EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 20 / No 1 (janvier-mars 2012) Nat. Sci. Soc., 20 1 (2012) 16-29 References
Open Access
Issue
Nat. Sci. Soc.
Volume 20, Number 1, janvier-mars 2012
Dossier « Le champ des commons en question : perspectives croisées » (suite)
Page(s) 16 - 29
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2012003
Published online 04 July 2012
  • Banque mondiale, 1997. Expanding the Measure of Wealth: Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development, Washington (DC), Banque mondiale. [Google Scholar]
  • Barbier, E.B., 1994. Valuing environmental functions, tropical wetlands, Land Economics, 70, 155-173. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barbier, E.B., Baumgärtner, S., Chopra, K., Costello, C., Duraiappah, A., Hassan, R., Kinzig, A., Lehmann, M., Pascual, U., Polasky, S., Perrings, C., 2009. The Valuation of ecosystem services, in Naeem, S., Bunker, D.E., Hector, A., Loreau, M., Perrings, C. (Eds), Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Well Being, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 248-262. [Google Scholar]
  • Bartelmus, P., 2009. The cost of natural capital consumption: Accounting for a sustainable world economy, Ecological Economics, 68, 6, 1850-1857. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bas, A., Gaubert, H., 2010. La Directive « Responsabilité environnementale » et ses méthodes d’équivalence, La Défense, Commissariat général du développement durable, Service de l’économie, de l’évaluation et de l’intégration du développement durable (http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ED19b.pdf). [Google Scholar]
  • Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L., 1991. De la justification : les économies de la grandeur, Paris, Gallimard. [Google Scholar]
  • Borde, A.B., O’Rourke, L.K., Thom, R.M., Williams, G.W., Diefenderfer, H.L., 2004. National Review of Innovative and Successful Coastal Habitat Restoration. Report prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center, Battelle Memorial Institute, Duxbury (MAS). [Google Scholar]
  • Braat, L., ten Brink, P., 2008. The Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI): The Case of not Meeting the 2010 Biodiversity Target. Report to the European Commission, Wageningen/Brussels (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/teeb_en.htm). [Google Scholar]
  • Chevassus-au-Louis, B., Salles, J.-M., Pujol, J.-L. (Eds), Conseil d’analyse stratégique, 2009. Approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes, Paris, La Documentation française. [Google Scholar]
  • Commission des comptes et de l'économie de l'environnement, 2009. L'Économie de l'environnement en 2007 : rapport de la Commission des comptes et de l’économie de l’environnement. Édition 2009. Commissariat général au développement durable, Service de l’observation des statistiques, La Défense. [Google Scholar]
  • Committee on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic and Related Terrestrial Ecosystems, National Research Council, 2004. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making, Washington (DC), The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387, 253-260. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Mulder, K., Liu, S., Christopher, T., 2007. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multi-scale empirical study of the relationship between species richness and net primary production, Ecological Economics, 61, 2-3, 478-491. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 1, 21-28. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Desrosières, A., 2003. Les qualités des quantités, Courrier des statistiques, 105-106, 51-63. [Google Scholar]
  • Dunford, R.W., Ginn, T.C., Desvousges, W.H., 2004. The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments, Ecological Economics, 48, 1, 49-70. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ekins, P., 2003. Identifying critical natural capital: Conclusions about critical natural capital, Ecological Economics, 44, 2-3, 277-292. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington (DC). [Google Scholar]
  • Espeland, W.N., Stevens, M.L., 1998. Commensuration as a social process, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313-343. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.J., Julius, B.E., Shutler, S., Fluke, S., 2002. Seagrasses, in Perrow, M.R., Davy, A.J., Handbook of Ecological Restoration, vol. 2, Cambridge (UK) and New York, Cambridge University Press, 149-170. [Google Scholar]
  • Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds), 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington (DC), Island Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Heal, G., 2000. Nature and the Marketplace: Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services, Washington (DC), Island Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Jones, C.-A., Pease, K.-A., 1997. Restoration-based compensation measure in natural resource liability statutes, Contemporary Economic Policy, 15, 110-122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kalaydjian, R. (Ed.), 2007. La Mer a de l’avenir : données économiques maritimes françaises 2007. Synthèse Ifremer, Issy-les-Moulineaux. [Google Scholar]
  • King, D.M., Bohlen, C.C., 1995. The Cost of Wetland Creation and Restoration. Technical Report DOE/MT/92006-9 (DE95000174), US Department of Energy, Washington (DC). [Google Scholar]
  • Krutilla, J.V., 1967. Conservation reconsidered, The American Economic Review, 57, 4, 83-91. [Google Scholar]
  • Levrel, H., Fontaine, B., Henry, P-Y, Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Kerbiriou, C., Couvet, D., 2010. Balancing state and volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the implementation of CBD indicators: A French example, Ecological Economics, 69, 7, 1580-1586. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lewis, R.R., 2001. Mangrove restoration: Costs and benefits of successful ecological restoration, Mangrove Valuation Workshop, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, 4-8 April, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm. [Google Scholar]
  • Martinez, M.L., Intralawan, A., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P., Landgrave, R., 2007. The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance, Ecological Economics, 63, 2-3, 254-272. [Google Scholar]
  • Mazzotta, M., Opaluch, J.J., Grigalunas, T.A., 1994. Natural resource damage assessment: The role of resource restoration, Natural Resource Journal, 34, 1, 153-178. [Google Scholar]
  • Micklin, P., 2007. The Aral Sea disaster, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 47-72. [Google Scholar]
  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Washington (DC), Island Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Moberg, F., Rönnbäck, P., 2003. Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: Interactions, substitutions and restoration, Ocean Coastal Management, 46, 27-46. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • National Research Council, 2000. Watershed Management for Potable Water Supply: Assessing the New York City Strategy, Washington (DC), The National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  • National Research Council, 2001. Compensating for Wetlands Losses under the Clean Water Act: Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, Washington (DC), The National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T., Shaw, M.R., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 1, 4-11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Norgaard, R.B., Bode, C., 1998. Next, the value of God, and other reactions, Ecological Economics, 25, 1, 37-39. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • OCDE, 2004. Handbook of Market Creation for Biodiversity: Issues in Implementation, Paris, OECD Publications. [Google Scholar]
  • Palmer, M.A., Filoso, S., 2009. Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets, Science, 325, 575-576. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pearce, D.W., Atkinson, G.D., 1993. Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of “weak” sustainability, Ecological Economics, 8, 2, 103-108. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., Morrison, D., 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States, Ecological Economics, 52, 3, 273-288. [Google Scholar]
  • Roach, B., Wade, W.W., 2006. Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis, Ecological Economics, 58, 2, 421-433. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Thanner, S.E., McIntosh, T.L., Blair, S.M., 2006. Development of benthic and fish assemblages on artificial reef materials compared to adjacent natural reef assemblages in Miami-Dade county, Florida, Bulletin of Marine Science, 78, 1, 57-70. [Google Scholar]
  • The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity, 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB (http://www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/TEEB%20Synthesis/TEEB_Synth Report_09_2010_online.pdf). [Google Scholar]
  • Thompson, D.B., 2002. Valuing the environment: Courts’ struggles with natural resource damages, Environmental Law, 32, 57-89. [Google Scholar]
  • Weber, J.-L., 2007. Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European Environment Agency, Ecological Economics, 61, 4, 695-707. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zafonte, M., Hampton, S., 2007. Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments, Ecological Economics, 61, 1, 134-145. [CrossRef] [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.