Institute of the Environment and Sustainability
Parent: UCLA
eScholarship stats: Breakdown by Item for April through July, 2024
| Item | Title | Total requests | Download | View-only | %Dnld |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3k89n5b7 | IS THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE CARBON FOOTPRINTS AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE | 122 | 34 | 88 | 27.9% |
| 0d50g6w4 | Corporate Environmental Performance and Lobbying | 118 | 35 | 83 | 29.7% |
| 6qk9v6xf | Eco-Premium or Eco-Penalty? Eco-labels and quality in the organic wine market | 95 | 32 | 63 | 33.7% |
| 25975163 | Information Strategies and Energy Conservation Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Studies from 1975-2012 | 73 | 55 | 18 | 75.3% |
| 3zx2j5br | Best Practices for Southern California Coastal Wetland Restoration and Management in the Face of Climate Change | 59 | 18 | 41 | 30.5% |
| 0gw211sc | Production Frontier Methodologies and Efficiency as a Performance Measure in Strategic Management Research | 57 | 25 | 32 | 43.9% |
| 1bq8f0tp | THE DYNAMICS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE:EVIDENCE FROM ENERGY CONSERVATION | 43 | 20 | 23 | 46.5% |
| 6v88k76b | Mid-Century Warming in the Los Angeles Region - Part I of the “Climate Change in the Los Angeles Region” projec | 37 | 4 | 33 | 10.8% |
| 0sn9f7z0 | Using Market Forces for Social Good | 36 | 6 | 30 | 16.7% |
| 0xt9v9wg | Information Strategies for Energy Conservation: A Field Experiment in India, 2017 | 35 | 6 | 29 | 17.1% |
| 2rn3b77k | Organizational Configurations for Sustainability and Employee Productivity: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approach | 35 | 16 | 19 | 45.7% |
| 1qg9f2q6 | WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HIGH FREQUENCY APPLIANCE LEVEL ENERGY METERING? RESULTS FROM A FIELD EXPERIMENT | 34 | 15 | 19 | 44.1% |
| 3r22v65j | Measuring Eco-inefficiency: A New Frontier Approach | 33 | 18 | 15 | 54.5% |
| 7d16s49d | Saving Power to Conserve Your Reputation? | 29 | 7 | 22 | 24.1% |
| 28x2b0gn | Field Experiments in Corporate Sustainability Research: Testing Strategies for Behavior Change in Markets and Organizations | 28 | 2 | 26 | 7.1% |
| 05v5d5tr | Sustainability and Market Conditions:The Resource Efficiency paradox | 27 | 8 | 19 | 29.6% |
| 5t40p9ht | Greenhouse gas performance standards: From each according to his emission intensity or from each according to his emissions? | 27 | 13 | 14 | 48.1% |
| 0018v62d | Top Management Involvement in the Adoption of Energy Efficiency Projects | 26 | 4 | 22 | 15.4% |
| 5fg7d7th | Does Organic Wine Taste Better? An Analysis of Experts' Ratings | 25 | 9 | 16 | 36.0% |
| 39k9h976 | On environmental lifecycle assessment for policy selection | 24 | 6 | 18 | 25.0% |
| 09n589qr | Multi-objective fuel policies: Renewable fuel standards versus Fuel greenhouse gas intensity standards | 22 | 7 | 15 | 31.8% |
| 1hh5m933 | Agricultural expansion induced by biofuels: Comparing predictions of market‐equilibrium models to historical trends | 19 | 9 | 10 | 47.4% |
| 1tn6s1w3 | The relationship between policy choice and the size of the policy region: Why small jurisdictions may prefer renewable energy policies to reduce CO2 emissions | 18 | 8 | 10 | 44.4% |
| 816165nk | Multi-criteria comparison of fuel policies: Renewable fuel mandate, fuel emission-standards, and fuel carbon tax | 18 | 6 | 12 | 33.3% |
| 4rn8903p | Information Strategies and Energy Conservation Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Studies from 1975-2011 | 16 | 2 | 14 | 12.5% |
| 32c395hn | Regulation of GHG emissions from transportation fuels: Emission quota versus emission intensity standard | 15 | 6 | 9 | 40.0% |
| 7mq9j9bz | Lifecycle emission impacts of subsidies for energy efficiency: Evidence from Cash‐for‐Clunkers | 11 | 1 | 10 | 9.1% |
Disclaimer: due to the evolving nature of the web traffic we receive and the methods we use to collate it, the data presented here should be considered approximate and subject to revision.