Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 53
4
Sustainability Assessment and Management:
Process, Tools, and Indicators
ELEMENTS OF SUSTAINABILITY
ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Embedded in the general Sustainability Framework recommended by the
Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. EPA is an approach to
incorporating sustainability to inform decision making. It is called “Sustainability
Assessment and Management” and is illustrated as Level 2 in Figure 4-1. This
chapter describes the steps involved in this approach, beginning with a screening
evaluation to determine whether to conduct the Sustainability Assessment and
Management process and to determine the appropriate level of effort or depth
of such an assessment. This step is followed by problem definition and scoping,
which includes identification of options, preliminary scoping of the analysis,
stakeholder involvement, and opportunities for collaboration. The next section
describes a set of analytic tools that can be used in the Sustainability Assessment
and Management process. The set of potential tools include risk assessment, life-
cycle assessment, benefit-cost analysis, ecosystem-services valuation, integrated
assessment models, sustainable impact assessment, environmental justice, and
present and future scenario tools. This list is not meant to be comprehensive, nor
will all of the tools be useful in all cases. The tools, however, are the types of
tools that should be in EPA’s sustainability toolbox and are likely to be useful in
some instances. Following the discussion of tools, the next topic is how to inte -
grate the Sustainability Assessment and Management process into management
and policy decisions. Integration into decision making involves summarizing the
major results of the assessment in terms of a trade-off and synergy analysis that
highlights impacts on important social, environmental, and economic objectives
(Box 4-1). This step is followed by presentation of results to the decision makers.
53
OCR for page 54
54 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
FIGURE 4-1 A framework for EPA sustainability decisions (level 2).
New gure 4-1
Bitmapped
BOX 4‑1
Biofuels
Adopting a sustainability framework could help address the social, economic
and environmental impacts of biofuel expansion and guide policy decisions oward t
more sustainable energy supplies. Concerns over energy security, environmental
impacts, cost, and availability led to the passage of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 establishing an ambitious goal of producing 36 billion gallons
of biofuels annually by 2022. Biofuels are a renewable energy source that can be
produced domestically with potentially reduced environmental impacts compared
with fossil-fuels. However, the push for biofuels preceded careful sustainability
analysis, and the rapid expansion of biofuels production raised its own set of
social, economic, and environmental concerns.
The law also requires EPA to report to Congress every three years on the im-
pact of biofuel production on the air, water, and soil quality; ecosystem health and
biodiversity, and invasive and noxious plants. The reports are required to include
a quantitative assessment of significant environmental changes associated with
biofuels production. To date, EPA has not been able to complete a quantitative risk
assessment of biofuel production because of a number of factors, including the
significant data limitations, substantial uncertainties associated with the produc-
tion and conversion of biomass feedstocks to biofuels, and a lack of consistency
in biofuel production by region.
Impact on food prices: In 2010, 38% of the U.S. corn harvest went to ethanol
production. In 2010, total U.S. ethanol production was 13.23 billion gallons (RFA
2011) while U.S. corn production was 12.45 billion bushels (USDA 2011). To
produce 13.23 billion gallons, assuming 2.8 gallons of ethanol per bushel of
corn, requires 4.725 billion bushels, or 37.95% of total corn production. Some
OCR for page 55
55
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Finally, once decisions are taken and implemented there should be follow-up
evaluation of outcomes on important dimensions of sustainability.
The Sustainability Assessment and Management process should incorporate
certain key features:
1. Comprehensive and systems-based: Analysis of alternative options
should include an integrated evaluation of the social, environmental,
and economic consequences.
2. Intergenerational: The long-term consequences of alternatives should
be evaluated in addition to the more immediate consequences.
3. Stakeholder involvement and collaboration: Stakeholders should be
involved throughout the process.
The committee recognizes that the formal Sustainability Assessment and
Management process can be quite involved and may require EPA to devote
analysts blame recent high prices for corn and other crops, at least in part, on
biofuel demand (Runge and Senauer 2007; Mitchell 2008). It is difficult, however,
to separate out the impact of others factors on food prices, such as the impact
of production costs, including high energy prices, weather-related poor harvests,
and commodity speculation.
Commercial viability: Biofuel production has been assisted by generous tax
credits to refiners, currently $0.45 per gallon for corn ethanol and $1.01 per gallon
for cellulosic ethanol, to make it commercially viable (PEW 2009).
Environmental impact: A potential benefit of biofuels is lower life-cycle green-
house gas emissions (Farrell et al. 2006; Hill et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2007). Yet, if
biofuel expansion causes conversion of forests, wetlands, or native grasslands to
croplands, the carbon debt from land-use change can take decades to centuries
to repay (Fargione et al. 2008). Increased biofuel production can put pressure on
l
ocal water supplies and may lead to declines in regional water quality (NRC 2008a).
Also, concerns about impacts of changes in land use include the potential negative
impacts associated with the expansion of biofuel production on marginal lands and
withdrawal of the land from the Conservation Reserve Program (NRC 2010). Biofuel
production can also cause an increase in air pollution (Hill et al. 2009).
A 2008 NRC workshop summary on this topic noted that future efforts in this
area could include “creating a framework for assessing bioenergy production and
biorefineries in the context of sustainability” (NRC 2008b, p.33). Both the United
States (EPA 2010) and the European Union (CEU 2010) have requirements
to conduct life-cycle assessments of biofuels, but this requirement has to date
f
ocused primarily on greenhouse-gas emissions and land-use change rather than
the full suite of social, environmental, and economic impacts.
OCR for page 56
56 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
significant staff time and resources to the task. A formal sustainability analysis
could also take an extended time period to complete. Therefore, it is important
that EPA carefully match the level and depth of the analysis with the scale and
magnitude of consequences of the decision at hand. The Sustainability Assess -
ment and Management process should be undertaken for major decisions that
could have large impacts on multiple pillars of sustainability. Such an in-depth
analysis should not be undertaken for routine or minor decisions, but a system -
atic approach for addressing sustainability for such decisions could be desirable.
