EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 140 (2019) E3S Web Conf., 140 (2019) 09007 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 140, 2019
International Scientific Conference on Energy, Environmental and Construction Engineering (EECE-2019)
Article Number 09007
Number of page(s) 7
Section Innovative Technologies in Environmental Management
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201914009007
Published online 18 December 2019
  1. The GRI Standards: the global standards for sustainability reporting, Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam, Netherlands [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Polasky, C. L. Kling, S.A. Levin, S.R. Carpenter, G.C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, G.M. Heal, J. Lubchenco, Role of economics in analyzing the environment and sustainable development, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) 116(12): 5233-5238 (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. J.C.J.M. Van Den Bergh, M.W. Hofkes, A survey of economic modelling of sustainable development, Theory and Implementation of Economic Models for Sustainable Development. Economy & Environment, vol 15. Dordrecht: Springer (1998) [Google Scholar]
  4. S. Albrizio, K. Tomasz, V. Zipperer, Environmental policies and productivity growth: Evidence across industries and firms, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 81: 209-226 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  5. S. Hansson, Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis, Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge Univ Press, 23(2): 163-183 (2007) [Google Scholar]
  6. E. V. Ryumina, Damage indicator as an economic tool for preserving the environment, Institute of Market Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Proceedings VII of the All-Russian Conference “The Theory and Practice of Environmental Insurance: Sustainable Development”: 110-124 (2007) [Google Scholar]
  7. E. Loginov, A. Tulupov, Assessment of harm from environmental law violations, Standards and quality 2 28-32 (2015) [Google Scholar]
  8. R. Perman, Yue Ma, J. McGilvray, M. Common, Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, 3-rd ed., Pearson Education Limited (2003) [Google Scholar]
  9. K. Obst, L. Hein, B. Edens, National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services, Environmental and Resource Economics 64(1): 1–23 (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. K. Arrow, P. Dasgupta, L. H. Goulder, K. J. Mumford, K. Oleson, Sustainability and the measurement of wealth, Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press 17(03): 317-353 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  11. C. Perrings, Environment and development economics 20 years on, Environment and Development Economics 19(3): 333-366 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  12. B. Hannon, Ecological pricing and economic efficiency, Ecological Economics 36: 19-30 (2001) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. H. S. Matthews, L. B. Lave, Applications of Environmental Valuation for Determining Externality Costs, Environmental Science & Technology 34: 1390-1395 (2000) [Google Scholar]
  14. E. Barbier, Wealth accounting, ecological capital and ecosystem services, Environment and Development Economics, 18(2): 133–161 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  15. O. S. Shimova, N. K. Sokolovsky, Basics of ecology and the economy of environmental management, Mn: BGEU (2002) [Google Scholar]
  16. S. Ahlroth, M. Nilsson, G. Finnveden, O. Hjelm, E. Hochschorner, Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools Suggestions for further developments, Journal of Cleaner Production 19: 145-156 (2011) [Google Scholar]
  17. The economic significance of natural resourses: key points for reformers in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, OECD (2011) [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Abdullah, A. Markandya and P. A. L. D. Nunes, Introduction to Economic Valuation Methods, Research Tools in Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, 5: 143-187, US: World Scientific (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. P. Boxall, W. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams, J. Louviere, A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation, Ecological Economics 18: 243–253 (1996) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Y. Chee, An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services, Biological Conservation, 120: 549–565 (2004) [Google Scholar]
  21. F. Ackerman, L. Heinzerlin, Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150: 1553-1584 (2002) [Google Scholar]
  22. D. Azqueta, D. Sotelsek, Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital, Ecological Economics 63: 22–30 (2007) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Scientifc Background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2018 “Economic growth, technological change, and climate change” (2018) [Google Scholar]
  24. Temporary model methodology for determining the cost-effectiveness of environmental measures and assessing the economic damage caused to the national economy by pollution (approved by the USSR State Plan Resolution, State Building of the USSR, Presidiums of the USSR AN from 21.10.1983 N 254/284/134), ConsultantPlus (2019) [Google Scholar]
  25. E. V. Ryumina, Analysis of environmental and economic interactions, In-t problems of the RAS market, Moscow: Science (2000) [Google Scholar]
  26. Temporary method of determining the preventable environmental damage (Russian State Environmental Committee 09.03.1999), ConsultantPlus (2019) [Google Scholar]
  27. E. V. Ryumina, Environmental Security Modernization, Economic Science of Modern Russia 2(57): 90-100 (2012) [Google Scholar]
  28. J. Weyant, Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11: 115–137 (2017) [Google Scholar]
  29. W. D. Nordhaus, Revisiting the social cost of carbon, PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) 114(7): 1518-1523 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. S. Schneider, Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions?, Environmental Modeling & Assessment 2(4): 229–249 (1997) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. R. S. Pindyck, The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11(1): 100-114 (2017) [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.