Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy
β Scribed by Paul J. Ferraro
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2009
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 62 KB
- Volume
- 2009
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1097-6736
- DOI
- 10.1002/ev.297
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
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 quasiβexperimental 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. Β© Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
Counterfactual generation is an important part of reasoning. Both the judgment of events and affective reactions to those events depend not only on the events themselves, but on counterfactual alternatives to those events. Counterfactual thinking serves several positive functions. However, there are
## Abstract Legal mandates exist for the protection of wildlife and human health from the impacts of toxins released into the environment. To accomplish this objective, numeric environmental quality criteria are set. Toxicity test data are often analyzed in the development of such criteria. Regress
The need to share and cite data is central to a scientific method that depends on verifiable results. Recent events in the field of environmental science underscore the need to hold researchers accountable for their claims and a desire amongst domain practitioners to make findings more widely access