The challenge is to match the intensity, detail, and scope of the assessment and
management process to the decision needs. This point is discussed further in the
screening evaluation section below.
Screening Evaluation
EPA has the discretion to decide what kinds of activities or actions to ad -
dress in the Sustainability Assessment and Management process. Application of
sustainability assessment tools, such as the risk assessment, life-cycle assessment,
benefit-cost analysis, ecosystem services valuation, integrated assessment models,
sustainability impact assessment, and environmental justice tools described in this
chapter, can be applied to programs, policies, and projects; however, not all of
them will necessarily require the application of these tools. The agency may wish
to focus on major new rules, on complex and important emerging issues, or on
making changes to relatively routine decision-making processes. The committee
explicitly recommends that EPA develop a sustainability screening approach.
There are examples of screening tools used by other governments and the private
sector, but EPA will probably need to develop its own set of screening tools.
The screening approach would first determine whether to undertake the
Sustainability Assessment and Management approach for any particular program,
policy, or project. If it is determined that this process should be undertaken, the
screening tool could also provide some guidance on the appropriate analyti-
cal tools to apply and on the appropriate degree of depth and detail of analysis
needed.
The screening tool should help EPA managers determine whether the full
Sustainability Assessment and Management approach is needed. At the one ex -
treme, narrow routine decisions may affect small geographic areas, such as the
tens of thousands of permitting decisions on water effluent and air emissions that
the agency makes or facilitates annually. For these types of decisions, routine
processes have been established. It would be impractical and unworkable to make
each of these types of decisions using the formalized Sustainability Assessment
and Management approach. Instead, practices and guidelines could be changed
so that over time the outcomes are more in line with agency sustainability goals.
At the other extreme, the decision-making case may be fairly unique and have
wide impact, such as whether to embark on a particular fuel strategy. Such policy
OCR for page 57
57
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
decisions will have high impact for all three pillars—social, environmental, and
economic—and involve a variety of statutes. Such decisions would probably
benefit from the Sustainability Assessment and Management process, either led
by EPA or other agencies where EPA has input. EPA may not be the lead federal
agency but may be a collaborator, perhaps having an important role in articulating
the health and environmental impacts. EPA may have a limited ability to affect the
overall decision-making process but may be able to contribute adequately to
consideration and analysis of the social/health and environmental dimensions,
and potentially voice ways to approach consideration of trade-offs. Finally, other
cases may involve repeated but wide-impact decisions (NRC 1996), such as a
major expansion of a large refinery, the siting of a power plant, the re-registration
of a major use pesticide, actions to address environmental justice issues in a heav -
ily affected community, or a major new rule under the Clean Air Act. These types
of high-stakes decisions have potentially large impacts on each of the pillars.
They can pose a challenge for the analysis and process. Although any particular
new problem may be similar to a previously addressed one, the new problem will
likely be sufficiently different to require tailoring of the analysis or process to the
specifics of the new problem. In addition, high-stakes decisions typically involve
a varied group of interested parties with unequal impacts in terms of those that
bear the burden versus those that benefit.
Not all applications of the sustainability assessment tools need to be done
at the same level of depth and detail. The distinctions made in administration of
the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) provide an example of adjusting the depth of the analysis to the scale
of the problem. In addition to providing for categorical exclusions, the NEPA
process provides for environmental assessments resulting in a finding of no sig -
nificant impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement (EIS), requiring
a much more elaborate analysis and review process (Council on Environmental
Quality [CEQ]). (NEPA Regulations, 40 CFR Pt. 1501 [1978]). Varying assess -
ments in the scope and depth of analysis according to the action being consid-
ered has long been practiced in the field of risk assessment. A matching of the
assessment process to meet the needs of the decision is often recommended as
a way to improve the decision-making process (NRC 1996, 2007; IOM 2009).
EPA’s task is to incorporate sustainability factors and tools—at an appropriately
selected level of detail—into existing or new decision-making frameworks so
that a multidisciplinary, systematic, and long-term look at the three pillars of
sustainability is assured.
Screening is particularly important to avoid undue delays in taking action
in the face of environmental problems. A quick scan process can be applied to
determine the need for sustainability assessment tools. The quick scan process can
determine whether the project is sufficiently large to establish a presumption of
possible impacts on one or more pillars of sustainability, to determine the range
and magnitude of potential impacts, and to identify which pillars will have large
OCR for page 58
58 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
potential impacts. When impacts are likely to be small and the Sustainability
Assessment and Management process is not needed, then a library of best-practice
techniques and technologies should be consulted and compared with the proposal.
Check lists or impact matrices are often used for screening purposes. The
program or project initiative can be broken down into a number of components
that can be assessed against social, environmental, and economic criteria of sus -
tainability. For example, in the Swiss assessment process, screening is based on
a number of preset social, environmental, and economic criteria (OECD 2010).
A rough judgment is made about the causal relationships between the project and
the various dimensions of the criteria, and then relevance scores ranging from
0 to 3 are assigned without regard to whether they are positive or negative. A
judgment is made on whether there are moderate impacts and potential conflicts
between at least two of the pillars (OECD 2010). If both of those conditions are
met, then further analysis is needed. How to integrate results from the sustain -
ability screening is discussed further below.
Problem Definition and Planning and Scoping
EPA is engaged in a wide variety of activities as part of its statutory mandates
and its initiatives to protect human health and the environment. Specific problems
outside EPA’s usual activities can also arise, for example, through congressional
action, requests for assistance from state or local governments, acts of nature, or
terrorism. At the early planning and scoping stage, project managers and analysts
diagnose the issue or problem to be addressed. Upfront review of the nature of
the problem, credibility of the science, and the decision and legal context helps
in considering the nature of the assessment and decision process (Goldstein 1993;
NRC 1996, 2007) and whether to embark on a formal or semiformal Sustainabil -
ity Assessment and Management approach.
An important early step in the process is to identify alternative decisions
that could be made (options identification) and to scope the important social
(including health), environmental, and economic pillars that could be potentially
affected by the decision.
