Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: An empirical inquiry

Stefanie Kirchhoff, Bonnie G Colby, Jeffrey T. LaFrance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

107 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Benefit transfers are used by public agencies needing information on costs and benefits of policy decisions, although scientific debate regarding the validity of benefit transfer is ongoing. This article develops a methodology to evaluate the performance of direct benefit transfer and benefit function transfer and applies the methodology to two pairs of similar non-market amenities. Empirical results indicate that benefit function transfer is more robust than transfer of average site benefits. Our results suggest that the circumstances under which benefit function transfer provides valid, policy-relevant information may be limited and that errors from applying benefit transfer can be quite large, even across seemingly similar amenities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)75-93
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Environmental Economics and Management
Volume33
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1997

Fingerprint

transfer function
amenity
methodology
cost
Benefit transfer
Transfer function
policy
Amenities
Methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer : An empirical inquiry. / Kirchhoff, Stefanie; Colby, Bonnie G; LaFrance, Jeffrey T.

In: Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, 05.1997, p. 75-93.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a2faedca52d34d10a01b638db0513e3d,
title = "Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: An empirical inquiry",
abstract = "Benefit transfers are used by public agencies needing information on costs and benefits of policy decisions, although scientific debate regarding the validity of benefit transfer is ongoing. This article develops a methodology to evaluate the performance of direct benefit transfer and benefit function transfer and applies the methodology to two pairs of similar non-market amenities. Empirical results indicate that benefit function transfer is more robust than transfer of average site benefits. Our results suggest that the circumstances under which benefit function transfer provides valid, policy-relevant information may be limited and that errors from applying benefit transfer can be quite large, even across seemingly similar amenities.",
author = "Stefanie Kirchhoff and Colby, {Bonnie G} and LaFrance, {Jeffrey T.}",
year = "1997",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1006/jeem.1996.0981",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "75--93",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Economics and Management",
issn = "0095-0696",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer

T2 - An empirical inquiry

AU - Kirchhoff, Stefanie

AU - Colby, Bonnie G

AU - LaFrance, Jeffrey T.

PY - 1997/5

Y1 - 1997/5

N2 - Benefit transfers are used by public agencies needing information on costs and benefits of policy decisions, although scientific debate regarding the validity of benefit transfer is ongoing. This article develops a methodology to evaluate the performance of direct benefit transfer and benefit function transfer and applies the methodology to two pairs of similar non-market amenities. Empirical results indicate that benefit function transfer is more robust than transfer of average site benefits. Our results suggest that the circumstances under which benefit function transfer provides valid, policy-relevant information may be limited and that errors from applying benefit transfer can be quite large, even across seemingly similar amenities.

AB - Benefit transfers are used by public agencies needing information on costs and benefits of policy decisions, although scientific debate regarding the validity of benefit transfer is ongoing. This article develops a methodology to evaluate the performance of direct benefit transfer and benefit function transfer and applies the methodology to two pairs of similar non-market amenities. Empirical results indicate that benefit function transfer is more robust than transfer of average site benefits. Our results suggest that the circumstances under which benefit function transfer provides valid, policy-relevant information may be limited and that errors from applying benefit transfer can be quite large, even across seemingly similar amenities.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031148767&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031148767&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1006/jeem.1996.0981

DO - 10.1006/jeem.1996.0981

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0031148767

VL - 33

SP - 75

EP - 93

JO - Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

SN - 0095-0696

IS - 1

ER -