Cover Image

HARDBACK
$74.95



View/Hide Left Panel


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Measurement of Environmental Quality in the United States N. PHILLIP ROSS, CARROLL CURTIS, WILLIAM GARETZ, AND ELEANOR LEONARD Office of Policy and Planning Environmental Information and Statistical Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CONTENTS     BACKGROUND   136     FRAMEWORKS FOR ORGANIZING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS   137     Indicators of Environmental Quality,   139     Suspended Sediment Concentrations in the Nation's Rivers and Streams,   140     Indicator/Data Selection,   140     Table 1 State of the Environment—Global Ecosystem,   141     Table 2 State of the Environment—Regional Ecosystems,   142     Table 3 State of the Environment—Local Ecosystems,   143     Table 4 State of Human Health and Welfare VEAs,   144     ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT   145     ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE U.S. EXECUTIVE BRANCH   145     WHAT INITIATIVES ARE UNDER WAY FOR THE FUTURE?   147     Environmental Strategies for the 1990s and Beyond,   147     Enhanced Regional and International Environmental Cooperation,   151     APPENDIX A   154     APPENDIX B   161

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of environmental quality assessment activities in the United States. The topic is extremely broad and complex; this paper only touches on a limited number of issues and initiatives. BACKGROUND The rapid growth of the American society has brought with it the concomitant pollution of the environment. By the early 1960s it was apparent that additional government regulation was needed to deal with the growing levels of detectable anthropogenic pollution in our ambient environment. The United States Congress passed the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4341). This landmark legislation was the precursor to the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The NEPA required that the executive branch create the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to formulate and recommend national policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment. Additional responsibilities were provided by the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). The CEQ has statutory responsibility for overseeing the implementation of NEPA. The Council also develops and recommends to the President national policies that further environmental quality; performs continuing analysis of changes or trends in the national environment; reviews and appraises programs of the federal government to determine their contributions to sound environmental policy; conducts studies, research, and analyses relating to ecological systems and environmental quality; and assists the President in the preparation of the annual environmental quality report to Congress. In its annual report, CEQ uses data obtained from a number of federal agencies to report on: the status and condition of the major natural, man-made, or altered environmental classes of the nation, including, but not limited to, the air, the aquatic (including marine, estuarine, and fresh water) and the terrestrial environment (including, but not limited to, the forest, dry land, wetland, range, urban, suburban, and rural environment); current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management, and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the nation; the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human and economic requirements of the nation in light of expected population pressures; a review of the programs and activities (including regulatory activities) of the federal government, the state and local governments, and nongovernmental entities or individuals with particular reference to their effect on the resources; and

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals a program for remedying the deficiencies of existing programs and activities, together with recommendations for legislation. The Annual Report requires that CEQ obtain considerable support from other federal agencies with environmental responsibilities. CEQ coordinates this input through its Inter-agency Committee on Environmental Trends (ICET) which is co-chaired by CEQ and EPA. Even with the support of other agencies, the Annual Report does not provide a comprehensive annual state-of-the-environment picture, but it does provide a compilation of a selected set of analyses of environmental concerns focused towards policy interests in that year. The United States is one of a very few countries in the world that does not produce a comprehensive publication on the state of the environment. The U.S. environmental community is presently moving in the direction of state-of-the-environment reporting through the development of a set of "environmental" indicators that will give a comprehensive picture (i.e., spatial) of the condition of the nation's environment and can also be used to evaluate temporal trends in environmental quality. These "environmental indicators" would be used much in the same way that we use economic indicators to assess the state of the economy and forecast economic trends. The scientific community does not unanimously agree on what the best indicators of environmental quality should be. Unlike economic statistics in which the universe of concern is usually well defined (i.e., defined operationally by economists) and directly accessible via surveys and questionnaires, the environment does not provide such parameters. What is an ecosystem? What is the border of the wetlands? How do we assess air quality on a national scale, on a local scale? We cannot question the trees. We must design instruments that indirectly measure the parameters of interest. The collection of environmental data for inferential purposes is difficult and extremely expensive, and as such, not many data have been collected for purposes of describing the universe; most information is collected for purposes of compliance and enforcement. Only recently have we started to examine the impacts that our regulatory efforts have had on the quality of the ambient environment. FRAMEWORKS FOR ORGANIZING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS Before undertaking the task of identifying environmental indicators for state-of-the-environment assessments, it is absolutely necessary to develop a framework with which to approach the process of selection and development. There are potentially thousands of environmental indicators. In order to develop relevant sets, some conceptual framework for a unified system of environmental information is necessary. Such a framework would provide the basis for identifying a set of environmental indicators (i.e., core set) that can be used to assess the quality of