Once attention has been applied to problem definition and identification of
alternative options, managers and analysts can begin to develop provisional ap -
proaches for the assessment process and the analysis. The Sustainability Assess-
ment and Management approach should begin to develop provisional plans about
the level and depth of analysis; the level, extent, and timing of stakeholder
engagement; indicators by which they will judge the decision outcomes and pro -
cess; and collaborative opportunities to explore the range of potential solutions
and approaches. To be successful, the overall sustainability process will probably
involve a high degree of collaboration, including federal partners, state and local
governments, as well as the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and
other stakeholders (NRC 1996, IOM 2009). The levels of information gathering,
OCR for page 59
59
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
analysis, and stakeholder involvement for actions that are made subject to the
Sustainability Assessment and Management approach will vary depending on
the significance of the action and the needs of the decision process (NRC 1996),
as discussed in the screening section above.
Another component of the problem definition and scoping process is to select
indicators and associated metrics by which to judge success. These metrics can
focus on accountability at varying levels of detail and can be directed toward dif -
ferent organizational levels, for example, (1) individual management units within
the agency (metrics to show progress toward sustainability goals for program or
regional offices), (2) Office of Research and Development (ORD) (a focus on
metrics to assess whether the research funded portfolio for ORD is leading to
more sustainable solutions to environmental problems), (3) EPA in general, and
(4) multiagency collaborations or the United States as a whole (metrics of sustain-
ability regarding overall “performance” of the United States or even the world).
Application of Sustainability Tools
To incorporate sustainability effectively within EPA and to achieve external
adoption in various sectors, EPA will have to make use of a variety of assessment
tools. EPA will need to develop a set of tools or models that can be used to quan-
tify impacts on important, social, environmental, and economic indicators that
might be affected by the program, policy, or project under evaluation. Such tools
can provide a uniform and transparent basis on which to evaluate alternatives. The
broadening of the analysis from environment and human health to sustainability
means that instead of or in addition to risk assessment, additional economic and
social factors will need to be considered. This process also means that EPA will
need to adopt, develop, or modify a set of tools to conduct such analyses that go
beyond traditional risk assessment.
A large number of tools can be applied to address component parts of an
analysis. Typically a comprehensive analysis will require the application of a suite
of tools. Several principles are important in applying this suite of tools:
• No single tool is likely to be comprehensive; a comprehensive analysis
will probably require application of a suite of tools to analyze impacts
on social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.
• The suite of tools should include dynamic analysis that analyzes the
consequences of alternative options through time (intergenerational
component).
• Tools should be capable of delivering quantitative assessments of im-
pacts to the greatest extent feasible.
• It is desirable to have relatively transparent methods that can be easily
explained and where the results of the analysis can be effectively com -
municated to decision makers.
OCR for page 60
60 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
• Data availability will, in part, determine the necessary tool.
• Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis will be required.
Overview of Selected Sustainability Tools
A large number of existing tools can be usefully applied in the Sustainability
Assessment and Management process. A small subset of the most appropriate
tools, including risk assessment, life-cycle assessment, benefit-cost analysis,
ecosystem services valuation, integrated assessment models, sustainability impact
assessment, environmental justice tools, and present and future scenario tools are
described below. This list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of potential
tools but rather a brief review of some important assessment tools.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is a tool widely used for characterizing the adverse hu -
man health and ecologic effects of exposures. Classically, risk assessments for
human health endpoints involves four major steps: a hazard identification, dose-
response assessment, exposures assessment and risk characterization (NRC 1983,
1994, 2009; EPA 2005). In the hazard identification step a determination is made
about the type of effects potentially caused by the environmental exposure. In
the dose response step, the level of exposure such as dose or air concentra -
tion is related to the level of adverse effect, such as the incidence of a health
effect from an environmental exposure. The exposure assessment characterizes
elements of the exposure, for example its intensity, frequency, and timing. The
risk characterization combines the dose response and exposure assessments to
produce descriptions of the risk for the variety of adverse effects determined in
the hazard identification step. In this last step, the uncertainty in the description
is also characterized along with variability of the effects in those exposed. For
example, a risk assessment may include predictions of the increased incidence
of cancer from an environmental chemical exposure in the general population
or highly exposed groups or of the margin between the environmental exposure
and that causing a noncancer effect seen in the laboratory or in human studies.
Ecologic risk assessments evaluate the likelihood that ecologic effects result from
environmental exposures to chemicals and other stressors (EPA 1998a). EPA has
numerous documents that provide guidance, explain practice, and give opera -
tional approaches for specific programs to conduct human health and ecologic
risk assessments (EPA 1991, 1996, 1998a, 2000, 2005).
A wide variety of analytic approaches and tools are used in conducting a risk
assessment. Risk assessments are important inputs into the process of establishing
environmental regulations, cleanup levels, and permitting industrial facilities. An
important consideration in any sustainability action is whether environmental or
human health will be better or worse off if an action is taken, both near term and
OCR for page 61
61
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
in future generations. It is also important to understand not just the direction but
also the magnitude. However, it is not always possible to approach these ques-
tions quantitatively. Complexity or lack of knowledge may limit the reliability
and usefulness of quantitative risk descriptions, but systematic approaches can
produce useful qualitative descriptions that can inform decisions. Early on, the
NRC (1983) recognized that risk assessments could not always be quantitative,
and most recently, the NRC (2009) emphasized the need for tools for fuller
characterizations of cumulative risks, including qualitative ones, that adequately
account for the full range of chemical and other stressors, particularly for envi-
ronmental justice contexts. Such risk descriptions could be useful inputs for
sustainability decision making. In addition, risk assessment tools for facilitating
green chemistry evaluations are needed as green chemistry will continue to be an
important component of mitigating human health and environmental risks (NRC
2005a, b). Chapter 5 contains a more detailed discussion of risk assessment.
