Environmental and resource economists pride themselves on the credibility of their empirical research. In other disciplines, however, the credibility of empirical research is increasingly being debated by scholars. At the core of these debates are critiques of widespread practices, such as selectively reporting results or using designs with low statistical power, and critiques of the professional incentives that encourage these practices. These critiques have led to claims of a “replicability crisis” in science. We show that questionable research practices are also prevalent in the environmental and resource economics literature. We argue that the discipline needs to take the potential harm from these practices more seriously. To mitigate this harm, we recommend changes in the norms and practices of funders, editors, peer reviewers, and authors. (JEL: Q0, C0)

中文翻译：

---

功能-环境和资源经济学的可复制性危机吗？

环境和资源经济学家以实证研究的可信性而自豪。然而，在其他学科中，实证研究的可信度越来越受到学者们的争论。这些辩论的核心是对广泛实践的批评，例如有选择地报告结果或使用统计能力低的设计，以及对鼓励这些实践的专业激励措施的批评。这些批评导致了科学界的“可复制性危机”。我们表明，有问题的研究实践在环境和资源经济学文献中也很普遍。我们认为，该学科需要更加认真地对待这些做法带来的潜在危害。为了减轻这种危害，我们建议更改资助者，编辑，同行评审和作者的规范和做法。