1,721,063 research outputs found
Coastal bathing water health risks: Developing means of assessing the adequacy of proposals to amend the 1976 EC Directive
The application of the cost-benefit method to sea defence and coastal protection in England
Valuing Ecosystems - A Methodological Applying Approach
In this paper the ecosystem’s valuation framework is described and discussed at a conceptual and formal level. Following utilitarianism and the capital asset analogy, one defines the concept of ecosystem value and how to quantify it by using individual preference based techniques rooted in welfare economics, namely stated individual preference techniques like Contingent Valuation. Several controversial questions arise when one tries to compute ecosystem’s value by using utilitarianism and the capital asset analogy due to the particular ecosystem’s natural specifics and the limitations of the economic theoretical framework. These controversial questions are enumerated, analysed, and the most commonly practitioner practices used to overcome the theoretical and technical difficulties of the appliance are assessed.Ecosystem; Valuation; Total Economic Value; Utilitarian Discounting; Contingent Valuation Method.
Use and non-use values for conserving endangered species: The case of the Mediterranean Monk Seal
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