Life-Cycle Assessment
Life-cycle assessment is a “cradle-to-grave” analysis (or “cradle-to-cradle”
([McDonough and Braungart 2002]) of environmental impacts from produc -
tion, use, and eventual disposal of a product. Life-cycle assessments are used to
analyze the major environmental impacts of various products, to determine how
changes in processes could lower the environmental impact, and to compare the
environmental impacts of different products (Blackburn 2007). Life-cycle as -
sessments are already used by EPA and have been used to compare the environ -
mental impacts of transportation fuels and specifically to judge whether biofuels
meet requirements for carbon-emissions reductions relative to fossil fuels (EPA
2009). Life-cycle assessments take a systems perspective to include the whole
production process, from production of raw materials to eventual disposal and
is therefore consistent with, and often an essential component of, sustainability
analysis. Life-cycle assessments require a large amount of data on necessary
inputs, outputs, and various types of environmental emissions of processes. The
availability of standardized economy-wide input-output coefficients for ready use
simplifies this challenge. Other challenges with applying life-cycle analysis in a
sustainability context involve decisions on where to set system boundaries and
what to assume about future technologies.
Benefit-Cost Analysis
Benefit-cost analysis is a widely used tool from economics to evaluate the net
benefits of alternative decisions. Benefit-cost analysis seeks to assess the change
in welfare for each individual affected by a policy choice, measured in a com-
mon monetary metric, under a set of alternatives. Most benefit-cost analyses then
aggregate the measure of individual net benefits to find a social net benefit and
OCR for page 62
62 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
then rank the alternatives. There have been concerns that benefit-cost analysis
as commonly applied to environmental issues places too much emphasis on the
economic costs and too little on benefits and their distribution (OECD 2006).
Recent developments in benefit-cost analysis as applied to environmental issues
can be used in an attempt to ensure that the full range of benefits and costs can be
taken into account better. These developments include, for example, integrating
life-cycle analysis into benefit-cost analysis, having improved methods of esti-
mating the value of ecosystem services, and paying close attention to distribution
of benefit and costs across different groups in society to address environmental
justice concerns (Pearce et al. 2006).
Of particular concern for sustainability analysis is the weighting (discount -
ing) of benefits and costs that accrue to future generations compared with those
that accrue to the current generation (intergenerational equity). Although dis -
counting will account for the costs to present generations of providing protec -
tions, opponents of benefit-cost analysis perceive discounting as inconsistent with
an environmental law’s forward-looking premise because the standard technique
of constant exponential discounting can have a potentially large adverse effect
on the perceived benefits—such as protecting against long-latency diseases like
cancer—that aim to prevent future harm (Harrington et al. 2009). For further
discussions on alternative discounting methods, see Pearce (2006); with specific
reference to the use of discounting in climate policy, see Nordhaus (2007) and
Stern and Taylor (2007). Such issues will need to be addressed in sustainability
analyses that use benefit-cost analyses.
Ecosystem Services Valuation
Ecosystem services are goods and services that contribute to human well-
being and are generated by ecosystem processes. For example, ecosystems can
filter contaminants to provide clean water for human use and modulate water
flow, reducing the probabilities of flooding and providing higher flows during
drier periods. Ecosystem-service valuation is an attempt to measure the relative
benefits of ecosystem services in a common metric (usually a monetary metric).
Ecosystem-services valuation requires integration of ecological and other natural
sciences (EPA SAB 2009). It is used to better understand the provision of services
as a consequence of the state of the ecosystem (“ecologic production functions”)
along with economics and other social sciences to gain an understanding of how
nature contributes to human well-being (“valuation”).
Ecosystem-service valuation measured in money terms can be used in
benefit-cost analysis to capture a more complete picture of the net benefits of
alternative actions. Economic valuation methods for ecosystem-service valua -
tion are well described in both NRC (2005a,b) and EPA SAB (2009). EPA SAB
(2009) also reviewed a number of other noneconomic approaches to valuation.
For sustainability analysis, what is of most interest is how the value of ecosystem
OCR for page 63
63
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
services will probably change through time. Notions of sustainability can be as -
sessed through an evaluation of the value of natural capital and other forms of
capital assets (including manufactured capital, human capital, and social capital).
The value of natural capital is the contribution of an attribute of an ecosystem
to present value of the flow of services through time. de Groot et al. (2002) also
provided a conceptual framework and typology for the classification, description,
and valuation of ecosystem goods, functions, and services.
Integrated Assessment Models
Integrated assessments cross disciplinary lines to merge theory and data
from multiple disciplines to address complex environmental issues. Modeling
is the standard tool used for conducting an integrated assessment. Integrated
assessment models, such as the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM),
arose in the study of climate change, bringing together global circulation models
and economic models to assess the probable benefits and costs of alternative
energy- and climate-policy choices (Hannam et al. 2009). Although typically not
called integrated assessment models, models used for ecosystem-services valua -
tion are also examples that integrate models from multiple disciplines to assess
the benefits and costs of alternative policy choices. The strength of integrated
assessments is that they combine knowledge from multiple disciplines needed
to understand how human actions might affect the system in important ways
(e.g., greenhouse gas emissions and the climate system). Integrated assessments
often take an expansive and long-term view, which is suitable for sustainability
analysis. Integrated assessment models are often complex, tending to make them
nontransparent to nonexperts. Furthermore, outcomes can be sensitive to model-
ing assumptions for that might have inadequate factual bases for clearly deter-
mining the right assumption to use. Still, integrated assessment models will often
be needed to understand the relationships among the social, environmental, and
economic pillars of sustainability in the context of a particular decision.