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals the nation's environment. The USEPA has developed a conceptual framework for environmental information.1 The framework is based on a Pressure-State-Response model (PSR), which is presently used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Canada, the Netherlands, and a number of other countries and NGOs. The following discussion is a extracted from the USEPA document: Federal, state, local, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the collection, storage, and use of environmental data. Many of these data are collected for specific purposes and are not designed to be used for developing general measures of environmental quality. A framework will provide a structure for organizing this vast quantity of primary data into an integrated system of compatible spatial and temporal statistics, indices, etc., which can facilitate secondary uses of environmental information for indicators and decision-making. The basic PSR framework was originally developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Group on the State of the Environment.2 The PSR model asserts that human activity exerts Pressure (such as pollution emissions or land use changes) on the environment, which can produce changes in the State of the environment (for example, changes in ambient pollutant levels, habitat diversity, water flows). Society then Responds to changes in pressures or state with environmental and economic policies and programs intended to prevent, reduce, or mitigate pressures and/or environmental damage.3 Environmental quality is the reflection of the State component of the PSR/E model. Both pressure and responses impact environmental quality. State is the most difficult measure to obtain, and in many instances, measures of response or pressure are used as indicators of quality based on the underlying causal relationship of the PSR/E model. The State of the environment is concerned with ambient physical, chemical, biological, and ecological conditions; changes in ecosystem composition, structure, and function at various spatial and temporal scales (including the "built" environment); human health; and environment-related welfare. The USEPA model builds on the base OECD PSR model in the following ways: A derivative category called "Effects" is added, for attributed relationships between two or more Pressure, State, and/or Response variables, resulting in a "PSR/E" framework (Figure 1). Human driving forces of environmental change, and pressures of nonhuman origin are also included in the framework. Distinctions are made in terms of specific subcategories in which the State of the environment can be measured, and the types of entities making Responses. Each subcategory is elaborated with a generic menu designed to facilitate linking environmental information collection efforts to common sets of environmental values, goals, and priorities.

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals FIGURE 1 Pressure-State-Response/Effects (PSR/E) Framework. The framework is consistent with a hierarchical view of ecosystems, allowing for the spatial nesting of environmental information, compatible with community- or ecosystem- (place-) based approaches to environmental management. It is compatible with assessment-driven approaches to indicator selection.4 Indicators of Environmental Quality In the last several years a number of organizations have been focusing on the development of environmental indicators that can be used to measure environmental quality, conditions, and trends. Like economic indicators (e.g., unemployment rates, cost-of-living index), environmental indicators hope to provide the public and decision-makers with directional measures of change that will allow for a more informed public and improved environmental planning and decision-making. There are many definitions for environmental indicators that appear in the literature, however the operational definition that we use in this paper is: An environmental indicator is an environmental or environmentally related variable or estimate, or an aggregation of such variables into an index, that is used in some decision-making context:

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals to show patterns or trends in the state of the environment; to show patterns or trends in the human activities that affect, or are affected by, the state of the environment; to show relationships among environmental variables; or to show relationships between human activities and the state of the environment. This definition of an environmental indicator is purposely very broad to reflect the diversity of assessment and reporting contexts in the term as used. Thus the definition includes both measured or observed variables and composite indicators that aggregate a number of variables into a single quantity. An example of a possible indicator of environmental quality is suspended sediment concentrations in the nation's rivers and streams. Figure 2 is a graphical display showing this measure as obtained from the USGS's NASQAN data base. Suspended Sediment Concentrations in the Nation's Rivers and Streams About 10 percent of NASQAN stations showed decreased suspended sediment concentrations over the sampling period 1980–1989. The quantity of suspended sediment transported to coastal waters decreased or remained the same in all but the North Atlantic region. Indicator/Data Selection Assessments of environmental quality can utilize either primary data collected specifically for the purpose for which they are used or secondary data that FIGURE 2 National trends in suspended sediment concentrations, 1980–1989.

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals were originally collected for other purposes. When basing assessments on existing data, analysts do not have the kind of control over factors such as data quality that they would if a new data collection effort were undertaken. In spite of these shortcomings, time and resource constraints frequently dictate the use of existing data. Various assumptions, models, and extrapolations are then applied in an effort to ''adjust" the data so they can be used in a new assessment context (see, for example, Kineman5).6 The USEPA has developed a draft proposal for a process to be used in selecting environmental indicators for a variety of purposes (policy development, program assessment, state of the environment, etc.). See Appendix A. As discussed earlier, it is the state of the environment (SOE) that provides the most direct measure of environmental quality. Unfortunately, the U.S. does not collect a lot of data that will allow for easy development of SOE indicators. Tables 1–4 attempt to provide a comprehensive listing of State measures organized via the PSR/E model. Although the listings are not inclusive of all possible measures, they provide the focus necessary to define a "core" set of quality measures that can provide some assessment of the state of the environment in the context of the model. As you can see from the tables, there is potentially a large number of indicators that one would want to have to make an overall assessment of environmental quality. It is critical that a core set be defined: a set of indicators that will provide decision-makers and the public with the baseline information they need to manage the environment, and at the same time not bankrupt the system. Environmental Table 1 State of the Environment—Global Ecosystem Valued Environmental Attributes (VEAs) Stability of global climate: atmospheric composition, temperature, precipitation patterns, storms, droughts, ocean currents Integrity of the stratospheric ozone layer Global scale genetic and species diversity Global environmental diversity Biogeochemical cycling (and storage) of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other elements Energy fixation/primary productivity Topsoil quantity and quality Management of species migration Environmental Conditions and Changes of Human and Natural Origin Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases; ozone depleting substances Global temperature Global habitat alteration and destruction, including deforestation Global levels of soil erosion/degradation Globally transported pollutants in air or water (e.g., to polar regions) Global changes in species occurrence and distribution Proliferation of introduced (non-native) species

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE 2 State of the Environment—Regional Ecosystems Valued Environmental Attributes (VEAs) Regional genetic diversity, species diversity Regional environmental diversity (i.e., types of habitat) Biological integrity/health (e.g., Karrs Index of Biotic Integrity) Primary productivity/energy fixation Productive capacity of land for agriculture, forestry; soil quantity and quality (e.g., diversity of soil biota) Air quality Water quality Productivity of valued plant or animal species Stocks of nonrenewable resources: minerals, metals, fossils fuels, ect. Hydrologic functions of landscapes: flood regulation; groundwater recharge; water supply; water filtration; river flows to support aquatic species, irrigation, recreation, transport, power Geomorphological functions of landscape: wind and wave buffering; erosion control; sediment retention Stability of regional climate: precipitation, temperature, humidity, storms, ect. Contaminant/pollutant detoxification, dilution, storage by media (including air, water, soil and sediments) and biota Biogeochemical cycling, including eutrophication Discrete landscape features valued for aesthetic, cultural, spiritual reasons: particular mountains, waterfalls, etc. Habitat for wildlife, including migratory corridors Natural pest control Wilderness, open space Conditions and Changes of Human and Natural Origin Winds, oceans currents Precipitation, flooding, droughts Regional temperatures, humidity Hurricanes, tornadoes, dust storms, other extreme weather events Solar radiation; cloud cover Glaciation, sea ice Sea level Landform geology; erosion, sedimentation, landslides and land subsidence, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions; soil types Drainage basins; changes in river flows; groundwater depletion Soil erosion, compaction, salinization, and degradation Import/export of soil, nutrients, etc., to/from ecosystems; various nonpoint source pollution Regional ambient levels of pollutants in media; long-range transport of pollutants in air, water Forest and grass fires Ecosystem types, land cover/land use types (extent and spatial pattern) Distribution of native species and communities; species loss, changes in species range Feeding areas, habitats, migration routes of wildlife Regional habitat destruction, fragmentation; succession/retrogression Distribution, proliferation of exotic species, less desired native species, pests, disease vectors

