Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 467–481 | Cite as

Benefit Transfer Challenges: Perspectives from U.S. Practitioners

  • Stephen Newbold
  • R. David Simpson
  • D. Matthew Massey
  • Matthew T. Heberling
  • William WheelerEmail author
  • Joel Corona
  • Julie Hewitt


The earliest use of benefit–cost analysis (BCA) within the U.S. Federal government began in the 1930s when large public works projects, such as hydro-electric dams, highways, and harbors, were initiated as part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs to lift the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression (Hanley and Spash 1993; Hufschmidt 2000; Pearce 2002). While elementary principles of public works valuation had been laid down by Dupuit a century before, new theoretical underpinnings and empirical methods for measuring economic values of goods that were publicly provided were developed in this period (Banzhaf 2010). Later, in the 1960s and 70s, there was an increased emphasis on government efforts to improve the environment. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other important environmental measures date from this era (Easter and Archibald 1998; Banzhaf 2010; Banzhaf 2016). The year 1970 also marked the consolidation of previously separate Executive Branch regulatory...


Benefit transfer Water quality Meta-analysis 


  1. Abt Associates (2016) Summary and discussion of literature linking water quality to economic value. Prepared for Office of Research and Development, Office of Policy, and Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. EP-C-13-039. Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. Banzhaf HS (2010) Consumer surplus with apology: a historical persepctive on nonmarket valuation and recreation demand. Annu Rev Resour Econ 2:183–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banzhaf HS (2016) The environmental turn in natural resource economics. RFF Discussion Paper 16-27. Retrieved from
  4. Bardach E (2004) The extrapolation problem: how can we learn from the experience of others? J Policy Anal Manag 23(2):205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Georgiou S, Lake I (2006) The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol Econ 60(2):450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Ferrini S, Schaafsma M, Barton DN, Dugbaard A, Navrud S (2011) Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for simlar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environ Resour Econ 50(3):365–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Batker D, Schmidt R (2015) Environmental and Social Benchmarking Analysis of Nautilus Minerals Inc. Solwara 1 Project. Earth Economics, Tacoma, WA. Retrieved from
  8. Blomqvist L, Simpson RD (2017) The value of ecosystem services: what is the evidence. In Kareiva P, Marvier M, Silliman B (eds) Effective conservation science: data not dogma. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Blow L, Blundell R (2017) A nonparametric revealed preference approach to measuring the value of environmental quality. Environ Resour Econ.
  10. Bockstael NE, Freeman AM III, Kopp RJ, Portney PR, Smith VK (2000) On measuring economic values for nature. Eniron Sci Technol 34:1384–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boutwell JL, Westra JV (2013) Benefit transfer: a review of methodologies and challenges. Resources 2(4):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyd J, Krupnick A (2013) Using ecological production theory to define and select environmental commodities for nonmarket valuation. Agric Resour Econ Rev 42(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (1992) Benefit transfer studies: myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water Resour Res 28(3):657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyle KJ, Wooldridge JM (2017) Understanding error structures and exploiting panel data in meta-analytic benefit transfers. Environ Resour Econ.
  15. Boyle KJ, Kuminoff NV, Parmeter CF, Pope JC (2009) Ncessary conditions for valid benefit transfers. Am J Agric Econ 91(5):1328–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brookshire DS, Neill HR (1992) Benefit transfers: conceptual and empirical issues. Water Resour Res 28(3):651–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Card D, Krueger AB (1995) Time-series minimum-wage studies: a meta-analysis. Am Econ Rev 85:238–243Google Scholar
  18. Cartwright N, Hardie J (2012) Evidence-based policy: a practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Copeland CW (2011) The federal rulemaking process: an overview. CRS Report to Congress, Congressional Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
  20. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cropper M, Hammitt JK, Robinson LA (2011) Valuing mortality risk reductions: progress and challenges. Annu Rev Resour Econ 3:313–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Desvousges WH, Naughton MC, Parsons GR (1992) Benefit transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resour Res 28(3):675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Easter KW, Archibald SO (1998) Benefit-cost analysis in U.S. environmental regulatory decisions. In: Proceedings of the sixth joint conference on agriculture, food, and the environment, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from
  24. Fraas A (1991) The role of economic analysis in shaping envrionmental policy. Law Contemp Probl 54(4):113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffiths C, Klemick H, Massey M, Moore C, Newbold S, Simpson D, Wheeler W (2012) EPA valuation of surface water quality improvements. Rev Environ Econ Policy 6:130–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanley S, Spash C (1993) Cost–benefit analysis and the environment. Edward Elgar, BrookfieldGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanley N, Schlapfer F, Spurgeon J (2003) Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance decay functions for use and non-use values. J Envrion Manag 68:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edn. Springer, StanfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howick J, Glasziou P, Aronson P (2013) Problems with using mechanisms to solve the prolem of extrapolation. Theor Med Bioeth 34:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hufschmidt MM (2000) Benefit-cost analysis: 1933–1985. J Contemp Water Res Educ 116(1):11Google Scholar
  31. Ioannides JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):696–701Google Scholar
  32. Iovanna R, Griffiths C (2006) Clean water, ecologial benefits, and benefits transfer: a work in progress at the U.S. EPA. Ecol Econ 60:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnston RJ, Ramachandran M (2014) Modeling spatial patchiness and hot spots in stated preference willingness to pay. Environ Resour Econ 59(3):363–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnston RJ, Rosenberger RS (2010) Methods, trends and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J Econ Surv 24(3):479–510Google Scholar
  35. Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) (2015) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnston RJ, Besedin EY, Stapler R (2016) Enhanced geospatial validity for meta-analysis and environmental benefit transfer: an application to water quality improvements. Environ Resour Econ. Google Scholar