Sustainability Impact Assessment
Sustainability impact assessment is used to analyze the probable effects of a
particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars
of sustainability. This assessment is also used to develop integrated policies that
“take full account of the three sustainable development dimensions” and include
the “cross-cutting, intangible and long-term considerations” of those policies
(OECD 2010). Sustainability impact assessment is used in many European coun -
tries and in Canada but has not been used to any great extent in the United States
(Zerbe and Dedeurwaerdere 2003). Sustainability impact assessment is modeled
on, but different from, environmental impact assessment, which was pioneered
in the United States through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
OCR for page 68
68 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
Decisions Taken and Implemented
A series of briefing documents at a depth appropriate to the decision would
probably be prepared to inform the decision making. The range of options and
the associated social (including health), environmental, and economic impacts for
each option would be presented along with any trade-off analyses that may have
been undertaken. As is the case with alternatives analysis under NEPA, options
in a sustainability assessment allow the decision maker to understand different
ways of taking a particular action and thus provide the decision maker with more
choices to reduce adverse impacts. In addition, options in a sustainability assess -
ment allow the decision maker to find better ways of improving social well-being,
economic development, and environmental protection at the same time. Options
also make clearer the causes of any trade-offs among the three pillars and help the
decision maker to reduce the adverse effects of any trade-offs. Questions could
arise that would require some additional analysis as well as follow-up with vari -
ous stakeholders and collaborators.
Evaluation of Outcomes
An important component in communicating the potential benefits of adopt-
ing sustainability and justifying further efforts directed toward sustainability is
demonstrating the effectiveness of prior actions and providing the information to
be used in the feedback loop to modify goals. Such work goes by such names as
project evaluation, post facto evaluation, or accountability analysis (NRC 2005b).
Evaluation is useful in identifying best practices, reducing uncertainties, and
identifying additional linkages. Evaluation, like tools and indicators, is founded
on having the appropriate data. There is a significant literature on program evalu -
ation, including methods for measuring program performance, including but not
limited to Cronbach 1980, Chelimsky 1997, Vedung 1997, Stufflebeam 2001,
and Posner 2004.
At the first level, evaluation should compare the observed response of the
indicator (or associated metric) to the project goals. Discrepancies should be
evaluated to identify weaknesses in the assessment process, including the tools
and data used. This evaluation can be assisted by identifying additional data to
better characterize system linkages and responses in indicators other than those
that are used to assess goals. An important question to address is whether the
response was within the range of uncertainty estimated during the alternative
options analysis.
Planning for evaluation includes identifying additional data and tools that
are critical in understanding the system at a level that the predictability of future
similar projects or policies is improved. Given the transgenerational nature of
many sustainability indicators and goals, the evaluation may need to be based on
indicators that are longer term than those directly used in assessing how well a
project or policy meets the stated goals.
OCR for page 69
69
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Identifying the most appropriate indicators can be driven by models; for
example, sensitivity analysis can be used to quantify how system indicators will
respond to perturbations (e.g., policies and projects). The dual role of sustain -
ability indicators is to both measure and communicate the range of factors that
are involved in the decision-making process. Indicators, generally, are measures
of the system of interest and can be either directly observed or derived quantities.
Sustainability Indicators
Substantial work has been done on the subject of sustainability indicators
internationally (see Hak et al. [2007] for a review of the state of the art in sustain-
ability indicators), much of which EPA has been involved in. The corporate sector
has also developed indicators and metrics for sustainable performance (Székely
and Knirsch 2005). EPA’s new 5 year strategic plan calls for the development
of additional indicators that will improve understanding of the integrated and
complex relationships involved in maintaining human health and environmental
well-being (EPA 2010). The plan envisions that the development of additional
indicators will be useful in tracking changes in environmental justice, children’s
health, and regional ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes. The plan also foresees
development and use of indicators to advance the sustainable communities pro-
gram. In preparation for EPA’s next report on the environment, a task force has
begun work to identify indicators of sustainability and associated metrics.
In general, the work on sustainability indicators has tended to rely on work
already done to gather social, environmental, and economic data. Most sustain -
ability indicators are transformations of these data, and the experts involved
in the sustainability-indicator efforts have been guided by a need, not only for
relevance, but also for practicality. The committee recognizes the need for EPA
to identify indicators and indicator sets that can help it to take the opportunities
that a sustainability approach presents both locally and globally (Box 4-3). In
serving both a measurement and a communication role, indicators can be used
to promote beneficial change and also identify potential threats to sustainabil -
ity. Sustainability indicators differ from those developed to measure a specific
outcome of a program, such as an air quality parameter, as they must be able
to capture information across multiple factors. Sustainability indicators would
synthesize and report on various complex areas, including social, environmen -
tal, and economic aspects. For example, a well-known indicator for assessing
health and well-being in developing countries is infant mortality, as this indicator
can be used singularly to infer information about maternal health, behaviors, and
economic conditions in a particular country. A sustainability indicator would
also be actionable in that the agency can take practical steps to address fac-
tors contributing to an indicator to attain sustainability goals. Although some
sustainability challenges addressed in one region may overlap to some degree
in another, there will also be distinct challenges in that region and, to that end
OCR for page 70
70 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
BOX 4‑3 Indicator Attributes
• Actionable—practical steps taken to address factors contributing to an indica-
tor to attain sustainability goals
• Transferable and scalable—adaptable at regional, state, or local levels
• Intergenerational—The fair distribution of costs and benefits among different
generations
• Definable—simple to understand and easily communicated
• Relevant—be relevant to actual or anticipated policies
• Important—reflect an important aspect of the social, environmental, or eco-
nomic pillars
• Measureable—measure something of obvious value to the public and decision
makers
• Durable—long-term relevance
sustainability indicators would be transferable and scalable and be adaptable at
a regional, state, or local level.
Because some sustainability goals may require long-term solutions, sustain -
ability indicators would be applicable in the short-term but also intergenerational
and usable in a long-term time frame. Inherent in sustainability is concern about
intergenerational impacts, thus differentiating sustainability indicators from many
commonly used environmental indicators that reflect the current state of the envi-
ronment. One approach that can be used to address intergenerational dimensions
is the use of “stock-and-flow indicators.” Stock-and-flow indicators address the
availability of a resource and the rate of depletion or growth, and are thus more
intergenerational; policy indicators are more applicable to assessing change over
short periods of time (intragenerational) that can be attributed to policies. Use
of stock-and-flow indicators will require multiagency cooperation. An issue with
the stock-and-flow indicators is their complexity, and as such, their development
is more difficult (NRC 1999). Assessing impacts across generations can compli -
cate the quantification of an indicator and introduce additional uncertainty. Thus,
one component of quantifying an indicator will also be assessing the related
uncertainty. Further discussion of indicators can be found in Appendix E.
