Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 22, Issue 1–2, pp 271–296

Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?

  • V. Kerry Smith
  • Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
Article

Abstract

This paper describes meta-analytical methods as they have been appliedto non-market valuation research. These studies have been used to reviewand synthesize literature and, more recently, in benefit transfer. Thissecond use imposes a higher standard on the consistency in economicconcepts being summarized and in the resources included in ameta-analysis. To meet this need, the paper proposes and illustrates astructural framework using a generalized method of moments estimator toestimate the parameters of a preference function with the benefitsestimates usually encountered in meta-analytic summaries.

benefit transfer meta-analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angrist, J.D. and A.B. Krueger (1992), ‘The Effect of Age at School Entry on Educational Attainment: An Application of Instrumental Variables with Moments rom Two Samples’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 87 (June), 328–336.Google Scholar
  2. Baaijens, S. R., P. Nijkamp and K. V. Montfort (1998), ‘Explanatory Meta-Analysis for the Comparison and Transfer of Regional Tourism Income Multipliers’, Regional Studies 32(9), 839–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beron, K., J. Murdoch and M. Thayer (2001), ‘The Benefits of Visibility Improvement: New Evidence from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22 (March/May), 319–338.Google Scholar
  4. Bockstael, N. E. and K. E. McConnell (1993), ‘Pubic Goods and Characteristics of Non-Market Commodities’, Economic Journal 103 (September), 1244–1257.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, K. J., G. L. Poe, and J. C. Bergstrom (1994), ‘What DoWe Know About Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent-Valuation Surveys’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (December), 1055–1061.Google Scholar
  6. Brookshire, D. S., R. C. d'Arge, W. D. Schulze and M. A. Thayer (1981), ‘Experiments in Valuing Public Goods’, in V. Kerry Smith, ed., Advances in Applied Microeconomics, Vol. I. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 123–172.Google Scholar
  7. Brookshire, D. S., M. A. Thayer, W. D. Schulze, and R. C. d'Arge (1982), ‘Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches’, American Economic Review 72(1), 165–177.Google Scholar
  8. Brouwer, R., I. Langford, I. Bateman and R. K. Turner (1999), ‘A Meta-Analysis of Wetland Contingent Valuation Studies’, Regional Environmental Change 1 (November), 47–57.Google Scholar
  9. Cameron, T. A. (1992), ‘Combining Contingent Valuation and travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods’, Land Economics 68(3), 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron, T. A., G. L. Poe, R. G. Ethier and W. D. Schulze (2002), ‘Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin and J. L. Wright (1996), ‘Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods’, Land Economics 72(1), 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, R. T. (forthcoming), Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Cavlovic, T. A., K. H. Baker, R. P. Berrens and K. Gawande (2000), ‘A Meta-Analysis of Environmental Kuznets Curve Studies’, Agriculture and Resource Economics 29, 32–42.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, H. M. (1982), ‘Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews’, Review of Educational Research 52, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, H. M. (1988), ‘Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews’, Knowledge in Society 1, 104–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cooper, H. and L. V. Hedges (1994), ‘Research Synthesis as a Scientific Enterprise’, in H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges, eds., The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  17. Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson and H. S. Banzhaf (1998), Environmental Analysis with Limited Information. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Glass, G. V. (1976), ‘Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis’, Educational Researcher 5, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanemann, W. M. (1991), ‘Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?’ American Economic Review 81 (September), 635–647.Google Scholar
  20. Heckman, J. J. (2001), ‘Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture’, Journal of Political Economy 109(4), 673–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Imbens, G. W. and T. Lancaster (1994), ‘Combining Micro and Macro Data in Microeconometric Models’, Review of Economic Statistics 61 (October), 655–680.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, R., E. Fries and S. Banzhaf (1997), ‘Valuing Morbidity: An Integration of the Willingness to-Pay and Health Status Index Literature’, Journal of Health Economics 16, 641–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kishore, G. and H. Jenkins-Smith (2001), ‘Nuclear Waste Transport and Residential Property Values: Estimating the Effects of Perceived Risks’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 42 (September), 207–233.Google Scholar