  37. Jorgensen SL, Olsen SB, Ladenburg J, Martinsen L, Svenningsen SR, 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. Ecol Econ 92(1):58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaul S, Boyle KJ, Kuminoff NV, Parmeter CF, Pope JC (2013) What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity. J Environ Econ Manag 66:90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klemick H, Griffiths C, Guignet D, Walsh P (2016) Improving water quality in an iconic estuary: an internal meta-analysis of property value impacts around the Chesapeake Bay. Environ Resour Econ. Google Scholar
  40. Loomis JB (1996) How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey. Appl Econ 28(7):779–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Loomis JB (2000) Vertically summing public good demand curves: an empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ 76:312–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loomis JB, Rosenberger RS (2006) Reducing barriers in future beneit transfers: needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecol Econ 60:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moeltner K, Rosenberger RS (2014) Cross-context benefit transfer: a Bayesian search for information pools. Am J Agric Econ 96(2):469–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moore C, Guignet D, Maguire K, Dockins C, Simon N (2015) A stated preference study of the Chesapeake Bay and watershed lakes. NCEE Working Paper #15-06. Accessed at
  45. Nelson JP (2015) Meta-analysis: statistical methods. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitionersd, vol 15. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  46. Nelson JP, Kennedy PE (2009) The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in envvironmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environ Resour Econ 42:345–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Newbold SC, Walsh PJ, Matthew Massey D, Hewitt J (2017) Using structural restrictions to achieve theoretical consistency in benefit transfers. Environ Resour Econ.
  48. OMB (2003) Circular A-4: regulatory analysis. Office of the President. Retrieved from
  49. Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science.
  50. Pearce D (2002) An intellectual history of environmental economics. Annu Rev Energy Environ 27:57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Phaneuf DJ, Smith VK, Palmquist RB, Pope JC (2008) Integrating property value and local recreation models to value ecosystem services in urban watersheds. Land Econ 84(3):361–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Phillips S, McGee B (2016) Ecosystem service benefits of a cleaner Chesapeake Bay. Coast Manag 44(3):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rolfe J, Windle J (2012) Distance decay functions for iconic assets: assessing national values to protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Environ Resour Econ 53:347–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosenberger RS (2015) Benefit transfer validity and reliability. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosenberger RS, Stanley TD (2006) Measruement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in eneit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schaafsma M (2015) Spatial and geographical aspects of benefit transfer. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners, vol 18. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  57. Schaafsma M, Brouwer R, Rose J (2012) Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 79(1):21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith VK (1993) Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal. Land Econ 69(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith VK, Pattanayak SK (2002) Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation? Envrion Resour Econ 22:271–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stapler RW, Johnston RJ (2009) Meta-analysis, benefit transfer, and methodological covariates: implications for transfer error. Environ Resour Econ 42:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steel D (2010) A new approach to argument by analogy: extrapolation and chain grahs. Philos Sci 77(5):1058–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sutherland RJ, Walsh R (1985) Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality. Land Econ 61:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. TEEB (2016) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Retrieved from
  64. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  65. USEPA (1982) Regulatory impact analysis of effluent limitation guidelines regulation for the iron and steel industry. EPA Report W.82.11Google Scholar
  66. USEPA (1987) Regulatory impact analysis of the effluent guidelines regulation for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers industry. EPA Report W.87.16Google Scholar
  67. USEPA (2006a) Ecological benefits assessment strategic plan. EPA-240-R-06-001. Retrieved from$File/EE-0485-01.pdf
  68. USEPA (2006b) Report of the EPA workgroup on VSL meta-analyses. Retrieved from
  69. USEPA (2007) SAB advisory on EPA’s issues in valuing mortality risk reductions. Retrieved from
  70. USEPA (2009) Valuing the protection of ecological systems and services: a report of the EPA science advisory board. Retrieved from$File/EPA-SAB-09-012-unsigned.pdf
  71. USEPA (2010) Guidelines for conducting economic analyses. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator. EPA 240-R-10-001. Retrieved from
  72. USEPA (2011) The benefits and costs of the clean air act from 1990 to 2020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved from
  73. USEPA (2015a) Benefit and cost analysis for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  74. USEPA (2015b) U.S. environmental protection agency peer review handbook, 4th edn. U.S. EPA, Science and Technology Policy Council, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  75. van der Ploeg S, de Groot RS (2010) The TEEB valuation database—a searchable database of 1310 estimates of monetary values of ecosystem services. Wageningen, Foundation for Sustainable Development, The Netherlands. Retrieved from
  76. Viscusi WK (2010) Policy challenges of the heterogeneity of the value of statistical life. Found Trends Microecon 6(2):99–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walsh P, Wheeler W (2013) Water quality indices and benefit-cost analysis. J Benefit-Cost Anal 4(1):81–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walsh P, Griffiths C, Guignet D, Klemick H (2017) Modeling the property price impact of water quality in 14 Chesapeake Bay counties. Ecol Econ 135:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wheeler W (2015) Benefit transfer for water quality regulatory rulemaking in the United States. In: Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brouwer R (eds) Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: a guide for researchers and practitioners, vol 6. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  80. Wilson MA, Hoehn JP (2006) Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: the state-of-the art and science. Ecol Econ 60(2):335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Newbold
    • 1
  • R. David Simpson
    • 1
  • D. Matthew Massey
    • 1
  • Matthew T. Heberling
    • 2
  • William Wheeler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joel Corona
    • 3
  • Julie Hewitt
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental EconomicsWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.U.S. EPA, Office of Research and DevelopmentCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.U.S. EPA, Office of WaterWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations