to pay for water quality improvements in the United States and Canada: Considering possibilities for international meta-analysis and benefit transfer. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39, 114–131.
Johnston, R. J., Grigalunas, T. A., Opaluch, J. J., Diamantedes, J., & Mazzotta, M. (2002). Valuing estuarine resource services using economic and ecological models: The Peconic Estuary system study. Coastal Management, 30, 47–66.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., Iovanna, R., Miller, C., Wardwell, R., & Ranson, M. (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, 221–248.
Johnston, R. J., Besedin, E. Y., & Ranson, M. H. (2006a). Characterizing the effects of valuation methodology in function-based benefits transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 407–419.
Johnston, R. J., Ranson, M. H., Besedin, E. Y., & Helm, E. C. (2006b). What determines willingness to pay per fish? A meta-analysis of recreational fishing values. Marine Resource Economics, 21, 1–32.
Jørgensen, S. L., Olsen, S. B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S. R., & Hasler, B. (2013). Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements–Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecological Economics, 92, 58–66.
Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L., & Schmitz, A. (2004). The welfare economics of public policy: A practical approach to project and policy evaluation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Kaul, S., Boyle, K. J., Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2013). What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66, 90–104.
Kristofersson, D., & Navrud, S. (2005). Validity tests of benefit transfer—Are we performing the wrong tests? Environmental & Resource Economics, 30, 279–286.
León, C. J., Vazquez-Polo, F. J., Guerra, N., & Riera, P. (2002). A Bayesian model for benefit transfer: Application to national parks in Spain. Applied Economics, 34, 749–757.
Leon-Gonzalez, R., & Scarpa, R. (2008). Improving multi-site benefit functions via Bayesian model averaging: A new approach to benefit transfer. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56, 50–68.
Lindhjem, H., & Navrud, S. (2008). How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers? Ecological Economics, 66, 425–435.
Londoño, L. M., & Johnston, R. J. (2012). Enhancing the reliability of benefit transfer over heterogeneous sites: A meta-analysis of international coral reef values. Ecological Economics, 78, 80–89.
Loomis, J. B. (1992). The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: Benefit function transfer. Water Resources Research, 28, 701–705.
Loomis, J. B. (2000). Vertically summing public good demand curves: An empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Economics, 76, 312–321.
Loomis, J. B., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2006). Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecological Economics, 60, 343–350.
Martin-Ortega, J., Brouwer, R., Ojea, E., & Berbel, J. (2012). Benefit transfer and spatial heterogeneity of preferences for water quality improvements. Journal of Environmental Management, 106, 22–29.
McComb, G., Lantz, V., Nash, K., & Rittmaster, R. (2006). International valuation databases: overview, methods and operational issues. Ecological Economics, 60, 461–472.
Moeltner, K., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2008). Predicting resource policy outcomes via meta-regression: Data space, model space, and the quest for ‘optimal scope’. The B. E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy. doi 10.2202/1935-1682.2028.
Moeltner, K., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2012). Cross-context benefit transfer: A Bayesian search for information pools. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Prague, June 27–30.
Moeltner, K., Boyle, K. J., & 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.
Morrison, M. (2001). Non-market valuation databases: How useful are they? Economic Analysis & Policy, 31, 33–55.
Morrison, M., & Bergland, O. (2006). Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 420–428.
Mrozek, J. R., & Taylor, L. O. (2002). What determines the value of life? A meta-analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 253–270.
Muthke, T., & Holm-Mueller, K. (2004). National and international benefit transfer with a rigorous test procedure. Environmental & Resource Economics, 29, 323–336.
Navrud, S., & Pruckner, G. J. (1997). Environmental valuation–to use or not to use? A comparative study of the United States and Europe. Environmental & Resource Economics, 10, 1–26.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. (2007a). Review of methods for value transfer. In S. Navrud & R. Ready (Eds.), Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Springer.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. (2007b). Lessons learned for environmental value transfer. In S. Navrud & R. Ready (Eds.), Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods (pp. 1–10). Dordrecht: Springer.
Navrud, S., & Ready, R. (Eds.) (2007c). Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods. Dordrecht: Springer.
Nelson, J. P., & Kennedy, P. E. (2009). The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and resource economics: An assessment. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42, 345–377.
Pattanayak, S. K., Smith, V. K., & Van Houtven, G. (2007). Improving the practice of benefits transfer: A preference calibration approach. In S. Navrud & R. Ready (Eds.), Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods (pp. 241–260). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost benefit analysis and the environment: Recent developments. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Poe, G. L., Boyle, K. J., & Bergstrom, J. C. (2001). A preliminary meta-analysis of contingent values for ground water revisited. In J. C. Bergstrom, K. J. Boyle, & G. L. Poe (Eds.), The economic value of water quality (pp. 137–162). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Portney, P., & Weyant, J. (Eds.). (1999). Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
Ready, R., & Navrud, S. (2006). International benefit transfer: Methods and validity test. Ecological Economics, 60, 429–434.
Ready, R., Navrud, S., Day, B., Dubourg, R., Machado, F., Mourato, S., et al. (2004). Benefit transfer in Europe: How reliable are transfers between countries? Environmental & Resource Economics, 29, 67–82.
Rolfe, J., & Bennett, J. (Eds.). (2006). Choice modelling and the transfer of environmental values. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Rolfe, J., & Brouwer, R. (2013). Design effects in a meta-analysis of river health choice experiments in Australia. Journal of Choice Modelling, 5, 81–97.
