For policy makers, regulators and natural resource managers, the resources necessary for original empirical resource valuations are often unavailable. A common alternative to original valuation studies is the practice of benefit transfer—the use of an empirical value estimate or estimates from a previous study or studies for application in a similar context. In order to reduce the error inherent in applying values from one parcel of land to another, researchers commonly use meta-analysis, or the “study of studies”, to provide a more thorough and statistically valid value estimate for use in a benefit transfer. In the practice of benefit transfer, much emphasis has been placed on improving the validity of values for transfer, but fewer studies have focused on the appropriate application of the established estimates. In this article, several often disregarded concerns that should be addressed when practicing benefit transfer are identified. A special focus is placed on spatial considerations and the recent progress that has been made to incorporate spatial trends. Geographic information systems (GIS) are advocated as a useful tool for incorporating the spatial aspects of benefit transfer. Consensuses and trends in the literature are acknowledged, and areas of potential improvement are highlighted.
References
[1]
The White house. Executive Order #12866: Regulatory Planning and Review. Available online: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/direct/orders/2646.html (accessed on 23 September 2012).
[2]
Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Portney, P.R.; Leamer, E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 1993, 58, 4601–4614.
[3]
Tyrv？inen, L.; Miettinen, A. Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2000, 39, 205–223, doi:10.1006/jeem.1999.1097.
[4]
Allen, B.P.; Loomis, J.B. The decision to use benefit transfer or conduct original valuation research for benefit-cost and policy analysis. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2008, 26, 1–12, doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2007.00066.x.
[5]
Smith, V.K.; van Houtven, G.; Pattanayak, S.K. Benefit transfer via preference calibration: ‘Prudential algebra’ for policy. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 132–152, doi:10.2307/3146928.
[6]
Johnston, R.J.; Rosenberger, R.S. Methods, trends, and controversies in contemporary benefit transfer. J. Econ. Surv. 2010, 24, 479–510.
[7]
Rosenberger, R.S.; Stanley, T.D. Measurement, generalization and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 372–378, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018.
[8]
Navrud, S.; Ready, R. Review of methods for value transfer. In Environmental Value Transfer:Issues and Methods; Navrud, S., Ready, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 1–10.
[9]
Brookshire, D.S.; Neill, H.R. Benefit transfers: Conceptual and ethical issues. Water Resour. Res. 1992, 28, 651–655, doi:10.1029/91WR02590.
[10]
Brouwer, R. Environmental value transfer: State of the art and future prospects. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 137–152, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00070-1.
[11]
Columbo, S.; Hanley, N. How can we reduce the errors from benefits transfer? An investigation using the choice experiment method. Land Econ. 2008, 84, 128–147.
[12]
Bergstrom, J.C.; de Civita, P. Status of benefit transfer in the United States and Canada: A review. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 1996, 47, 79–87, doi:10.1111/j.1744-7976.1999.tb00218.x.
[13]
Rosenberger, R.S.; Loomis, J.B. Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation Use Values: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan (2000 Revisions); USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
[14]
Florax, G.M. Methodological pitfalls in meta-analysis: Publication bias. In Comparative Environmental Economic Assessment; Florax, R.J.G.M., Nijkamp, P., Willis, K.G., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Northampton, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 177–207.
[15]
Liu, S.; Costanza, R.; Troy, A.; D’Angostino, J.; Mates, W. Valuing New Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital: A spatially explicit benefit transfer approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 1271–1285, doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9483-5.
[16]
Desvousges, W.H.; Johnson, F.R.; Banzhaf, H.S. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information: Principles and Application of the Transfer Method; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1998.
[17]
Glass, G.V. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ. Res. 1976, 5, 3–8.
[18]
Bergstrom, J.C.; Taylor, L.O. Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 351–360, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.015.
[19]
Smith, V.K.; Pattanayak, S.K. Is meta-analysis a Noah’s Ark for non-market valuation? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 22, 271–296, doi:10.1023/A:1015567316109.
[20]
Woodward, R.T.; Wui, Y. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 37, 257–270, doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00276-7.
[21]
Carson, R.T.; Mitchell, R.C. The value of clean water: The public’s willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 2445–2454, doi:10.1029/93WR00495.
[22]
Stapler, R.W.; Johnston, R.J. Meta-analysis, benefit transfer, and methodological covariates: Implications for transfer error. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 227–246, doi:10.1007/s10640-008-9230-z.
[23]
Nelson, J.P.; Kennedy, P.E. The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and resource economics: An assessment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 42, 345–377, doi:10.1007/s10640-008-9253-5.
[24]
Loomis, J.B. How large is the extent of the market for public goods: Evidence from a nation wide contingent valuation survey. Appl. Econ. 1996, 28, 779–782, doi:10.1080/000368496328209.
[25]
Loomis, J.B. Vertically summing public good demand curves: An empirical comparison of economic versus political jurisdictions. Land Econ. 2000, 76, 312–321, doi:10.2307/3147231.
[26]
Mouranaka, A. Spatial economic evaluation of artificial Japanese cedar forest management as a countermeasure for Japanese cedar pollinosis: An analysis using model of multizonal contingent markets with data from cities, towns and villages in Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan. Geogr. Rev. Jpn. 2004, 77, 903–923, doi:10.4157/grj.77.903.
[27]
Bateman, I.J.; Day, B.H.; Georgiou, S.; Lake, I. The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 450–460, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003.
[28]
Brander, L.M.; Br？uer, I.; Gerdes, H.; Ghermandi, A.; Kuik, O.; Markandya, A.; Navrud, S.; Nunes, P.A.L.D.; Schaafsma, M.; Vos, H.; et al. Using meta-analysis and GIS for value transfer and scaling up: Valuing climate change induced losses of European wetlands. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 52, 395–413.
[29]
Brainard, J.; Lovett, A.; Bateman, I. Integrating geographical information systems into travel cost analysis and benefits transfer. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1999, 13, 227–246, doi:10.1080/136588199241337.
[30]
Lovett, A.A.; Brainard, J.S.; Bateman, I.J. Improving benefit transfer demand functions: A GIS approach. J. Environ. Manag. 1997, 51, 373–389, doi:10.1006/jema.1997.0150.
[31]
Bateman, I.J.; Lovett, A.A.; Brainard, J.S. Applied Environmental Economics: A Gis Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; p. 335.
[32]
Brouwer, R.; Martín-Ortega, J.; Berbel, J. Spatial preference heterogeneity: A choice experiment. Land Econ. 2010, 86, 552–568.
[33]
Oliver, M.A.; Webster, R. Kriging: A method of interpolation for geographical information systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 1990, 4, 313–332, doi:10.1080/02693799008941549.
[34]
Campbell, D.; Hutchinson, W.G.; Scarpa, R. Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements. Environ. Plan. 2009, A41, 97–111, doi:10.1068/a4038.
[35]
Johnston, R.J.; Ramachandran, M.; Schultz, E.T.; Segerson, K.; Besedin, E.Y. Willingness to pay hot spots and the distribution of ecosystem service values: Implications for benefit transfer. In Proceedings of Annual Meeting Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 24–26 July 2011.
