Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: Avoiding Unintended Consequences
Selection effects include seemingly independent influences on, and choices in, conducting and reporting primary research that may bias a stock of knowledge. Such effects may arise from sociopolitical influences (research priority selection), researcher choices (methodology selection), peer review influences (publication selection), and meta-analyst choices (metadata sample selection). This paper discusses the impact, detection, and amelioration of selection effects within benefit transfer. Also discussed is evidence of selection effects in the literature and their implications for primary research. Evidence suggests that metaregression analysis may be the best tool for detecting and generating corrective measures for selection biases within benefit transfers.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Robert J. Johnston & Elena Y. Besedin & Richard Iovanna & Christopher J. Miller & Ryan F. Wardwell & Matthew H. Ranson, 2005. "Systematic Variation in Willingness to Pay for Aquatic Resource Improvements and Implications for Benefit Transfer: A Meta-Analysis," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(2-3), pages 221-248, 06.
- Morrison, Mark & Bergland, Olvar, 2006. "Prospects for the use of choice modelling for benefit transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 420-428, December.
- Gregory Poe & Jeremy Clark & Daniel Rondeau & William Schulze, 2002. "Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(1), pages 105-131, September.
- Yong Jiang & Stephen Swallow & Michael Mcgonagle, 2005. "Context-Sensitive Benefit Transfer Using Stated Choice Models: Specification and Convergent Validity for Policy Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(4), pages 477-499, 08.
- G. Cornelis van Kooten & Alison Eagle & James Manley & Tara Smolak, 2004. "How Costly are Carbon Offsets? A Meta-Analysis of Forest Carbon Sinks," Working Papers 2004-01, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
- Smith, V. Kerry & Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1990. "What have we learned since hotelling's letter? : A meta-analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 277-281, March.
- Moeltner, Klaus & Boyle, Kevin J. & Paterson, Robert W., 2007. "Meta-analysis and benefit transfer for resource valuation-addressing classical challenges with Bayesian modeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 250-269, March.
- Klaus Moeltner & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2007. "Meta-Regression and Benefit Transfer: Data Space, Model Space, and the Quest for ‘Optimal Scope’," Working Papers 07-011, University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Economics;University of Nevada, Reno , Department of Resource Economics.
- Ian J. Bateman & Andrew P. Jones, 2003. "Contrasting Conventional with Multi-Level Modeling Approaches to Meta-Analysis: Expectation Consistency in U.K. Woodland Recreation Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 235-258.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:85:y:2009:i:3:p:410-428. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.