The impact matrix approach and decision rules to enhance index dimensionality, flexibility and representation

Ecological Indicators

Volumn 2, Issue 1-2, 2002, Pages 161-168

  Hoag, Dana L ^a   Ascough II, James C ^b   Engler Palma, Alejandra ^c  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

^c INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES AGROPECUARIAS   (Chile)

Author keywords

Decision rules; Environment; Impact matrix; Indices; Multicriteria; Risk

Indexed keywords

DECISION THEORY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; MATRIX ALGEBRA; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

FINANCIAL RISKS;

ECOSYSTEMS;

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS;

EID: 0142167555     PISSN: 1470160X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00041-9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Adriaanse, A., 1993. Environmental policy performance indicators: A study on the development of indicators for environmental policy in The Netherlands. SDU, Uitgevereji, The Hague.
2. Bakkes, J., van den Born, G., Helder, J., Swart, R., Hope, C., Parker, J., 1994. An overview of environmental indicators: state of the art and perspectives. Environment Assessment Technical Report, UNEP/EATR.94-01, RIVM/402001001, 123 pp.
3. Brink B., Hosper S., Colin F. A quantitative method for description and assessment of ecostystems: the AMOEBA approach. Marine Pollut. Bull. 23:1991;265-270.
4. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V., 1968. Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 353 pp.
5. Farmer M., Randell A. The rationality of a safe minimum standard. Land Econom. 74:1998;287-302.
6. Ganoulis, J., 2001. Ranking alternative strategies of agricultural water use in the euro-Mediterranean area. Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Economic Institutes, Round Table No. 7.
7. Heimlich, R., 1995. Environmental indicators for U.S. Agriculture. In: S. Batie (Ed.), Developing indicators for environmental sustainability: the nuts and bolts. SR-89, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI, pp. 99-116.
8. Hyatt D.E., Hoag D.L. How are we managing? Environmental condition is value-based: A case study of the environmental monitoring and assessment program. Ecosystem Hlth. 3:1997;120-122.
9. OECD. 1993. OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. Environmental Monographs No. 83, Paris, France.
10. Ott, W., 1978. Environmental Indices: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 365 pp.
11. Ready R., Bishop R. Endangered species and the safe minimum standard. Am. J. Agric. Econom. 73:1991;309-312.
12. Resnik, M., 1987. Choices: An introduction to decision theory. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 241 pp.
13. Rogers, P., Jalal, K., Lohani, B., Owens, G., Yu, C.-C., Dufournaud, C., Bi, J., 1993. Measuring environmental quality in Asia. Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University and the Asian Development Bank, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, 161 pp.
14. Thornton, K., Saul, G., Hyatt. D.E., 1994. Environmental monitoring and assessment program assessment framework. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA/620/R-94/016, Research Triangle Park, NC.
15. USDA-SCS, 1984. User's guide for CREAMS model. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Washington, D C, Technical Release 72, 210 VI.