5,839 research outputs found
Methodological aspects of the SAVE data set
No full textThis paper describes the general design of the SAVE survey: the design of the questionnaire, inter-viewer and interviewee motivation, and the sampling designs of the various subsamples collected in 2001 and 2003. It discusses the representativeness of the data, explains the construction of weights, and provides probit regressions to analyse potential selectivity problems. The paper finishes by discussing implications for the use of the SAVE data in various estimation procedures.
Save the Date: 2024 Book & Author Event
No full textThe Friends of the Texas Medical Center Library invite you to save the date for the 2024 Book & Author EVENT featuring Jennifer M. Ross-Nazzal, PhD author of Making Space for Women: Stories from Trailblazing Women of NASA’s Johnson Space Center.
Join us Friday, October8, 20124 at 6:00 pm in the TMC Library. Details and tickets will be available soon: http://library.tmc.edu/friends-event
A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Imputation Procedure for Dealing with Item Nonresponse in the German SAVE Survey
No full textImportant empirical information on household behavior is obtained from surveys. However, various interdependent factors that can only be controlled to a limited extent lead to unit and item nonresponse, and missing data on certain items is a frequent source of difficulties in statistical practice. This paper presents the theoretical underpinnings of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo multiple imputation procedure and applies this procedure to a socio-economic survey of German households, the SAVE survey. I discuss convergence properties and results of the iterative multiple imputation method and I compare them briefly with other imputation approaches. Concerning missing data in the SAVE survey, the results suggest that item nonresponse is not occurring randomly but is related to the included covariates. The analysis further indicates that there might be differences in the character of nonresponse across asset types. Concerning the methodology of imputation, the paper underlines that it would be of particular interest to apply different imputation methods to the same dataset and to compare the findings.
A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Multiple Imputation Procedure for Dealing with Item Nonresponse in the German SAVE Survey
No full textImportant empirical information on household behavior is obtained from surveys. However, various interdependent factors that can only be controlled to a limited extent lead to unit and item nonresponse, and missing data on certain items is a frequent source of difficulties in statistical practice. This paper presents the theoretical underpinnings of a Markov Chain Monte Carlo multiple imputation procedure and applies this procedure to a socio-economic survey of German households, the SAVE survey. I discuss convergence properties and results of the iterative multiple imputation method and I compare them briefly with other imputation approaches. Concerning missing data in the SAVE survey, the results suggest that item nonresponse is not occurring randomly but is related to the included covariates. The analysis further indicates that there might be differences in the character of nonresponse across asset types. Concerning the methodology of imputation, the paper underlines that it would be of particular interest to apply different imputation methods to the same dataset and to compare the findings.
When is a life too costly to save? : evidence from U.S. environmental regulations
No full textExcept for two relatively minor statutes, U.S. environmental laws do not permit the balancing of costs and benefits in setting environmental standards. The Clean Air Act, for example, prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering costs in setting ambient air quality standards. Similarly, the Clean Water Act does not allow consideration of benefits in setting effluent standards. When the EPA is allowed to balance benefits against costs, it has considerable discretion in defining"balancing."The authors ask two questions: Whether allowed to or not, has the EPA balanced costs and benefits in setting environmental standards? Where has the EPA drawn the line in deciding how much to spend to save a statistical life? Their answers are based on data about the costs and benefits of regulations involving three classes of pollutants: cancer-causing pesticides usedon food crops (1975-89); carcinogenic air pollutants (1975-90); and all uses of asbestos regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The following are their findings. The EPA behaved as though it were balancing costs and benefits in its regulation of pesticides under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and of asbestos under Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the two so-called balancing statutes. The higher the cost of the ban, the less likely the EPA was to ban the use of these products. The greater the number of lives saved, the more likely the EPA was to ban their use. But the amount the EPA was (implicitly) willing to spend to save a life was high: 49 million to avoid cancer through exposure to asbestos. The value the EPA attached to saving a life was higher for workers than for consumers. The value attached to avoiding a case of cancer through exposure to pesticide resides on food was less than 52 million value of preventing cancer among pesticide applicators - perhaps because workers are exposed to higher levels of pollution than consumers. After 1987, when the Natural Resources Defense Council sued the EPA for considering costs in setting emissions standards for vinyl chloride, the EPA considered costs in setting emissions standards only after an acceptable level of risk was achieved. Ironically, before the vinyl chloride decision, the value per cancer case avoided was only $15 million. The amount the EPA was willing to spend to save a life was thus less under the Clean Air Act than under the balancing statutes. But after this decision, the EPA did not consider costs at all if the risk of cancer to the maximally exposed individual was above one in 10,000.Environmental Economics&Policies,Health Monitoring&Evaluation,Economic Theory&Research,Health Economics&Finance,Montreal Protocol
01: EngagedScholarship @ CSU Tutorial: Author Dashboard: Readership, Usage Reports, and Save & Share
No full textA video tour of the author dashboard in EngagedScholarship @ CSU, including readership, usage reports, and save & sharehttps://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/librarytutorials/1000/thumbnail.jp
Continuum piece on how to save the Atlantic groundfish stocks. The author say
No full textContinuum piece on how to save the Atlantic groundfish stocks. The author says the Maine Department of Marine Resources should be given the mandate to determine, with public input, the proper use of our marine resources
Save the Products of the Land
No full textSave the Products of the Land date: 1917-19 illustrator/author: Charles Livingston Bull agency: U.S. Food Administration size: 76.2 x 50.83 cmhttps://digicom.bpl.lib.me.us/wwI_posters_hmfront/1006/thumbnail.jp
Save the Date: Nina Revoyr, Author Event
No full textThis poster was created to promote Loyola Marymount University Common Book 2015 author\u27s visit, Nina Revoyr
Save now, save later? Linkages between saving behaviour in adolescence and adulthood
No full textThe purpose of this paper is to review and critique the variety of definitions, concepts, and theories of psychological resilience. To this end, the narrative is divided into three main sections. The first considers how resilience has been defined in the psychology research literature. Despite the construct being operationalized in a variety of ways, most definitions are based around two core concepts: adversity and positive adaptation. A substantial body of evidence suggests that resilience is required in response to different adversities, ranging from ongoing daily hassles to major life events, and that positive adaptation must be conceptually appropriate to the adversity examined in terms of the domains assessed and the stringency of criteria used. The second section examines the conceptualization of resilience as either a trait or a process, and explores how it is distinct from a number of related terms. Resilience is conceptualized as the interactive influence of psychological characteristics within the context of the stress process. The final section reviews the theories of resilience and critically examines one theory in particular that is commonly cited in the resilience literature. Future theories in this area should take into account the multiple demands individuals encounter, the meta-cognitive and -emotive processes that affect the resilience-stress relationship, and the conceptual distinction between resilience and coping. The review concludes with implications for policy, practice, and research including the need to carefully manage individuals’ immediate environment, and to develop the protective and promotive factors that individuals can proactively use to build resilience
- …