Reporting
EPA would benefit from systematically conducting and publishing results of
sustainability evaluations of major decisions, projects, activities, and programs by
using indicators that provide accurate, comprehensive, and reliable information.
Stakeholders could be further engaged by publicizing the results of these evalua -
tions, including not only successes but also lessons learned and areas where data
are insufficient to draw a conclusion. Decision makers need to assure that proper
OCR for page 71
71
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
stakeholder engagement has occurred and is part of final decisions. Following
implementation, the effectiveness of the decision/action as well as verification of
the impacts will need to be pursued.
Some states (e.g., Michigan) require analysis and periodic reporting on
emerging environmental and sustainability issues.1 Such reporting can serve as
a kind of early warning system and enable public and private decision makers to
address issues at an earlier stage than might be possible otherwise. EPA would
benefit from this kind of analysis and reporting as part of future reports on the
environment. EPA could also benefit from the practice of systematically docu-
menting and providing public information about the sustainability co-benefits
of its actions and decisions, including not only environmental benefits but also
economic and social benefits. The object of this practice would be to educate the
public about the links between environmental protection and human well-being,
and to help the public understand the role that EPA has played and will continue
to play in fostering sustainability. When quantitative description of such benefits
is not possible or feasible, qualitative description of these benefits would be
appropriate.
The agency may wish to consider, at the regional and headquarters levels,
regularly producing a sustainability report utilizing widely recognized indicators
(such as the “Global Reporting Initiative”2). Consistent with Executive Order
13514,3 EPA would benefit from implementing an internal agency program to
identify key sustainability indicators, implementing a tracking and reporting
system to demonstrate progress toward the goals of more sustainable operational
practices and benchmark performances against other federal or government agen -
cies and private sector organizations. The agency is already required to report on
the seven metrics of sustainability and energy performance described in the Exec-
utive Order and recently produced a FY2010 OMB Scorecard on Sustainability/
Energy to document its performance (EPA 2011).
Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration
Stakeholder engagement is generally cited as one of the essential elements
of a sustainability approach (Feldman 2002). The Sustainability Framework out -
lined in this report contemplates that EPA will involve stakeholders at appropriate
times throughout the process. The Sustainability Assessment and Management
1 The Michigan Environmental Indicators Act (P.A. 1999, No. 195); Codified at Mich. Comp. Laws
Ann. 324.2521.
2 The GRI is a “network-based organization that pioneered the world’s most widely used
sustainability reporting framework. The Reporting Framework sets out the principles and Performance
Indicators that organizations can use to measure and report their economic, environmental, and social
performance” (GRI 2011).
3 Executive Order 13514, titled Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance, sets sustainability goals for Federal agencies, including the need for improvements in
environmental, energy and economic performance.
OCR for page 72
72 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
approach has as a component the identification of stakeholders interested in a
particular program or action during the scoping process after a decision has been
made to perform some level of sustainability assessment. EPA has extensive
experience with public participation activities, many of which are legal mandates,
in its regulatory work. The sustainability assessments suggested here are not
regulatory requirements, and their implementation presents a new opportunity
to advance the state of practice of involving people in governmental decision
making.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Key Finding: The Sustainability Assessment and Management approach
requires application of a suite of tools capable of analyzing the full set of cur-
rent and future social, environmental, and economic consequences of alterna-
tive options. Many tools already exist, and much activity is under way in the
United States and globally to develop such tools. Some tools will need modi-
fication or expansion to be appropriate and some new tools will need to be
developed (p.60-65).
4.1. Key Recommendation: EPA should develop a “sustainability tool-
box” that includes a suite of tools for use in the Sustainability Assess-
ment and Management approach. Collectively, the suite of tools should
have the ability to analyze present and future consequences of alterna-
tive decision options on the full range of social, environmental, and
economic indicators. Application of these tools, ranging from simple to
complex, should have the capability for showing distributional impacts
of alternative options with particular reference to vulnerable or dis-
advantaged groups and ecosystems.
4.2. Finding: An important step in the Sustainability Assessment and Man-
agement approach is an evaluation of present and future conditions to show
that present decisions and actions are not compromising future human and
ecologic health and well-being. Therefore, a requirement is to be able to
forecast potential future conditions as a function of the decision option
chosen, although there will always be some degree of uncertainty attached
to the forecast (p.64-65).
4.2. Recommendation: EPA should identify potential future environmental
problems, consider a range of options to address problems, and develop al -
ternative projections of environmental conditions and problems.
4.3. Finding: The culture change being proposed here will require EPA
to conduct an expanding number of assessments. Although EPA has been
OCR for page 73
73
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
involved in state-of-the-environment and environmental assessments, it cur-
rently does not have a formalized approach to conducting or participating
in the analyses required in the Sustainability Assessment and Management
approach. Thus, such assessments could readily miss sustainability concerns
not typically considered in past environmental assessments, including social
and economic issues and environmental justice (p.58-59).
4.3. Recommendation: The agency should develop a tiered formalized
process, with guidelines, for undertaking the Sustainability Assessment and
Management approach to maximize benefits across the three pillars and to
ensure further intergenerational social, environmental, and economic benefits
that address environmental justice.
4.4. Finding: Screening is often used in other OECD countries prior to
undertaking full sustainability assessments; criteria examined include the
magnitude of the activity and potential short-term and long-term conflicts
between at least two dimensions of sustainability (p.56).
4.4. Recommendation: EPA should formalize a screening procedure for
implementing the Sustainability Framework recommended by the committee.
4.5. Finding: Economic benefit-cost analysis as commonly applied to en-
vironmental issues often does not adequately account for the full range of
ecosystem benefits, take intergenerational considerations into account suf -
ficiently, or take into account the distribution of benefits and costs among
population groups (p.61).
4.5. Recommendation: EPA should continue to adapt its current method
of cost benefit analysis for sustainability by, among other things, improving
its estimates of the value of ecosystem services, extending its boundaries by
incorporating life-cycle analysis, and better addressing intergenerational and
environmental justice considerations.
4.6. Finding: Risk analysis as commonly applied to environmental issues
often does not adequately account for the full range of human health and
ecosystem risks, including cumulative risks, intergenerational considerations,
and the distribution of risks among population groups. In addition, better
methods are needed to support consideration of health and environmental
effects for the green chemistry goal of safer products and more sustainable
chemical usage (p.60).
4.6. Recommendation: EPA should develop a range of risk assessment
methods to better address cumulative risk and intergenerational and envi-
OCR for page 74
74 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
ronmental justice considerations and to support comparisons of chemicals as
part of an alternatives analysis for green chemistry applications.
4.7. Finding: EPA and other organizations have developed and continue to
develop environmental indicators; however, appropriately addressing sustain-
ability in the decision-making process will require additional attention to
economic and social issues, including environmental justice (p.69).
4.7. Recommendation: EPA should expand its environmental indicators
to address economic and social issues in collaboration with other federal
agencies to address economic and social issues, and consider adopting them
and developing appropriate metrics to inform sustainability considerations
for state and local actors. Where relevant, these indicators should allow for
international comparisons and the rapid adoption and adaptation of best
practices from other countries responding to the challenges of sustainability.
REFERENCES
Blackburn, W.R. 2007. The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving
Social, Economic, and Environmental Responsibility. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
CEU (Council of the European Union). 2010. Communication from the Commission on the practical
implementation of the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme and on counting rules
for biofuels. O. J. EU. C160:8-16 [online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:160:0008:0016:EN:PDF [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
Chelimsky, E. 1997. The coming transformations in evaluation. Pp. 1-26 in Evaluation for the 21st
Century: A Handbook, E. Chelimsky, and W.R. Shadish, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronbach, L.J. 1980. Toward Reform of Program Evaluation: Aims, Methods and Institutional
Arrangements. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
de Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification, descrip -
tion and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41(3): 393-408.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk
Assessment. EPA/600/FR-91/001. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, DC. December 1991 [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/raf/
publications/pdfs/DEVTOX.PDF [accessed May 2, 2011].
EPA. 1996. Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-96/009. Risk Assess -
ment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. October 1996 [online].
Available: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/REPRO51.PDF [accessed May 2, 2011].
EPA. 1998a. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment
Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April 1998. [online]. Avail -
able: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/ECOTXTBX.PDF [accessed July 13, 2011].
EPA. 1998b. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA
Compliance Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April 1998 [online]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498.pdf [accessed
May 2, 2011].
EPA. 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemi-
cal Mixtures. EPA/630/R-00/002. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.
cfm?deid=20533#Download [accessed May 2, 2011].
OCR for page 75
75
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
EPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. Risk Assessment
Forum., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/cancerguidelines/ [accessed May 2, 2011].
EPA. 2008. EPA’s Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model. EPA-300-R-06-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. June 2008 [online]. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/publications/grants/cps-manual-12-27-06.pdf [accessed
May 2, 2011].
EPA. 2009. EPA Lifecycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Renewable Fuels. EPA-
420-F-09-024. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
May 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oms/renewablefuels/420f09024.pdf [ac -
cessed May 2, 2011].
EPA. 2010. Fiscal Year 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Vision: Achieving Our Vision. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
strategicplan.html [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
EPA. 2011. FY2010 OMB Scorecard on Sustainability/Energy. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency [online.] Available: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/FY2010OMBScorecard.pdf [accessed
Apr. 25, 2011].
EPA SAB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board). 2009. Valuing the
Protection of Ecological Systems and Services. EPA-SAB-09-012. Science Advisory Board,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2009 [online]. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebBOARD/SAB-09-012/$File/SAB%20Advisory%20
Report%20full%20web.pdf [accessed June 8, 2011].
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235-1238.
Farrell, A.E., R.J. Plevin, B.T. Turner, A.D. Jones, M. O’Hare, and D.M. Kammen. 2006. Ethanol can
contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311(5760):506-508.
Feldman, I. 2002. The stakeholder convergence: Public participation and sustainable business prac -
tices. Pp. 53- 58 in The New “Public”: The Globalization of Public Participation, C. Bruch, ed.
Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute [online]. Available: http://www.eli.org/pdf/PPP/
part1chap3.pdf [accessed July 13, 2011].
Gibson, R. 2005. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Process. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Gibson, R. 2006. Sustainability assessment: Basic components of a practical approach. IAPA
24(3):170-182.
Goldstein, B.D. 1993. Science and an EPA mission statement. Environ. Health Perspect.
101(6):466-467.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2011. What is GRI? [online]. Available: http://www. lobalreporting.
g
org/AboutGRI/WhatIsGRI/ [accessed June 1, 2011.]
Hak, T., B. Moldan, and A.L. Dahl, eds. 2007. Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Hannam, P., G. Kyle, and S.J. Smith. 2009. Global Deployment of Geothermal Energy Using a
New Characterization in GCAM 1.0. PNNL-19231. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Richland, WA. September 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/
external/technical_reports/PNNL-19231.pdf [accessed June 8, 2011].
Harrington, W., L. Heinzerling, and R. Morgenstern, eds. 2009. Reforming Regulatory Impact Analy-
sis. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future [online]. Available: http://www.rff.org/RFF/
Documents/RFF.RIA.V4.low_res.pdf [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic
costs and benefits of biodiesel and thanol biofuels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(30):11206-11210.
Hill, J., S. Polasky, E. Nelson, D. Tilman, H. Huo, L. Ludwig, J. Neumann, H. Zheng, and D. Bonta.
2009. Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 106(6):2077-2082.
