Avoiding tragedies of the intellectual commons through integrated impact assessments

Water Resources Management

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 2005-2013

  Pascual, Pasky ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Environmental models; Integrated impact assessment; Integrated water resources management; Mercury

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; MERCURY (METAL); PUBLIC POLICY; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY;

INTEGRATED IMPACT ASSESSMENT; INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT;

WATER MANAGEMENT;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; MERCURY (METAL); PUBLIC POLICY; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION; WATER QUALITY;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING; EUROPEAN COMMISSION; EUROPEAN UNION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER RESOURCE;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 37749051036     PISSN: 09204741     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-006-9130-3     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Brouwer R (2006) Economic methods and models for the implementation of the water framework directive (in press)
2. Commission of the European Communities (2002) Communication from the commission on impact assessment, COM(2002) vol 276 (final)
3. Commission of the European Communities (2005) Commission Staff Working Paper. Annex to the communication from the commission to the council and the European parliament on community strategy concerning mercury, extended impact statement, COM(2005) vol 20 (final)
4. Diamond J (2005) Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking, New York
5. Ekstrom E, Morel F, Benoit J (2003) Mercury methylation indepdendent of the acetyl-coenzyme a pathway in sulfate-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:5414-5422
6. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23rd October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official journal 22nd December 2000 L 327/1. European Commission, Brussels
7. European Commission (2006a) Impact assessment guidelines (with 15 March 2006 update), SEC(2005) vol 791. European Commission, Brussels
8. European Commission (2006b) Annexes to impact assessment guidelines (with 15 March 2006 update). European Commission, Brussels
9. Foster J (ed) (1997) Valuing nature? Ethics, economics and the environment. Routledge, London
10. Funk W (2005) Political checks on the administrative process. In: Duffy J, Herz M (eds) A guide to judicial and political review. American Bar Association, Chicago IL
11. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248
12. Hardin G (1998) Extensions of 'The tragedy of the commons'. Science 280:682-683
13. Pascual P, Sunderland E. Stiber N (2003) Draft guidance on the development, evaluation, and application of regulatory environmental models. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ord/crem/library/ CREM%20Guidance%20Draft%2012_03.pdf
14. Pascual P (2005) Wresting environmental decisions from an uncertain world. Environ Law Report 35:10539-10549
15. Renda A (2006) Impact assessment in the EU: The state of the art and the art of the state (ISBN 92-9079-600-6). Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels
16. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations, and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-1939. Soc Stud Sci 19:387-420
17. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21: The United Nations programme of action from Rio (ISBN No. 92-1-100509-4). UN Publication-Sales No. E.93.1.11
18. United Nations (2006) Water: A shared responsibility, The United Nations world water development report 2 (ISBN UNESCO: 92-3-104006-5)
19. US EPA (2005) Regulatory impact analysis of the final clean air mercury rule. EPA-452/R-05-003
20. World Wildlife Fund (2006) Conflicting EU-funds: Pitting conservation against unsustainable development (ISBN: 3-901458-20-4). WWF Global Species Programme, Wien