The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Convergent validity tests of benefit transfer accuracy show errors to range from a few percentage points to 100% and more. This paper discusses three potential sources of errors that affect the accuracy of benefit transfers. (1) The measurement of values is subject to random errors and the caprices that arise from the many judgments and technical assumptions required by the researchers who conduct the primary studies. Measurement error occurs when researchers' decisions affect the transferability of measures of value or as the result of sampling. (2) Generalization error occurs when a measure of value is generalized to unstudied sites or resources. Generalization error is inversely related to the correspondence between study sites and policy sites. (3) Publication selection bias occurs when the objectives for publishing research limit benefit transfer applications of research outcomes. Criteria for selecting which research results are published may be at odds with the needs of benefit transfer practitioners. Several means for overcoming these sources of error are offered: standardized application of tested methods; closer adherence to benefit transfer protocol; the establishment of an e-journal with explicit criteria for fully recording, reporting, and disseminating research, which has the primary objective of estimating empirical measures of value.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890
Sterling, T. D. (1959) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497 · Cited by 964 · cited 2×
“Medical researchers and many areas of social science have long recognized the seriousness of publication selection (Sterling, 1959; Rosenthal, 1979; Begg and Berlin, 1988), and more recently, economists have uncovered publication bias in many areas of economic research with the help of meta- Table…”
Cited by
Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer
Troy, A., & Wilson, M. A. (2006) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.007 · Cited by 566
M. Brander, L., J. Wagtendonk, A., S. Hussain, S., McVittie, A., Verburg, P. H., de Groot, R. S., & van der Ploeg, S. (2012) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.003 · Cited by 451
The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation
Richardson, L., Loomis, J., Kroeger, T., & Casey, F. (2015) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.018 · Cited by 311
Martínez, M. L., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Vázquez, G., Castillo-Campos, G., García-Franco, J., Mehltreter, K., Equihua, M., & Landgrave, R. (2009) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.023 · Cited by 310
Valuing ecosystem services from wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Jenkins, W. A., Murray, B. C., Kramer, R. A., & Faulkner, S. P. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.022 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenberger, R. S., & Stanley, T. D.
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 372-378
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2139954145
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018
- The paper
- Rosenberger, R. S., & Stanley, T. D. (2006). Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.018
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.