Institute of the Environment and Sustainability
Parent: UCLA
eScholarship stats: Breakdown by Item for September through December, 2024
| Item | Title | Total requests | Download | View-only | %Dnld |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0d50g6w4 | Corporate Environmental Performance and Lobbying | 137 | 34 | 103 | 24.8% |
| 3k89n5b7 | IS THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE CARBON FOOTPRINTS AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE | 135 | 38 | 97 | 28.1% |
| 2rn3b77k | Organizational Configurations for Sustainability and Employee Productivity: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approach | 74 | 42 | 32 | 56.8% |
| 6qk9v6xf | Eco-Premium or Eco-Penalty? Eco-labels and quality in the organic wine market | 66 | 26 | 40 | 39.4% |
| 1bq8f0tp | THE DYNAMICS OF BEHAVIOR CHANGE:EVIDENCE FROM ENERGY CONSERVATION | 41 | 12 | 29 | 29.3% |
| 3r22v65j | Measuring Eco-inefficiency: A New Frontier Approach | 38 | 26 | 12 | 68.4% |
| 0sn9f7z0 | Using Market Forces for Social Good | 36 | 3 | 33 | 8.3% |
| 6v88k76b | Mid-Century Warming in the Los Angeles Region - Part I of the “Climate Change in the Los Angeles Region” projec | 36 | 6 | 30 | 16.7% |
| 0gw211sc | Production Frontier Methodologies and Efficiency as a Performance Measure in Strategic Management Research | 35 | 15 | 20 | 42.9% |
| 0xt9v9wg | Information Strategies for Energy Conservation: A Field Experiment in India, 2017 | 34 | 13 | 21 | 38.2% |
| 25975163 | Information Strategies and Energy Conservation Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Studies from 1975-2012 | 33 | 27 | 6 | 81.8% |
| 28x2b0gn | Field Experiments in Corporate Sustainability Research: Testing Strategies for Behavior Change in Markets and Organizations | 24 | 0 | 24 | 0.0% |
| 1qg9f2q6 | WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HIGH FREQUENCY APPLIANCE LEVEL ENERGY METERING? RESULTS FROM A FIELD EXPERIMENT | 20 | 6 | 14 | 30.0% |
| 5fg7d7th | Does Organic Wine Taste Better? An Analysis of Experts' Ratings | 20 | 4 | 16 | 20.0% |
| 09n589qr | Multi-objective fuel policies: Renewable fuel standards versus Fuel greenhouse gas intensity standards | 18 | 1 | 17 | 5.6% |
| 1hh5m933 | Agricultural expansion induced by biofuels: Comparing predictions of market‐equilibrium models to historical trends | 18 | 2 | 16 | 11.1% |
| 3zx2j5br | Best Practices for Southern California Coastal Wetland Restoration and Management in the Face of Climate Change | 18 | 12 | 6 | 66.7% |
| 05v5d5tr | Sustainability and Market Conditions:The Resource Efficiency paradox | 17 | 6 | 11 | 35.3% |
| 0018v62d | Top Management Involvement in the Adoption of Energy Efficiency Projects | 16 | 4 | 12 | 25.0% |
| 7mq9j9bz | Lifecycle emission impacts of subsidies for energy efficiency: Evidence from Cash‐for‐Clunkers | 16 | 0 | 16 | 0.0% |
| 7d16s49d | Saving Power to Conserve Your Reputation? | 13 | 2 | 11 | 15.4% |
| 32c395hn | Regulation of GHG emissions from transportation fuels: Emission quota versus emission intensity standard | 10 | 2 | 8 | 20.0% |
| 4rn8903p | Information Strategies and Energy Conservation Behavior: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Studies from 1975-2011 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0.0% |
| 5t40p9ht | Greenhouse gas performance standards: From each according to his emission intensity or from each according to his emissions? | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10.0% |
| 816165nk | Multi-criteria comparison of fuel policies: Renewable fuel mandate, fuel emission-standards, and fuel carbon tax | 9 | 2 | 7 | 22.2% |
| 39k9h976 | On environmental lifecycle assessment for policy selection | 7 | 2 | 5 | 28.6% |
| 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 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 0.0% |
Note: Due to the evolving nature of web traffic, the data presented here should be considered approximate and subject to revision. Learn more.