The Experts below are selected from a list of 1901508 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Karen Palmer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 2021Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:Executive SummaryThis article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issu...
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting.
Brian D. Haig - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
exploratory factor Analysis Theory generation and scientific method
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2005Co-Authors: Brian D. HaigAbstract:This article examines the methodological foundations of exploratory factor Analysis (EFA) and suggests that it is properly construed as a method for generating explanatory theories. In the first half of the article it is argued that EFA should be understood as an abductive method of Theory generation that exploits an important precept of scientific inference known as the principle of the common cause. This characterization of the inferential nature of EFA coheres well with its interpretation as a latent variable method. The second half of the article outlines a broad Theory of scientific method in which abductive reasoning figures prominently. It then discusses a number of methodological features of EFA in the light of that method. Specifically, it is argued that EFA helps researchers generate theories with genuine explanatory merit; that factor indeterminacy is a methodological challenge for both EFA and confirmatory factor Analysis, but that the challenge can be satisfactorily met in each case; and, tha...
-
exploratory factor Analysis Theory generation and scientific method
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2005Co-Authors: Brian D. HaigAbstract:This article examines the methodological foundations of exploratory factor Analysis (EFA) and suggests that it is properly construed as a method for generating explanatory theories. In the first half of the article it is argued that EFA should be understood as an abductive method of Theory generation that exploits an important precept of scientific inference known as the principle of the common cause. This characterization of the inferential nature of EFA coheres well with its interpretation as a latent variable method. The second half of the article outlines a broad Theory of scientific method in which abductive reasoning figures prominently. It then discusses a number of methodological features of EFA in the light of that method. Specifically, it is argued that EFA helps researchers generate theories with genuine explanatory merit; that factor indeterminacy is a methodological challenge for both EFA and confirmatory factor Analysis, but that the challenge can be satisfactorily met in each case; and, that EFA, as a useful method of Theory generation, can be profitably employed in tandem with confirmatory factor Analysis and other methods of Theory evaluation.
Roger Allan Cropp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
vector Analysis Theory on landscape pattern vatlp
Ecological Modelling, 2006Co-Authors: Shuqing Zhang, Junyan Zhang, Roger Allan CroppAbstract:Landscape indices are popular for the quantification of landscape pattern. However, all landscape indices being used so far are scalar quantities, and measure patterns without considering sufficiently the pattern shape and the directionality together. Based on planar characteristics defined in mechanics such as centroid, moment of inertia, product of inertia and principal axes, vector Analysis Theory on landscape pattern (VATLP) is explored here. Firstly, we establish a coordinate system of centroidal principal axes (CSCPA). Three related new indices including those describing the direction of pattern distribution (patch orientation (PO), vectorial patch orientation (VPO)), and that indicating the shape of patch's equivalent ellipse (eccentric rate (ER)) are deduced. These landscape metrics are then applied to the pattern Analysis of the lakes in Qian-an county (the study area), Jilin province, China. The vector-based data sets of the study area come from the National Land Use/Cover Database (NLUCD). The application of the Theory help us better understand the pattern formation of the lakes and the related ecological processes that occur on both ends of the major principal axis, e.g., the transportation of energy and materials flow, and the ecological gradients.
Joseph E Aldy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 2021Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:Executive SummaryThis article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issu...
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting.
Matthew J Kotchen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 2021Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:Executive SummaryThis article considers the treatment of cobenefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issu...
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting. Institutional subscribers to the NBER working paper series, and residents of developing countries may download this paper without additional charge at www.nber.org.
-
co benefits and regulatory impact Analysis Theory and evidence from federal air quality regulations
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020Co-Authors: Joseph E Aldy, Matthew J Kotchen, Mary F Evans, Meredith Fowlie, Arik Levinson, Karen PalmerAbstract:This paper considers the treatment of co-benefits in benefit-cost Analysis of federal air quality regulations. Using a comprehensive data set on all major Clean Air Act rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the period 1997-2019, we show that (1) co-benefits make up a significant share of the monetized benefits; (2) among the categories of co-benefits, those associated with reductions in fine particulate matter are the most significant; and (3) co-benefits have been pivotal to the quantified net benefit calculation in exactly half of cases. Motivated by these trends, we develop a simple conceptual framework that illustrates a critical point: co-benefits are simply a semantic category of benefits that should be included in benefit-cost analyses. We also address common concerns about whether the inclusion of co-benefits is problematic because of alternative regulatory approaches that may be more cost-effective and the possibility for double counting.