Rolfe, J., & Wang, X. (2011). Dealing with scale and scope issues in stated preference experiments. In J. Bennett (Ed.), The international handbook on non-market environmental valuation (pp. 254–272). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2008). Testing for differences in benefit transfer values between state and regional frameworks. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52, 149–168.
Rolfe, J., Bennett, J., Johnston, R. J., & Kerr, G. (2011). ‘Yes we can…’: Using benefit transfer to inform environmental policymaking. EERH Policy Brief. Canberra, Australia: Environmental Economics Research Hub, Australian National University.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Johnston, R. J. (2009). Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer: Avoiding unintended consequences. Land Economics, 85, 410–428.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2000). Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research, 36, 1097–1107.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2003). Benefit transfer. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown (Eds.), A primer on non-market valuation (pp. 445–482). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Phipps, T. T. (2007). Correspondence and convergence in benefit transfer accuracy: Meta-analytic review of the literature. In S. Navrud & R. Ready (Eds.), Environmental value transfer: Issues and methods (pp. 23–43). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rosenberger, R. S., & Stanley, T. D. (2006). Measurement, generalization and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics, 60, 372–378.
Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., & Rose, J. (2012). Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 79, 21–31.
Smith, V. K., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2002). Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation? Environmental & Resource Economics, 22, 271–296.
Smith, V. K., Van Houtven, G., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2002). Benefit transfer via preference calibration: “Prudential algebra” for policy. Land Economics, 78, 132–152.
Smith, V. K., Pattanayak, S. K., & Van Houtven, G. (2006). Structural benefit transfer: An example using VSL estimates. Ecological Economics, 60, 361–371.
Spash, C. L., & Vatn, A. (2006). Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives. Ecological Economics, 60, 379–388.
Stanley, T. D. (2005). Beyond publication bias. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 309–345.
Stanley, T. D. (2008). Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effect in the presence of publication selection. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 103–127.
Stanley, T. D., Doucouliagos, H., Giles, M., Heckemeyer, J. H., Johnston, R. J., Laroche, P., et al. (2013). Meta-analysis of economics reporting guidelines. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27, 390–394.
Stapler, R. W., & Johnston, R. J. (2009). Meta-analysis, benefit transfer, and methodological covariates: Implications for transfer error. Environmental & Resource Economics, 42, 227–246.
Toman, M. (1998). Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics, 25, 57–60.
UK Environment Agency. (2004). Assessment of benefits for water quality and water resources schemes in the PR04 Environment Programme. London: UK Environment Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Advisory on EPA’s issues in valuing mortality risk reduction. EPA-SAB-08-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Office of the Administrator.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Valuing the protection of ecological systems and services: A report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-09-012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Office of the Administrator.
Van Houtven, G., Powers, J. & Pattanayak, S. K. (2007). Valuing water quality improvements in the United States using meta-analysis: Is the glass half-full or half-empty for national policy analysis? Resource and Energy Economics, 29, 206–228.
Viscusi, W. K., & Aldy, J. E. (2003). The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimate throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27, 5–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Illustration of Unit Value and Benefit Function Transfer
To illustrate the mechanics of a very simple benefit transfer, consider the following stylized example. Assume that a published study reports the results of a simple, linear travel cost model predicting the number of visits to a local wildlife refuge (Site A), with statistical model results reported in Table 2.2 (assume a simple ordinary least squares model).Footnote 16
Assume that there is a nearby wildlife refuge (Site B) that is similar to Site A. However, the average number of rare bird viewings at Site B is higher than those at Site A. Assume that average viewings at Site B are 6.0 per visit. Assume also that the analyst wishes to use benefit transfer to estimate consumer surplus at Site B (the policy site), based on the study published from data at Site A (the study site).
To conduct our benefit transfer, we first use data at Site A to calculate the original study site demand curve and mean per visitor consumer surplus (CS).
The result is shown in Fig. 2.3, which illustrates the travel cost demand curve and associated consumer surplus. Here, the consumer surplus estimate of $20.25 reflects the access value of Site A, or the total value that each visitor receives from all visits to Site A, each year. Following standard practice, this is estimated as the area above the average travel cost ($10 per trip) and below the estimated travel cost demand curve.
Illustrative travel cost demand function and consumer surplus (CS)
To conduct a unit value transfer of this estimate to Site B, one would simply assume that the same consumer surplus estimate applies to both sites, so that the annual per visitor consumer surplus at Site B would be approximated as $20.25. This unit value estimate does not account for the difference in rare bird VIEWINGS between Site A and B.
To conduct a simple benefit function transfer of this estimate to Site B, one would estimate a new demand function using the updated information on VIEWINGS from Site B.
Given this updated demand curve (Fig. 2.4), the benefit function transfer estimate of consumer surplus for Site B visitors is $36.00 per year. The consumer surplus difference ($36.00 vs. $20.25) reflects ability of benefit function transfer to calibrate for the difference between VIEWINGS at the two sites, and hence predict a higher access value for Site B, all else equal. Although more sophisticated models (cf. Haab and McConnell 2002) may require more complex calculations to implement unit value or benefit function transfers, the general process is similar.
Benefit function transfer of travel cost model results
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R. (2015). Introduction to Benefit Transfer Methods. In: Johnston, R., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R., Brouwer, R. (eds) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9929-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9930-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)