OCR for page 76
76 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Environmental Health Sciences Decision Making: Risk Manage -
ment, Evidence, and Ethics: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
McDonough, W., and M. Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.
New York: North Point Press.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mitchell, D. 2008. A Note on Rising Food Prices: Policy Research Working Paper 4682. World Bank,
Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://econ.tu.ac.th/class/archan/RANGSUN/EC%20460/
EC%20460%20Readings/Global%20Issues/Food%20Crisis/Food%20Price/A%20Note%20
on%20Rising%20Food%20Price.pdf [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
Morello-Frosch, R., M. Zuk, M. Jerrett, B. Shamasunder, and A.D. Kyle. 2011. Understanding the
cumulative impacts of inequities in environmental health: Implications for policy. Health Aff.
30(5):879-887.
Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, J. Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, A. Grübler,
T.Y. Jung, T. Kram, E.L. La Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, W. Pepper, H. Pitcher, L.
Price, K. Riahi, A. Roehrl, H.H. Rogner, A. Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, P. Shukla, S. Smith, R.
Swart, S. van Rooijen, N. Victor, and Z. Dadi. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios.
A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [online]. Available: http://www.grida.no/publications/
other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/ [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
Nordhaus, W. 2007. Critical assumptions in the Stern Review on climate change. Science
317(5835):201-202.
NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
NRC. 1999. Nature’s Numbers: Expanding the National Economic Accounts to Include the Environ -
ment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2005a. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priori -
ties. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2005b. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Towards Better Environmental Decision-Making. Wash -
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2007. Understanding Multiple Environmental Stresses: Report of a Workshop. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2008a. Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
NRC. 2008b. Transitioning to Sustainability through Research and Development on Ecosystems
Services and Biofuels: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. Expanding Biofuel Production: Sustainability and the Transition to Advanced Biofuels:
Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and
the Environment: Recent Developments. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2008. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2010. Guidance on Sustainability Impact Assessment. Paris: OECD.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2010. Cumulative Impacts: Building
a Scientific Foundation. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Envi -
ronmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA [online]. Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/ej/pdf/
CIReport123110.pdf [accessed May 2, 2011].
OCR for page 77
77
SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Pearce, D. 2006. The political economy of an energy tax: The United Kingdom’s Climate Change
Levy. Energ. Econ. 28(2):149-158.
Pearce, D., G. Atkinson, and S. Mourato. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment:
Recent Developments. Paris: OECD [online]. Available: http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/
milieueconomie/downloadbare-bestanden/ME11_cost-benefit%20analysis%20and%20the%20
environment%20oeso.pdf [accessed June 8, 2011].
Pereira, H.M., P.W. Leadley, V. Proença, R Alkemade, J.P. W. Scharlemann, J.F. Fernandez-Manjarrés,
M.B. Araújo, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, W.W.L. Cheung, L. Chini, H.D. Cooper, E.L. Gilman, S.
Guénette, G.C. Hurtt, H.P. Huntington, G.M. Mace, T. Oberdorff, C. Revenga, P. Rodrigues,
R.J. Scholes, U.R. Sumaila, and M. Walpole. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st
century. Science 330(6010):1496-1501.
PEW (PEW Center on Global Climate Change). 2009. Cellulosic Ethanol. Climate TechBook. PEW
Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA. November 2009 [online]. Available: http://
www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Cellulosic-ethanol-11-09.pdf [accessed May 2, 2011].
Polasky, S., E. Nelson, D. Pennington, and K.A. Johnson. 2011. The impact of land-use change
on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: A case study in the State of
Minnesota. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48(2):219-242.
Posner, P.L. 2004. Performance Budgeting: OMB’s Performance Rating Tool Presents Opportunities
and Challenges for Evaluating Program Performance: Testimony before the Subcommittee on
Environment, Technology, and Standards, Committee on Science, House of Representatives,
March 11, 2004. GAO-04-550T. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office [online].
Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04550t.pdf [accessed Apr. 27, 2011].
RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2011. Statistics. Renewable Fuels Association, Washington, DC
[online]. Available: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/statistics [accessed May 2, 2011].
Runge, C.F., and B. Senauer. 2007. How biofuels could starve the poor. Foreign Aff. 86(3):41-53 [on-
[on-
line]. Available: http://www.depauw.edu/discourse/documents/How%20Biofuels%20Could%20
Starve%20the%20Poor.pdf [accessed May 2, 2011].
Schwartz, P. 1991. The Art of the Long View. New York: Doubleday.
Stern, N. and C. Taylor. 2007. Climate change: Risk, ethics, and the Stern Review. Science
317(5835):203-204.
Stufflebeam, D.L. 2001. Evaluation Models. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Su, J.G, R. Morello-Frosch, B.M. Jesdale, A.D. Kyle, B. Shamasunder, and M. Jerrett. 2009. An index
for assessing demographic inequalities in cumulative environmental hazards with application to
Los Angeles, California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43(20):7626-7634.
Székely, F., and M. Knirsch. 2005. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics
for sustainable performance. Eur. Manage. J. 23(6):628-647.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2002. Global Environmental Outlook 3. London:
Earthscan.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. National Statistics for Corn. U.S. Depart -
ment of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service [online]. Available: http://
www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/result.php?2A34ECC7-2E42-3883-BF81-
9AEFA12F396E§or=CROPS&group=FIELD%20CROPS&comm=CORN [accessed May 2,
2011].
Vedung, E. 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. London: Transaction Publishers.
Wang, M., M. Wu, and H. Huo. 2007. Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of
different corn ethanol plant types. Environ. Res. Lett. 2(2):024001.
Zerbe, N., and T. Dedeurwaerdere. 2003. Trade, Societies and Sustainable Development SUSTRA
Network: Sustainability Impact Assessment. Policy Brief Paper based on the Conclusion of the
SUTRA Seminar on Sustainability Impact Assessment, March 26-27, 2003, Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium [online]. Available: http://www.agro-montpellier.fr/sustra/publications/policy_briefs/
policy-brief-sia-eng.pdf [accessed June 9, 2011].
OCR for page 78
