Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bockstael, N. E. and K. E. McConnell (1993), ‘Pubic Goods and Characteristics of Non-Market Commodities’, Economic Journal 103 (September), 1244–1257.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Cameron, T. A. (1992), ‘Combining Contingent Valuation and travel Cost Data for the Valuation of Nonmarket Goods’, Land Economics 68(3), 302–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (forthcoming), Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

  • 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 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1982), ‘Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews’, Review of Educational Research 52, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1988), ‘Organizing Knowledge Synthesis: A Taxonomy of Literature Reviews’, Knowledge in Society 1, 104–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson and H. S. Banzhaf (1998), Environmental Analysis with Limited Information. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V. (1976), ‘Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis’, Educational Researcher 5, 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Heckman, J. J. (2001), ‘Micro Data, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy: Nobel Lecture’, Journal of Political Economy 109(4), 673–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Larson, D. M. (1991), ‘Recovering Weakly Complementary Preferences’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21 (September), 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. B. and D. S. White (1996), ‘Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis’, Ecological Economics 18, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • McFadden, D. (1997), ‘Can Meta-Analyses of CV Studies Determine Their Reliability?’, unpublished paper, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. P. (1980), ‘Airports and Property Values: A Survey of Recent Evidence’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 19, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Smith, V. K. and Y. Kaoru (1990a), ‘What Have We Learned since Hotelling's Letter? A Meta-Analysis’, Economics Letters 32 (March), 267–272.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Stanley, T. D. (2001), ‘Wheat from Chaff: Meta-Analysis as Quantitative Literature Review’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(Summer), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Weizman, M. (1998), ‘The Noah's Ark Problem’, Econometrica 66 (November), 1279–1299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willig, R. D. (1976), ‘Consumer's Surplus Without Apology’, American Economic Review 66 (September), 589–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willig, R. D. (1978), ‘Incremental Consumer's Surplus and Hedonic Price Adjustment’, Journal of Economic Theory 17(2), 227–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, R. T. and Y-S. Wui (2001), ‘The Economic Value ofWetland Services: A Meta-Analysis’, Ecological Economics 37, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC, USA

    V. Kerry Smith

  2. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    V. Kerry Smith

  3. RII International Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    Subhrendu K. Pattanayak

  4. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Subhrendu K. Pattanayak

Authors
  1. V. Kerry Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, V.K., Pattanayak, S.K. Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?. Environ Resource Econ 22, 271–296 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015567316109

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015567316109

Search

Navigation