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE 3 State of the Environment—Local Ecosystems Valued Environmental Attributes (VEAs) Safe drinking water (quantity and quantity) Maintenance of hydrological and geomorphological functions (see regional menu) Food safety (freedom from contaminants, undesired organisms) Air quality (visibility, outdoor, indoor, workplace) Pleasant climate (e.g., temperature, precipitation) Tree cover Natural control of pest and exotic (non-native) species Pollination Nutrient flows/cycles Productivity of commercially, recreationally valued species Local biodiversity and biotic integrity; healthy population of local keystone and other desired species Local environmental diversity Proximity of homes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks, civic facilities Access to local and regional transport (roads, public transport); safe routes for non-motorized traffic (sidewalks, bike paths) Land availability for various uses: residential and commercial constructions, agriculture, transportation corridors, parks, etc. Utilities (electricity, communications network, etc.) Sanitation (disposal, treatment, recycling options) Recreationally, aesthetically valued locations/sites/vista Other aesthetically and culturally valued attributes — Quiet — Absence of noxious odors — Cultural and Historical sites and districts Conditions and Changes of Human and Natural Origin Quantity and distributions of land and water suitable for various human uses Local climate Pollutant levels, proliferation of disease vectors in air, water, soil, food Proliferation of unwanted exotic species, less desired native species Local habitat alteration/fragmentation, destruction Trophic structure and functioning of ecosystems, including energy transfer, nutrient flows, etc. Biological community structure: species diversity, niche structure, etc. Condition of key species (individuals and populations), body burdens of chemicals; population size and dynamics Extent and distribution of paved surfaces, etc.

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE 4 State of Human Health and Welfare VEAs Human and Health-Related Economic Welfare   Longevity (i.e., avoidance of premature death)   Appropriate physiological function of body systems (i.e., avoidance of morbidity for each of the following systems):     — circulatory — respiratory — nervous — digestive — musculoskeletal — endocrine — immune — reproductive system, etc. Psychological health (i.e., avoidance of unnecessary environmental stress) Health-Related Economic/Welfare Values     — Adequate income — Time for family, work, and leisure   Value of marketed environmental goods: crops, livestock, timber, fish, shellfish, fur-bearing animals, other species valued for use as food, pets, etc.   Non-animal commercial inputs (chemicals, fertilizer, peat, metals, minerals)   Fossils fuels   Livestocks forage   Water supply for domestic consumption, agriculture, energy production, industrial/commercial uses, waste disposal.   Land and water use for human settlements, transport (e.g., navigation channels), etc. Other Use Values   Recreation and tourism: camping, hiking, boating, swimming, sightseeing, photography, fishing, hunting, meditation, etc.   Other aesthetic values (e.g., scenic views in residential areas)   Scientific and research value Non-Use Values   Existence value   Historical, cultural, heritage, and spiritual value   Bequest value   Intrinsic value   Scarcity/uniqueness value Value of Ecosystem Services (marketed or not, see Tables 1-3)

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals data collection is extremely expensive, difficult, and time consuming. It is estimated that the USEPA spends in excess of $500 million a year on data collection, most of which is for enforcement and compliance data. Other federal agencies, as well as states, local governments, the regulated community, and environmentally focused NGOs, also spend significant dollars on environmental information collection. ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT As discussed earlier in the introduction, the CEQ has the responsibility for reporting to the President on the quality of the nation's environment each year. The CEQ publication Environmental Quality relies heavily on information to be input from several federal agencies covering a large variety of environmental areas and issues. Aside from this publication, there is no official U.S. publication (Note: except the U.S. national report for UNCED) that provides comprehensive information on the state of the U.S. environment. National environmental statistics are not collected in a centralized manner and there is no single source that one can use to assess the state and quality of the environment. The U.S. is one of a few countries in the world that does not have a centralized statistical system for collecting and analyzing environmental information and statistics. No single agency has the responsibility to provide information on the overall quality of the environment. Different federal and state organizations have focused responsibilities and produce a number or statistical summaries that can provide a limited picture of environmental quality, trends, and conditions. The federal agencies that collect, publish, and disseminate environmental statistics are discussed below. For each agency a brief overview of the kind of information available is provided along with some examples of statistical summaries and graphics. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE U.S. EXECUTIVE BRANCH The executive branch of the U.S. government is responsible for developing environmental policy and implementing and enforcing federal environmental statutes. This responsibility is vested in the various executive offices, departments, independent agencies, and associated organizations (see Appendix B for more detail): Council on Environmental Quality—Formulates and recommends to the President national policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment and carries out other responsibilities as provided by NEPA. Department of Agriculture—Lead agency for natural resources and the environment, which includes the Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service.

