Performance-based management is pervasive in public organizations; countless governments have implemented performance management systems with the hope that they will improve organizational eff ectiveness. However, there has been little comprehensive review of their impact. Th is article conducts a meta-analysis on the impact of performance management on performance in public organizations. It contributes to the current literature in three ways. First, it examines the eff ect of the "average" performance management system. Second, it examines the infl uence of management: whether benefi cial performance management practices moderate the average eff ect. Th ird, it examines the eff ect of "time" on performance management. Using 2,188 eff ects from 49 studies, the analysis fi nds that performance management has a small average eff ect. However, the eff ect is substantially larger when indicators of best practices in high-quality studies are included, indicating that management practices have an important impact on the eff ectiveness of performance management systems. Evidence for the eff ect of time is mixed. Practitioner Points• Th e act of measuring performance may not improve performance, but managing performance might. • Emphasize the use of benchmarking over time to provide a valid comparison and replicate success. • Performance management is present in a wide variety of policy areas. Ideas and best practices can be gleaned from many experiences.

Urban trees provide substantial public health and public environmental benefits. However, scholarly works suggest that urban trees may be unequally distributed among poor and minority urban communities, meaning that these communities are potentially being deprived of public environmental benefits, a form of environmental injustice. The evidence of this problem is not uniform however, and evidence of inequity varies in size and significance across studies. This variation in results suggests the need for a research synthesis and meta-analysis. We employed a systematic literature search to identify original studies which examined the relationship between urban forest cover and income (n=61) and coded each effect size (n=332). We used meta-analytic techniques to estimate the average (unconditional) relationship between urban forest cover and income and to estimate the impact that methodological choices, measurement, publication characteristics, and study site characteristics had on the magnitude of that relationship. We leveraged variation in study methodology to evaluate the extent to which results were sensitive to methodological choices often debated in the geographic and environmental justice literature but not yet evaluated in environmental amenities research. We found evidence of income-based inequity in urban forest cover (unconditional mean effect size = 0.098; s.e. = .017) that was robust across most measurement and methodological strategies in original studies and results did not differ systematically with study site characteristics. Studies that controlled for spatial autocorrelation, a violation of independent errors, found evidence of substantially less urban forest inequity; future research in this area should test and correct for spatial autocorrelation.

There is ample evidence that urban trees benefit the physical, mental, and social health of urban residents. The environmental justice hypothesis posits that environmental amenities are inequitably low in poor and minority communities, and predicts these communities experience fewer urban environmental benefits. Some previous research has found that urban forest cover is inequitably distributed by race, though other studies have found no relationship or negative inequity. These conflicting results and the single-city nature of the current literature suggest a need for a research synthesis. Using a systematic literature search and meta-analytic techniques, we examined the relationship between urban forest cover and race. First, we estimated the average (unconditional) relationship between urban forest cover and race across studies (studies = 40; effect sizes = 388). We find evidence of significant race-based inequity in urban forest cover. Second, we included characteristics of the original studies and study sites in meta-regressions to illuminate drivers of variation of urban forest cover between studies. Our meta-regressions reveal that the relationship varies across racial groups and by study methodology. Models reveal significant inequity on public land and that environmental and social characteristics of cities help explain variation across studies. As tree planting and other urban forestry programs proliferate, urban forestry professionals are encouraged to consider the equity consequences of urban forestry activities, particularly on public land.

No abstract

There is ample evidence that urban trees benefit the physical, mental, and social health of urban residents. The environmental justice hypothesis posits that environmental amenities are inequitably low in poor and minority communities, and predicts these communities experience fewer urban environmental benefits. Some previous research has found that urban forest cover is inequitably distributed by race, though other studies have found no relationship or negative inequity. These conflicting results and the single-city nature of the current literature suggest a need for a research synthesis. Using a systematic literature search and meta-analytic techniques, we examined the relationship between urban forest cover and race. First, we estimated the average (unconditional) relationship between urban forest cover and race across studies (studies = 40; effect sizes = 388). We find evidence of significant race-based inequity in urban forest cover. Second, we included characteristics of the original studies and study sites in meta-regressions to illuminate drivers of variation of urban forest cover between studies. Our meta-regressions reveal that the relationship varies across racial groups and by study methodology. Models reveal significant inequity on public land and that environmental and social characteristics of cities help explain variation across studies. As tree planting and other urban forestry programs proliferate, urban forestry professionals are encouraged to consider the equity consequences of urban forestry activities, particularly on public land.