Reflections on environmental policy in Canada

Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-13

  Adamowicz, Wiktor ^a,b  

^a Canadian Agricultural Economics Society   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846918646     PISSN: 00083976     EISSN: 17447976     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2007.00076.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Adamowicz, W. L. and T. M. Horbulyk. 1996. The role of economic instruments to resolve water quantity problems. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44 (4): 337-44.
2. American Farmland Trust. 2001. Fact Sheet: Transfer of Development Rights. Washington, DC.
3. Arrow, K., M. L. Cropper, G. C. Eads, R. W. Hahn, L. B. Lave, R. G. Noll, P. R. Portney, M. Russell, R. Schmalensee, V. K. Smith and R. N. Stavins. 1996. Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health and safety regulation? Science 272: 221-2.
4. Brock, W. A. 2004. Tipping points, abrupt opinion changes and punctuated policy change. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Available at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2003-28. pdf.
5. Clean Air Strategic Alliance. 2003. An emissions management framework for the Alberta electricity sector. Alberta Clean Air Strategic Alliance, Edmonton. Available at http://www.casahome.org/wp-contents/uploads/ 2006/10/Emissions_Mgmt_Framework.pdf.
6. Coggins, J. and V. Ruttan. 1999. U.S. emission permit system. Science 284 (5412): 261. Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ content/full/284/5412/261g (accessed December 20, 2006).
7. Copeland, B. 1998. Economics and the environment: The recent Canadian experience and prospects for the future. Industry Canada Research Publication #8, Ottawa.
8. Elgie, S. A. G. and A. M. Lintner. 2005. The Supreme Court's Canfor decision: Losing the battle but winning the war for environmental damages. University of British Columbia Law Review 38: 223-62.
9. European Environment Agency. 2006. Using the Market for Cost-Effective Environmental Policy: Market Based Instruments in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
10. Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
11. Government of Alberta. 2002. Water for Life; Facts and Information on Water in Alberta 2002. Edmonton: Alberta Environment.
12. Government of Alberta. 2003. Water for Life; Alberta's Strategy for Sustainability. Edmonton: Alberta Environment.
13. Harrison, K. 1995. Is cooperation the answer? Canadian environmental enforcement in comparative context. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 14: 221-45.
14. Harrison, K. and W. Antweiler. 2003. Incentives for pollution abatement: Regulation, regulatory threats and non-governmental pressure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22: 361-82.
15. Harrison, K. and G. Hoberg. 1994. Risk, Science, and Politics: Regulating Toxic Substances in Canada and the United States. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
16. Horbulyk, T. M. 2005. Markets, policy and the allocation of water resources among sectors: Constraints and opportunities. Canadian Water Resources Journal 30: 55-64.
17. Klein, K. K. and W. A. Kerr. 1996. The crow rate issue: A retrospective on the contributions of the agricultural economics profession in Canada. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44: 1-18.
18. Kopp, R. J. and V. K. Smith. 1989. Benefit estimation goes to court: The case of natural resource damage assessments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 (4): 593-612.
19. Kuran, T. 1995. Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. McFadden, D. 2006. Free markets and unfettered consumers. American Economic Review 96: 5-29.
21. OECD. 2004. Environmental Performance Report: Canada. Paris, France.
22. OECD. 2005. OECD Environmental Data Compendium 2004 Edition. Paris, France.
23. Patriquin, M., J. Alavalapati, A. Wellstead and W. White. 2002. A comparison of impact measures from hybrid and synthetic techniques: A case study of the Foothills Model Forest. Annals of Regional Science 36: 265-78.
24. Renzetti, S. 2005a. Canadian agricultural water use and management. In The Economics of Natural and Human Resources in Agriculture, edited by A. Kimhi and I. Finkelshtain. Amsterdam: Springer, forthcoming.
25. Renzetti, S. 2005b. Economic instruments and Canadian industrial water use. Canadian Water Resources Journal 30 (1): 21-30.
26. Rittel, H. and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155-69.
27. Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel to Review the Socioeconomic Models and Related Components Supporting the Development of Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter and Ozone. 2001. The Royal Society of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, 240 pp. Available at http://www.rsc.ca (accessed December 20, 2006).
28. Shindler, B. and L. A. Cramer. 1999. Department of Sociology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Shifting Public Values for Forest Management: Making Sense of Wicked Problems. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ eco/eco-watch/wickedpr.html (accessed December 20, 2006).
29. Shugan, S. M. 1980. The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research 7: 99-111.
30. Stavins, R. N. 2001. Lessons Learned from the American Experiment with Market-Based Environmental Policies. Resources for the Future discussion paper, 01-53. Washington DC.
31. Swait, J. and W. Adamowicz. 2001. Choice environment, market complexity and consumer behavior: A theoretical and empirical approach for incorporating decision complexity in models of consumer choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 (2): 141-67.
32. Swait, J., W. Adamowicz, M. Hanemann, A. Diederich, J. Krosnick, D. Layton, W. Provencher, D. Schkade and R. Tourangeau. 2002. Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Marketing Letters 13 (3): 193-203.
33. Tradable Permits Working Group. 2000. Using tradable emissions permits to help achieve domestic greenhouse gas objectives: Options Report. National Climate Change Process, Ottawa, 186 pp.
34. Weersink, A. 2006. Agricultural economics in Canada: Ready to step up of fall back? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54: 1-9.
35. Weersink, A. and J. Livernois. 1996. The use of economic instruments to resolve water quality problems from agriculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 44: 345-53.