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals B. National Trends in River and Stream Water Quality

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals C. U.S. Waters Supporting Healthy and Diverse Aquatic Life. Graphic from EPA, OPPE, Proposed Environmental Goals For America With Benchmarks For The Year 2005: Summary (Draft For Government Agencies' Review, February 1995).

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals D. Contaminant Levels in Herring Gull Eggs From Great Lakes Colonies. Graphics from the EPA, OPPE, ESID, Compendium of Selected National Environmental Statistics in the U.S. Government (Draft: 8/24/94 with updates by agency).

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals E. Rate of Wetlands Loss. Graphic from EPA, OPPE, Proposed Environmental Goals For America With Benchmarks For The Year 2005: Summary (Draft For Government Agencies' Review, February 1995). F. Changes in Wetlands, by Type. Graphic from the EPA, OPPE, ESID, Compendium of Selected National Environmental Statistics in the U.S. Government (Draft: 8/24/94 with updates by agency).

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals IV. Examples of Graphics from the Compendium of Environmental Statistics That Have Been Updated and Augmented with Metadata and Interpretive Text in a LOTUS NOTES DATABASE (Under Development). The LOTUS NOTES Entries Have Been Converted to Word perfect Files for the Purpose of this Demonstration. Two Pressure Entries That Are Related to Air Quality Are Presented. A. Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector Environmental Statistics and Information Division Compendium of Environmental Statistics Data Entry Author: Carroll Curtis Date Created: 07/27/95 02:58:40 PM Topic: Energy Consumption by-End-Use Sector Environment Media: Energy Technical Notes: Totals include fossil fuels consumed directly in the sector, electricity sales to the sector, and energy losses in the generation and transmission of electricity (allocated in proportion to electricity sales per sector). Due to a lack of consistent historical data, some consumption of renewable energy resources is not included. For example, in 1992, 3.0 quadrillion Btu of renewable energy consumed by U.S. electric utilities to generate electricity for distribution is included, but an estimated 3.0 quadrillion Btu of renewable energy used by other sectors in the United States is not included. Publication Name(s): U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 1993 [DOE/EIA-0384(93)], Table 2.1, p. 39 (Washington, DC: DOE, EIA, July 1994). Last Updated by ESID: 06/27/95 CNC

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals INTERPRETIVE TEXT Energy consumption by the industrial sector increased throughout the 1960s and in 1973 reached 32 quadrillion Btu. Of the three end-use sectors, the industrial sector proved to be the most responsive to the turmoil in energy markets after the 1973–1974 Arab oil embargo. In 1979, industrial consumption of energy peaked at 33 quadrillion Btu. In the 1980s, a stagnant economy restrained industrial consumption, which declined to a 16-year low of 26 quadrillion Btu. In 1988 and 1989, economic growth spurred demand for energy in the industrial sector, and industrial energy consumption in 1989 rose to 29 quadrillion Btu. Despite slow economic growth in the 1990s, industrial energy consumption, trended upward. In 1993, industrial consumption energy reached 31, quadrillion Btu, the highest level in 14 years. Much of the growth in energy consumption during the 1950-through-1993 period occurred in the residential and commercial sector. Residential and commercial consumption leveled off in response to higher energy prices in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but lower prices in the 1986-through-1993 period played a role in boosting residential and commercial energy consumption to the record level of 30 quadrillion Btu in 1993. Energy consumption by the transportation sector was primarily petroleum consumption. Over the 44-year period, the transportation sector's consumption of petroleum more than tripled, but growth was slower during the 1980s than in previous decades. In 1993, consumption of petroleum in the transportation sector totaled 23 quadrillion Btu, up 1.6 percent from the 1992 level. Publication Name (if different from Table &/or Graph Publication Name): Last Updated by ESID: 06/27/95 CNC