  24. Larson, D. M. (1991), ‘Recovering Weakly Complementary Preferences’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21 (September), 97–108.Google Scholar
  25. Loomis, J. B. and D. S. White (1996), ‘Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis’, Ecological Economics 18, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markowski, M. A., K. J. Boyle, R. C. Bishop, D. M. Larson and R.W. Paterson (2001), ‘A Cautionary Note on Interpreting Meta Analyses’, unpublished paper, Industrial Economics Inc.Google Scholar
  27. McFadden, D. (1997), ‘Can Meta-Analyses of CV Studies Determine Their Reliability?’, unpublished paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  28. Nelson, J. P. (1980), ‘Airports and Property Values: A Survey of Recent Evidence’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 19, 37–52.Google Scholar
  29. Rosenberger, R. S. and J. B. Loomis (2000a), ‘Using Meta-Analysis for Benefit Transfer: In-sample Convergent Validity Tests of an Outdoor Recreation Database’, Water Resources Research 36 (April), 1097–1107.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberger, R. S. and J. B. Loomis (2000b), ‘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(3), 459–470.Google Scholar
  31. Shrestha, R. K. and J. B. Loomis (2001), ‘Testing a Meta-Analysis Model for Benefit Transfer in International Outdoor Recreation’, Ecological Economics 39, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, V. K. (1997), ‘Pricing What is Priceless: A Status Report on Non-market Valuation of Environmental Resources’, in H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg, eds., The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1997/1998: A Survey of Current Issues. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 156–204.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, V. K. and S. Banzhaf (2001), ‘A Diagrammatic Exposition of Weak Complementarity and the Willig Condition’, working paper, Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy, North Carolina State University, October.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, V. K. and J-C. Huang (1993), ‘Hedonic Models and Air Pollution: Twenty-Five Years and Counting’, Environmental and Resource Economics 3 (August), 381–394.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, V. K. and J-C. Huang (1995), ‘Can Markets Value Air Quality? A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Property Value Models’, Journal of Political Economy 103 (February), 209–227.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, V. K. and Y. Kaoru (1990a), ‘What Have We Learned since Hotelling's Letter? A Meta-Analysis’, Economics Letters 32 (March), 267–272.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, V. K. and Y. Kaoru (1990b), ‘Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics (May), 419–433.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, V. K. and L. L. Osborne (1996), ‘Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a ‘scope’ Test? A Meta-analysis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (November), 287–301.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, V. K., G. van Houtven and S. K. Pattanayak (2002), ‘Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: Prudential Algebra for Policy’, Land Economics 78 (February), 132–152.Google Scholar
  40. Sorg, Cindy F. and John B. Loomis (1984), ‘Empirical Estimates of Amenity Forest Values: A Comparative Review’, General Technical Report, RM-107, Rocky Mountain Forest and Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado.Google Scholar
  41. Stanley, T. D. (2001), ‘Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(Summer), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., K. J. Button, P. Nijkamp and G. C. Pepping (1997), Meta-Analysis in Environmental Economics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Walsh, R. G., D. M. Johnson and J. R. McKean (1990), ‘Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research On Recreation Demand’, in A. Link and V. K. Smith, eds., Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 167–193.Google Scholar
  44. Weizman, M. (1998), ‘The Noah's Ark Problem’, Econometrica 66 (November), 1279–1299.Google Scholar
  45. Willig, R. D. (1976), ‘Consumer's Surplus Without Apology’, American Economic Review 66 (September), 589–597.Google Scholar
  46. Willig, R. D. (1978), ‘Incremental Consumer's Surplus and Hedonic Price Adjustment’, Journal of Economic Theory 17(2), 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woodward, R. T. and Y-S. Wui (2001), ‘The Economic Value ofWetland Services: A Meta-Analysis’, Ecological Economics 37, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Kerry Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  • Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsNorth Carolina State University RaleighNCUSA
  2. 2.Resources for the FutureWashington, DC
  3. 3.RII International Research Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of ForestryNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations