Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values

  • Chapter
Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods

Part of the book series: The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources ((ENGO,volume 9))

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baaijens SR, Nijkamp P, Montfort KV (1998) Explanatory meta-analysis for the comparison and transfer of regional tourism income multipliers, Regional Studies, 32 (9): 839–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ (1996) An economic comparison of forest recreation, timber and carbon fixing values with agriculture in Wales: A geographical information systems approach, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Economics, University of Nottingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD (1995) Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies, Ecological Economics, 12 (2):161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Garrod GD, Brainard JS, Lovett AA (1996) Measurement, valuation and estimation issues in the travel cost method: A geographical information systems approach, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47 (2): 191–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Langford IH (1997) Budget constraint, temporal and ordering effects in contingent valuation studies, Environment and Planning A, 29 (7): 1215–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Lovett AA, Brainard JS (1999a) Developing a methodology for benefit transfers using geographical information systems: Modeling demand for woodland recreation, Regional Studies, 33 (3): 191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Brainard JS, Garrod GD, and Lovett AA (1999b) The impact of journey origin specification and other measurement assumptions upon individual travel cost estimates of consumer surplus: A geographical information systems analysis, Regional Environmental Change, 1 (1): 24–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Nishikawa N, Brouwer R (2000) Benefits transfer in theory and practice: A review, CSERGE Global Environmental Change Working Paper, Centre for social and economic research on the global environment, University of East Anglia and University College London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman IJ, Lovett AA, Brainard JS, (2003) Applied Environmental Economics: A GIS Approach to Cost Benefit Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson JF, Willis KG (1990) The aggregate value of the non-priced recreation benefits of the Forestry Commission estate. Report to the Forestry Commission, Department of Town and County Planning, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson JF, Willis KG (1992) Valuing informal recreation on the Forestry Commission estate, Bulletin 104, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergland O, Magnussen K, and Navrud S (1995) Benefit transfer: Testing for accuracy and reliability, Discussion Paper {#}D-03/1995, Agricultural University of Norway

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop KD, (1992) Assessing the benefits of community forests: An evaluation of the Recreational use benefits of two urban fringe woodlands, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 35 (1):63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Boadway R, Bruce N (1984) Welfare Economics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Welsh MP (1985) Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games, Land Economics, 61:188–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle KJ, Poe GL, Bergstrom J (1994) What do we know about groundwater values?: Preliminary implications from a meta-analysis of contingent valuation studies, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76 (5):1055–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard JS, Lovett AA, Bateman IJ (1999) Integrating geographical information systems into travel cost analysis benefit transfer, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 13 (3): 227–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard JS, Bateman IJ., Lovett AA, (2001) Modelling demfor recreation in English woodlands, Forestry, 74 (5): 423–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire DS, Neill H R (1992) Benefit transfers: Conceptual and empirical issues, Water Resources Research, 28 (3):651–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Spaninks FA (1999) The validity of environmental benefits transfer: Further empirical testing Environmental and Resource Economics, 14 (1): 95–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Turner RK (1999) A meta-analysis of wetlcontingent valuation and studies, Regional Environmental Change, 1 (1): 47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull JM, Riley GD, Rasbash J, Goldstein H (1998) Parallel implementation of a multilevel modelling package, University of Manchester, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Button KJ (1995) Evaluation of transport externalities: What can we learn using meta-analysis?, Regional Studies 29:507–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Button KJ, Kerr J (1996) Effectiveness of traffic restraint policies: A simple meta-regression analysis, International Journal of Transport Economics 23:213–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL (1996) Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods, Land Economics, 72:80–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Groves T, Machina MJ (1999) Incentive and informational properties of preference questions, Plenary Address, Ninth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE), Oslo, Norway, June 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Banzaf HS (1998) Environmental Policy Analysis With Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method, Edward Elgar, Northampton, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing M, Ozuna T (1996) Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30:316–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espey M, Espey J, Shaw WD (1997) Price elasticity of residential demfor water: A meta-analysis, Water Resources Research, 33 (6):1369–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett RD (1979) The monetary value of the recreational benefits of wildlife, Journal of Environmental Management, 8:203–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Farquharson R (1969) Theory of Voting, Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • FICGB (Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain) (1992) The Forestry Industry Year-Book 1991–92, FICGB, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result, Econometrica 41:587–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research, Educational Researcher, 5 (10):3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass GV, McGaw B, Smith ML (1981) Meta-analysis in social research, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein H, (1995) Multilevel Statistical Models (2nd edition) Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayson AJ, Sidaway RM, Thompson FP (1975) Some aspects of recreation planning in the Forestry Commission in Searle, GAC (ed.) Recreational Economics and Analysis: Papers presented at the Symposium on Recreational Economics and Analysis, London Graduate School of Business Studies, January 1972, Longman, Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahneman D, McFadden D (1998) Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods, Resource and Energy Economics, 20 (2):85–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, ND (1989) Valuing rural recreation benefits: An empirical comparison of two approaches, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 40 (3):361–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley ND, Craig S (1991) Wilderness development decisions and the Krutilla-Fisher model: The case of Scotland’s Flow Country Ecological Economics, 4:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley ND, Ecotec Ltd (1991) The Valuation of Environmental Effects: Stage Two Final Report. The Scottish Office Industry Department and Scottish Enterprise, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley ND, Munro A (1991) Design bias in contingent valuation studies: The impact of information, Discussion Paper in Economics 91/13, Department of Economics, University of Stirling