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Table U.S. energy consumption, by end-use sector, 1950–1993 (quadrillion Btu) Year Industrial Residential & commercial Transportation Total 1950 15.71 8.87 8.49 33.08 1951 17.13 9.30 9.04 35.47 1952 16.76 9.54 9.00 35.30 1953 17.65 9.50 9.12 36.27 1954 16.58 9.78 8.90 35.27 1955 18.86 10.41 9.55 38.82 1956 19.55 10.96 9.86 40.38 1957 19.60 10.98 9.90 40.48 1958 18.70 11.64 10.00 40.35 1959 19.64 12.15 10.35 42.14 1960 20.16 13.04 10.60 43.80 1961 20.25 13.44 10.77 44.46 1962 21.04 14.27 11.23 46.53 1963 21.95 14.71 11.66 48.32 1964 23.27 15.23 12.00 50.50 1965 24.22 16.03 12.43 52.68 1966 25.50 17.06 13.10 55.66 1967 25.72 18.10 13.75 57.57 1968 26.90 19.23 14.86 61.00 1969 28.10 20.59 15.50 64.19 1970 28.63 21.71 16.09 66.43 1971 28.57 22.59 16.72 67.89 1972 29.86 23.69 17.71 71.26 1973 31.53 24.14 18.60 74.28 1974 30.70 23.72 18.12 72.54 1975 28.40 23.90 18.25 70.55 1976 30.24 25.02 19.10 74.36 1977 31.08 25.39 19.82 76.29 1978 31.39 26.09 20.61 78.09 1979 32.61 25.81 20.47 78.90 1980 30.61 25.65 19.69 75.96 1981 29.24 25.24 19.51 73.99 1982 26.14 25.63 19.07 70.85 1983 25.75 25.63 19.13 70.52 1984 27.86 26.48 19.80 74.40 1985 27.22 26.70 20.07 73.98 1986 26.63 26.85 20.81 74.30 1987 27.83 27.62 21.45 76.89 1988 28.99 28.92 22.30 80.22 1989 29.35 29.40 22.58 81.33 1990 29.93 28.79 22.54 81.26 1991 29.57 29.42 22.12 81.12 1992 30.58 29.10 22.46 82.14 1993 30.77 30.34 22.83 83.96

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Publication Name(s): U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review 1993 [DOE/EIA-0384(93)], Table 2.1, p. 39 (Washington, DC: DOE, EIA, July 1994). Technical Notes: See Technical Notes above. Also see Compendium Database entry for Renewable Energy Resources. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Current-year data are preliminary and may be revised in future publications. Administrative Notes: The Energy Information Administration publishes two sets of statistics on end-use energy consumption. The first set, based on surveys directed to suppliers and marketers, provides continuous series for the years 1949 through 1993 and allocates U.S. total energy consumption into one of three end-use sectors: industrial, residential and commercial, and transportation. The statistics from these surveys are presented above. The second set, based on surveys directed to end-users of energy, provides detailed information on the type of energy consumed and the energy-related characteristics of manufacturing establishments, commercial buildings, households, and household motor vehicles. For information on the second set of statistics, contact EIA specialist for the Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey [John L. Preston (202/586-1128)], Residential Energy Consumption Survey [Wendel L. Thompson (202/586-1119)], Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey [Ronald Lambrecht (202/586-4962)], or Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey [Martha M. Johnson (202/586-1135)]. Review Contact for Statistics (if different from Contact below): Last Updated by ESID: 06/27/95 CNC Contact Information Agency/Department: U.S. Department of Energy Bureau: Energy Information Administration Division/Office: Office of Energy Markets and End Use Branch/Address: Forrestal Building, EI-231 City: Washington State: DC Zip Code: 20585 Contact's Last Name: Brown First Name: Samuel E.   Phone#: (202) 586-5108 Fax: Internet Mail Address:

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals B. Aging of U.S. Vehicle Fleet Environmental Statistics and Information Division Compendium of Environmental Statistics Data Entry Author: Carroll Curtis Date Created: 07/27/95 02:58:40 PM Topic: Aging of the U.S. Vehicle Fleet Environment Media: Transportation Technical Notes: Publication Name(s): U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1990 NPTS Databook: Nationwide Personal Transportation Study, Vol. I (Washington, DC: DOT, FHMA, November 1993). Last Updated by ESID: 07/27/95 CNC

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals INTERPRETIVE TEXT American households tend to keep their cars and trucks for a longer period of time. Over the period 1969-to-1990, the average age of household vehicles increased by 51 percent, from 5.1 years in age to 7.7 years. The percentage of household automobiles that are 10 or more years old increased from 10.8 in 1969 to 29.9 in 1990. While 31.4 percent of household automobiles in 1969 were less than two years old, this percentage decreased to 15.6 percent in 1990. Vehicles of all ages are driven more than in previous years, yet the rate of increase was more between 1969 and 1990 for older vehicles than younger ones. In 1990, between 20 percent and 26 percent of all vehicle trips were taken in vehicles 10 years and older, regardless of the number of vehicles available to the household. The aging of the U.S. vehicle fleet has implications for energy consumption and air pollution issues, and the introduction of recent safety features into the household vehicle fleet. The fuel consumption characteristics of the older fleet clearly lag that of the newer fleet. From a level of 13.5 miles per gallon when the energy shock hit in the early 1970s, the fuel economy of the fleet has risen to a level approximating 21 miles per gallon in 1990. This suggests that for each mile of VMT occurring in older vehicles we pay a substantial energy penalty. The air pollution control consequences are probably even more pronounced. The year 1981 was a key turning point in the air quality control characteristics of the vehicle fleet. The differences in pollution per vehicle mile for vehicles pre- and post-1981 are extraordinary. In terms of safety there so many new safety features—anti-lock brakes, airbags, traction control, etc.—that will only slowly gain penetration into the fleet. On the other hand, one of the benefits of a fleet that lasts longer is for resource conservation and minimizing junk yards. Publication Name (if different from Table &/or Graph Publication Name: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1990 NPTS Databook: Nationwide Personal Transportation Study, Vol. I (Washington, DC: DOT, FHMA, November 1993). —, 1990 NPTS Report Series: Special Reports on Trip and Vehicle Attributes, Chapter 3. The Demography of the U.S. Vehicle Fleet, Table 1.2, p. 3–16 (Washington, DC: DOT, FHMA, February 1995). Last Updated by ESID: 07/27/95 CNC

OCR for page 135
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals TABLE Aging of the U.S. fleet, 1969–1990   Characteristic 1969 1977 1983 1990 Vehicles, by average age, all age, in years 5.10 5.60 7.60 7.70 0–2 years % 31.40 27.80 19.00 16.60 3–5 years % 33.20 29.60 27.30 27.50 6–9 years % 24.60 25.70 26.80 25.30 10 or more years % 10.80 16.90 26.90 30.60 Annual VMT, by vehicle age, average 1,000 miles 11.60 10.68 10.32 12.46 0–2 years 1,000 miles 15.70 14.46 15.29 16.81 3–5 years 1,000 miles 11.20 11.07 11.90 13.71 6–9 years 1,000 miles 9.70 9.20 9.25 12.55 10 or more years 1,000 miles 6.50 6.76 7.02 9.18 Publication Name(s): U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1990 NPTS Databook: Nationwide Personal Transportation Study, Vol. I, Table 3.24, p. 3–40 and Table 3.26, p. 3–43 (Washington, DC: DOT, FHMA, November 1993). Technical Notes: The 1969 survey did not include pickups and other light trucks as household vehicles. Administrative Notes: Review Contact for Statistics (if different from Contact below): Last Updated by ESID: 07/27/95 CNC Contact Information Agency/Department: U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau: Federal Highway Administration Division/Office: Office of Highway Information Management Branch/Address: 400 Seventh Street, SW City: Washington State: DC Zip Code: 20590 Contact's Last Name: First Name:   Phone #: (202) 366-0180 Fax: Internet Mail Address: