Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy

Ferraro, Paul J.·2009·New Directions for Evaluation

Abstract

Impact evaluations assess the degree to which changes in outcomes can be attributed to an intervention rather than to other factors. Such attribution requires knowing what outcomes would have looked like in the absence of the intervention. This counterfactual world can be inferred only indirectly through evaluation designs that control for confounding factors. Some have argued that environmental policy is different from other social policy fields, and thus attempting to establish causality through identification of counterfactual outcomes is quixotic. This chapter argues that elucidating causal relationships through counterfactual thinking and experimental or quasi‐experimental designs is absolutely critical in environmental policy, and that many opportunities for doing so exist. Without more widespread application of such approaches, little progress will be made on building the evidence base in environmental policy. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ev.297

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
Ferraro, P. J.
Venue
New Directions for Evaluation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-06
Volume
2009
Issue
122
Pages
75-84
ISSN
  • 1097-6736 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-875X
OpenAlex
W2169900815
Cited by
482
References
25
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.