Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy

By Paul J. Ferraro. 2009

487 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/72c882901cb2a3043df75320add3785832144dbb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Does eco-certification have environmental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa Rica (2012, methodology): “A variety of ex post statistical methods are available to overcome these problems including propensity score matching and instrumental variables (Ferraro 2009; Frondel and Schmidt 2005).”
Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting (2016, background): “There are technical challenges in measuring the outcomes of any impact or conservation intervention, because in addition to long time delays, there are issues of natural variation, challenges of achieving good replication, appropriate controls, and adequate statistical power (Ferraro 2009).”
A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures (2019, background): “Further, assessing the performance of existing PAs requires counterfactual thinking (17)—comparing outcomes to what would most likely have happened if PAs had not been established.”
The Evidence Base for Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of “Sustainable” Certification (2010, unknown): “Three principal approaches to constructing a credible counterfactual have been used (Ferraro 2009; Greenstone and Gayer 2007; Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006; Frondel and Schmidt”
Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines (2013, background): “BACI design is being increasingly demanded by conservation scientists (Ferraro, 2009; Joppa and Pfaff, 2010), but is still rarely implemented.”
Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation (2016, background): “In a comprehensive impact evaluation, evaluators will rule out alternative or rival explanations of program outcomes (Ferraro 2009).”
More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand (2013, unknown): “Thus the difference between deforestation on the protected and matched unprotected parcels is an unbiased estimator of ATTs,0 and ATTls,0 (for more conceptual detail, see Ferraro 2009).”