Evaluating environmental policy: the use and usefulness of experiments

IF 1.9 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2021-05-31 DOI:10.1080/21606544.2021.1933606
J. Bouma
{"title":"Evaluating environmental policy: the use and usefulness of experiments","authors":"J. Bouma","doi":"10.1080/21606544.2021.1933606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reflects on the use and usefulness of experiments for environmental policy evaluation. Whereas most of the literature has focused on the added value of field experiments, this paper also considers the added value of choice and lab experiments. The paper reviews the literature to assess the potential of the different methods, focusing on the type of policy issues that can be evaluated with the help of experiments. It then discusses validity issues, and how the validity of the different methods can be improved, after which it turns to the ‘policy validity’ or generalizability of the outcomes of the different methods, crucial for policy relevance. The paper ends with a reflection on how the use and usefulness of experiments for environmental policy evaluation can be improved, concluding that mixed method approaches that combine the different experimental methods seem most promising although efforts, to enhance the replicability of experiments and the building of an evidence base, are also important. Finally, to enhance the use and usefulness of experiments for environmental policy making, it is important that more attention is paid to the scalability of the experimental findings and for the inclusion of policy context in experimental design.","PeriodicalId":44903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21606544.2021.1933606","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2021.1933606","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper reflects on the use and usefulness of experiments for environmental policy evaluation. Whereas most of the literature has focused on the added value of field experiments, this paper also considers the added value of choice and lab experiments. The paper reviews the literature to assess the potential of the different methods, focusing on the type of policy issues that can be evaluated with the help of experiments. It then discusses validity issues, and how the validity of the different methods can be improved, after which it turns to the ‘policy validity’ or generalizability of the outcomes of the different methods, crucial for policy relevance. The paper ends with a reflection on how the use and usefulness of experiments for environmental policy evaluation can be improved, concluding that mixed method approaches that combine the different experimental methods seem most promising although efforts, to enhance the replicability of experiments and the building of an evidence base, are also important. Finally, to enhance the use and usefulness of experiments for environmental policy making, it is important that more attention is paid to the scalability of the experimental findings and for the inclusion of policy context in experimental design.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估环境政策:实验的用途和有用性
本文反思了实验在环境政策评估中的用途和有用性。尽管大多数文献都关注现场实验的附加值,但本文也考虑了选择和实验室实验的附加价值。本文回顾了评估不同方法潜力的文献,重点是可以借助实验评估的政策问题类型。然后,它讨论了有效性问题,以及如何提高不同方法的有效性,然后转向“政策有效性”或不同方法结果的可推广性,这对政策相关性至关重要。论文最后反思了如何改进实验在环境政策评估中的使用和有用性,得出的结论是,将不同实验方法相结合的混合方法似乎最有希望,尽管努力提高实验的可复制性和建立证据库也很重要。最后,为了提高实验在环境政策制定中的使用和有用性,重要的是要更多地关注实验结果的可扩展性,并在实验设计中纳入政策背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
26
期刊最新文献
Animal-welfare-labelled meat is not a stepping stone to animal-free diets: empirical evidence from a survey The fishing industry and the growing food insecurity in Africa: an empirical analysis with an instrumented quantile approach Costless CO 2 emissions abatement through improved government effectiveness The economics of waste oil recycling in the EU Innovation barriers as triggers of firms’ eco-innovations: the mediating role of public and market knowledge sourcing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1