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley ND, Ruffell RJ (1991) Recreational use values of woodl and features Report to the Forestry Commission, University of Stirling

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Government (1995) Environment Act 1995, HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Treasury (1972) Forestry in Great Britain: An Interdepartmental Cost/Benefit Study, HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn JP, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 14 (3):226–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson G (1982) Advanced Meta-analysis: Quantitative Methods for Cumulating Research Findings A Cross Studies, Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Just RE, Hueth DL, Schmitz A (1982) Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchhoff S, Colby BG, LaFrance JT (1997) Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: An empirical inquiry, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33:75–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla JV, Fisher AC (1975) The Economics of Natural Environments: Studies in the Valuation of Commodity and Amenity Resources, Johns Hopkins University Press (for Resources for the Future), Baltimore, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin X (1997) Variance component testing in generalised linear models with random effects Biometrika 84:309–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB (1992) The evolution of a more rigorous approach to benefit transfer: Benefit function transfer, Water Resources Research, 28 (3):701–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB, Roach B, Ward F, Ready R (1995) Testing transferability of recreation demmodels across regions: A study of corps of engineers reservoirs Water Resources Research, 31:721–730

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JB, White DS (1996) Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis, Ecological Economics, 18 (3): 197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowski MA, Boyle KJ, Bishop RC, Larson DM, Paterson RW (2001) A cautionary note on interpreting meta analyses, unpublished paper, Industrial Economics Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edition, Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 37, Chapman Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys To Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Washington DC, Resources for the future

