IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/geaafs/9609.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Current Status Of Benefits Transfer In The U.S.: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • John C. BERGSTROM

Abstract

Benefits transfer refers to the use of existing benefit estimates in a different, but similar context as compared to the original study which generated the benefit estimates. Benefits transfer techniques include fixed value transfer, expert opinion, and value estimator models. Although benefits transfer techniques are subject to a number of conceptual and empirical limitations, these techniques are widely applied in the United States in economic assessments of public policies and projects. The application of benefits transfer in natural resource damage assessment cases is relatively untested in the United States court system.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. BERGSTROM, 1996. "Current Status Of Benefits Transfer In The U.S.: A Review," Faculty Series 96-09, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:geaafs:9609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. VandenBerg, Timothy P. & Poe, Gregory L. & Powell, John R., 1995. "Assessing the Accuracy of Benefits Transfers: Evidence from a Multi-State Contigent Valuation Study of Groundwater Quality," Working Papers 127936, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    2. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    3. V. Kerry Smith & William H. Desvousges & Ann Fisher, 1986. "A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(2), pages 280-290.
    4. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    5. Kevin J. Boyle & Gregory L. Poe & John C. Bergstrom, 1994. "What Do We Know About Groundwater Values? Preliminary Implications from a Meta Analysis of Contingent-Valuation Studies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1055-1061.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & Yoshiaki Kaoru, 1990. "Signals or Noise? Explaining the Variation in Recreation Benefit Estimates," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 419-433.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francisco Javier Correa Restrepo & Juan David Osorio Múnera, 2004. "Valoración económica de costos ambientales: marco conceptual y métodos de estimación," Revista Semestre Económico, Universidad de Medellín, June.
    2. Wronka, T.C. & Thiele, H., 2001. "Transfer von Umweltgüterbewertungen: Möglichkeiten, Grenzen und empirsiche Evidenz," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 37.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine Heyes & Anthony Heyes, 1999. "Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 124-139, January.
    2. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Loomis, John B. & Shrestha, Ram K., 1999. "Panel Stratification In Meta-Analysis Of Environmental And Natural Resource Economic Studies," 1999 Annual Meeting, July 11-14, 1999, Fargo, ND 35705, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Bergstrom, John C. & Taylor, Laura O., 2006. "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 351-360, December.
    4. Shuang Liu & David I Stern, 2008. "A Meta-Analysis of Contingent Valuation Studies in Coastal and Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-15, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    5. Woodward, Richard T. & Wui, Yong-Suhk, 2001. "The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 257-270, May.
    6. Rosenberger, Randy & Loomis, John & Shrestha, Ram, 1999. "Meta-Analysis of Outdoor Recreational Use Value Estimates: Convergent Validity Tests," Western Region Archives 321710, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    7. Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2001. "Methodological pitfalls in meta-analysis: publication bias," Serie Research Memoranda 0028, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    8. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    9. Ryan Stapler & Robert Johnston, 2009. "Meta-Analysis, Benefit Transfer, and Methodological Covariates: Implications for Transfer Error," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 227-246, February.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
    11. Erda Wang & Ling Zhao & Ying Zhou & Bertis B. Little, 2013. "Valuing Outdoor Recreation Activities Using a Meta-Analysis Model in China: An Empirical Study," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 415-432, April.
    12. Ram Shrestha & John Loomis, 2003. "Meta-Analytic Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Economic Values: Testing Out-of-Sample Convergent Validity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(1), pages 79-100, May.
    13. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Oltmer, Katrin & Florax, Raymond J.G.M., 2001. "Impacts Of Agricultural Policy Reform On Land Prices: A Quantitative Analysis Of The Literature," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20507, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    17. Young, Ralph, 1991. "The Economic Significance of Environmental Resources: A Review of the Evidence," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(03), pages 1-26, December.
    18. Alston, Julian M. & Wyatt, T. J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Marra, Michele C. & Chan-Kang, Connie, 2000. "A meta-analysis of rates of return to agricultural R & D: ex pede Herculem?," Research reports 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Erwin Bulte & G. van Kooten, 1999. "Marginal Valuation of Charismatic Species: Implications for Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 119-130, July.
    20. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:geaafs:9609. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daugaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.