Perino_2014 - The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer

Basic Article Info:

Article key Perino_2014
Title The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer
Year 2014
Review type meta-analysis
Main topic Heterogeneity and value of urban greenspace
Subjects area(s) Environment and nature
Built environment scale Urban area / Urban system
Application(s)
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end 2014
Search string not provided
No. of original sources 5
Synthesis method quantitative
Quantitative map included yes
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments No search string and screening criteria mentioned in the paper.

 

Details about searches

Search sources No search sources found
Keywords used in search Greenspace, Households, Landuse, Parks, Population Denisty, Recreation, Residents, Sustainability

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Grischa Perino grischa.perino@wiso.uni-hamburg.de School of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg Welkherstr. 8, 20354 Hamburg, Germany
Barnaby Andrews Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
Andreas Kontoleon Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge Cambridge, United Kingdom
Ian Bateman Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
the Social and Environmental Economic Research (SEER) the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) United Kingdom RES- 060-25-0063)


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale National
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2013-09-27
Edition
Issue 2
Journal Environmental and Resource Economics
Pagination 251-272
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Springer Verlag
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 57
Website owner
Copyrights of article Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Licences of article Open Access:
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1007/s10640-013-9665-8, ISBN: 0924-6460, ISSN: 09246460


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. various types of studies; not justified
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0 =”No” = no information on search strategy, or not fulfilling criteria for “Yes” and “Partially”. not provided
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0 =”No” = no, or partial description of the included studies not provided
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 1 = “Yes” = The authors justified combining the data in a meta-analysis AND they used an appropriate technique to combine study results and adjusted for heterogeneity if present AND investigated the causes of any heterogeneity or adjusted for heterogeneity or confounding if present. marginal value functions
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? 0 =”No” = no assessment of the potential impact of RoB. not provided
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. detailed analysis
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? 0 =”No” = The authors did not perform any tests for publication bias and did not discuss potential impact of publication bias. not provided
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources disclosed in "Acknowledgements"
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. C no protocol, search and selection strategy not described, included studies not characterised and their quality not assessed
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. meta-analysis N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? high no protocol, search and selection strategy not described, included studies not characterised and their quality not assessed