    Google Scholar 

  • Mrozek JR, Taylor LO (2002) What determines the value of life? A meta-analysis, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 (2): 253–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAO (National Audit Office) (1986) Review of Forestry Commission Objectives and Achievements Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, National Audit Office, HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson JP (1980) Airports property values: A survey of recent evidence, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 19:37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development) (1994) Project and policy appraisal: Integrating economics and environment, OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of Natural Resources the Environment, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce DW, Moran D (1994) The Economic Value of Biodiversity, Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Poe GL, Boyle KJ, Bergstrom JC (2001) A preliminary meta analysis of contingent values for ground water revisited, in Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ., Poe GL (eds) The Economic Value of Water Quality, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackham O (1976) Trees Woodlin the British Landscape, Dent, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasbash J, Browne W, Goldstein H, Yang M, Plewis I, Healy M, Woodhouse G, Draper D, Langford I, Lewis T (2000) A Users Guide to MlwinN: Version 2.1, Institute of Education, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts KJ, Thompson ME, Pawlyk PW (1985) Contingent valuation of recreational diving at petroleum rigs, Gulf of Mexico, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 114:155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberger RS, Loomis JB (2000) Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent validity tests of an outdoor recreation database, Water Resources Research, 36 (4): 1097–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe RD, Schulze WD, Breffle W (1996) A test for payment card biases, Journal of Environmental Economics Management, 31:178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterthwaite M (1975) “Strategy-Proofness Arrow Conditions: Existence Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures Welfare Functions,” Journal of Economic Theory 10:187–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz J (1994) Air pollution daily mortality: A review a meta analysis, Environmental Economics 64:36–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha RK, Loomis JB (2001) Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation, Ecological Economics, 39:67–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner CJ, Holt D, Smith TMF (1989) Analysis of Complex Surveys Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK (1989) Can we measure the economic value of environmental amenities?, Southern Economic Journal 56:865–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Kaoru Y (1990a) Signals or noise? Explaining the variation in recreation benefit estimates, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 1990:419–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Kaoru Y (1990b) What have we learned since Hotelling’s letter? A meta-analysis, Economics Letters, 32:267–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK Huang JC (1993) Hedonic models air pollution: Twenty five years counting, Environmental and Resource Economics 3:381–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Huang JC (1995) Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis of hedonic property values models, Journal of Political Economy, 103:209–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Osborne L (1996) Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “Scope” test? A meta-analysis, Journal of Environmental Economics Management 31:287–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Pattanayak SK (2002) Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation?, Environmental and Resource Economics, 22(1–2): 271–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant LA, Johnson FR, Desvousges WH (1995) A meta-analysis of recreational fishing Triangle Economic Research, Durham, North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh JCJM, Button KJ, Nijkamp P, Pepping GC (1997) Meta-Analysis in Environmental Economics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Houtven GL, Pattanayak SK, Pringle C, Yang J-C (2001) Review meta-analysis of water quality valuation studies, Draft Report, prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Office of Policy, Economics, Innovation, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh RG, Johnson DM, McKean JR (1990) Nonmarket values from two decades of research on recreation demand, in Link A, Smith VK (eds.) Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, Vol. 5:167–193 JAI Press, Greenwich, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh RG, Johnson DM, McKean JR (1992) Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation demstudies, 1968–1988, Water Resources Research, 28(3):707–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters WG (1993) Variations in the value of travel time savings: empirical studies the values for road project evaluation, mimeo, cited in Van den Bergh JCJM, Button KJ, Nijkamp P, Pepping GC (1997), Meta-Analysis in Environmental Economics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod BA (1964) Collective—consumption services of individual consumption goods, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78:471–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman A, Sinclair J (1994) The Costs Benefits of Planting Three Community Forests: Forest of Mercia, Thames Chase Great North Forest, Policy Studies Division, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward RT, Wui Y-S (2001) The economic value of wetl and services: A meta-analysis, Ecological Economics, 37:257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis KG, Benson JF (1989) Values of user benefits of forest recreation: Some further site surveys Report to the Forestry Commission, Department of Town County Planning University of Newcastle upon Tyne

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis KG, Benson JF, Whitby MC (1988) Values of user benefits of forest recreation wildlife. Report to the Forestry Commission, Department of Town County Planning, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis KG, Garrod GD (1991) An individual travel cost method of evaluating forest recreation, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42(1):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf F (1986) Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis, Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ian J. Bateman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew P. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

    Ståle Navrud (Associate Professor) (Associate Professor)

  2. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania

    Richard Ready (Associate Professor) (Associate Professor)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bateman, I.J., Jones, A.P. (2007). Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in UK woodland recreation values. In: Navrud, S., Ready, R. (eds) Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5405-X_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation