Using Meta-Analysis in the Social Sciences to Improve Environmental Policy
Policymakers have recently looked to the social sciences for effective strategies to address environmental issues, including how to change people’s environmental behaviors. During that time, social scientists have been challenged to improve how they assess, summarize, and convey the state of environmental social science. Meta-analysis, the quantitative review of existing research using data from multiple studies, is one method researchers use to assess the state of knowledge and share best practices. Development of new data reporting standards and systems would improve not only environmental social science, but also the interface between environmental social sciences and policymakers. In particular, dynamic meta-analyses, or frequently updated meta-analyses, would ensure that policymakers have access to up-to-date findings and would allow policymakers to examine subsets of studies that best approximate relevant contexts for new policies. These new standards for conducting and reporting meta-analyses would allow environmental social scientists to more effectively inform policy, and would help policymakers understand and assess the latest developments in the field.
KeywordsMeta-analysis Environmental policy Social sciences Behavior change
- Aschwanden, C. (2016). Democrats—and republicans—are growing more worried over climate change. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-and-republicans-are-growing-more-worried-over-climate-change/.
- Bangdiwala, S. I., Bhargava, A., O’Connor, D. P., Robinson, T. N., Michie, S., Murray, D. M., et al. (2016). Statistical methodologies to pool across multiple intervention studies. TBM, 6, 228–235.Google Scholar
- Barker, P. M., Reid, A., & Schall, M. W. (2016). A framework for scaling up health interventions: Lessons from large-scale improvement initiatives in Africa. Implementation Science, 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
- Carrico, A. R., Vandenbergh, M. P., Stern, P. C., Gardner, G. T., Dietz, T., & Gilligan, J. M. (2011). Energy and climate change: Key lessons for implementing the behavioral wedge. Journal of Energy & Environmental Law, 18452, 61–67.Google Scholar
- Castelnuovo, G., Pietrabissa, G., Cattivelli, R., Manzoni, G. M., & Molinari, E. (2016). Not only clinical efficacy in psychological treatments: Clinical psychology must promote cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00563.
- Chang, AC., & Li, P. (2015). Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “usually not.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2015-083, Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2015.083.
- Cohen, M. A., & Tubb, A. (2016). The impact of environmental regulation on firm and country competitiveness: A meta-analysis of the porter hypothesis. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2692919.
- Damschroder, L. J., Goodrich, D. E., Kim, H. M., Holleman, R., Gillon, L., Kirsh, S., et al. (2016). Development and validation of the ASPIRE-VA coaching fidelity checklist (ACFC): A tool to help ensure delivery of high-quality management interventions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6, 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986/1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1–8.Google Scholar
- Ho, F. Y., Yeung, W., Ng, T. H, & Chan C. S. (2016). The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of stepped care prevention and treatment for depressive and/or anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 6. doi: 10.1038/srep29281.
- Kenny, D. A. (2014). Data to text. Retrieved from. http://davidakenny.net/dtt/datatotext.htm#MA.
- Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., et al. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moher, D., Tsertsvadze, A., Tricco, A., Eccles, M., Grimshaw, J., Sampson, M., & Barrowman, N. (2008). When and how to update systematics reviews. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 1. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000023.pub3.
- Ressing, M., Blettner, M., & Klug, S. J. (2009). Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 106, 456–463.Google Scholar
- Vandenbergh, M. P. (2013). Private environmental governance. Cornell Law Review, 99, 134–137.Google Scholar
- Vandenbergh, M. P., & Gilligan, J. M. (2015). Beyond gridlock. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 40, 217–303.Google Scholar
- Whelan, M. E., Goode, A. D., Eakin, E. G., Veerman, J. L., Winkler, E. A. H., Hickman, I. J., et al. (2016). Feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight loss program delivered via a hospital outpatient setting. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6, 386–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar