Integrated Assessment of Risk and Sustainability in ... - ACS Publications

Policy Analysis pubs.acs.org/est

Integrated Assessment of Risk and Sustainability in the Context of Regulatory Decision Making Ken Sexton*,† and Stephen H. Linder‡ †

University of Texas School of Public Health, Brownsville Regional Campus, 80 Fort Brown − AHC, Brownsville, Texas 78520, United States ‡ Institute for Health Policy, and Division of Management, Policy & Community Health, University of Texas School of Public Health, 1200 Herman Pressler Street, Houston, Texas 77030, United States ABSTRACT: Risk assessment is a decision-making tool used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other governmental organizations to organize and analyze scientific information so as to examine, characterize, and possibly quantify threats to human health and/or ecologic resources. Sustainability evaluation is a process for organizing and analyzing scientific and technical information about nature−society interactions in order to help decision-makers determine whether taking or avoiding certain actions will make society more sustainable. Although development and application of these two methodologies have progressed along distinct and unconnected pathways, the National Research Council recently recommended that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopt the concept of “sustainability” as both a process and a goal, and that risk assessment be incorporated, when appropriate, as a key input into decision-making about sustainability. The following discussion briefly reviews these two analytic approaches and examines conceptual frameworks for integrating assessments of risk and sustainability as a component of regulatory decision-making.

■

INTRODUCTION The risk assessment−risk management (RA−RM) paradigm adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for regulatory decision-making involves three complementary and overlapping phases.1−3 First, risk-related research is conducted to provide necessary scientific data and knowledge. Second, systematic evaluation of available scientific information is undertaken to estimate the likelihood, severity, and uncertainty of risks. And third, facts and values are weighed as part of management decisions about which risks are unacceptable and what, if anything, to do about them. A fourth phase, risk communicationexplaining risks and riskrelated decisions to stakeholders and responding to their concerns and questionsis also often included as part of the RA−RM paradigm.4,5 The paradigm, including both the framework and its implementation, has evolved over the past three decades as newer, more complicated and costly to solve problems were identified, advancements in scientific knowledge improved causal understanding about environmentally related diseases, and enhanced analytical methodologies became available to measure both exposures and effects.1−8 Today, the RA−RM paradigm is a formalized, systematic process that has been used to make regulatory decisions about hundreds of environmental, mainly chemical, threats (e.g., acute and chronic adverse effects, negative consequences of accidents, like fires and explosions) to human health and environmental quality. So far, EPA has promulgated official risk assessment guidelines for carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental and reproductive © 2014 American Chemical Society

toxicity, neurotoxicity, chemical mixtures, exposure assessment, and ecological risk.3 Over this same time period, a parallel evolution was taking place, primarily outside the EPA, involving the concept of “sustainable development” or “sustainability” and its application to decision making. The basic definition of sustainability “development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”was established by the Brundtland Commission in 1987,9 and endorsed by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.10,11 The global commitment to the goal of sustainability was reaffirmed in subsequent United Nations conferences, including those at Johannesburg12 in 2002 and Rio de Janeiro13 in 2011, and currently more than 100 countries, including the European Union, have developed national strategies for attaining sustainable development. Presently, the United States has no national sustainable development strategy or comprehensive policy, relying instead on ad hoc policies emanating from the White House. In January 2007, President G.W. Bush issued Executive Order 13423 making it the policy of the U.S. that Federal agencies conduct their activities “...in an environmentally, economically and fiscally sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficient, and Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 1409

September 26, 2013 January 7, 2014 January 13, 2014 January 13, 2014 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4043066 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1409−1418

activity, event, or technology promotes an outcome that is consistent with (or contributes to) defined sustainability objectives envisions sustainability as an array of societal goals and measures economic, environmental, and social contributions to achieving those goals

are we headed in the right direction compared to baseline conditions?

activity, event, or technology leads to a more sustainable outcome compared to current baseline

takes a “triple baseline” perspective to ensure that negative impacts are not economically, environmentally, or socially unacceptable

(a) determining relevance of baseline conditions for sustainability, (b) measuring deviations from baseline, (c) making trade-offs between economic, environmental and social conditions

central question

acceptability criterion

conceptual framework

challenges (a) setting economic, environmental and social goals that reflect sustainability, (b) measuring progress toward stated goals

are we headed in the right direction compared to defined goals?

to maximize economic, environmental, and social outcomes by comparing results to established goals

to minimize adverse economic, environmental, and social effects by comparing outcomes with baseline conditions

objectives-oriented conduct an objectives-led strategic environmental assessment before the activity or event has taken place

aims

baseline-oriented

conduct a project-based evaluation after the activity or event has taken place

applications

characteristics

types of integrated sustainability evaluation

Table 1. Three Ways to Conceptualize Integrated Sustainability Evaluation, adapted from Pope et al.17 comprehensive

(a) establishing a practical definition of sustainability, (b) defining meaningful criteria for sustainability, (c) devising suitable analytical methods, (d) obtaining adequate data

assumes “sustainability” is a series of social states with particular characteristics or conditions defined by sustainability criteria

activity, event, or technology is sustainable over the long-term taking account of cumulative economic, environmental, and social impacts as well as intraand intergenerational equity

is the activity, event, or technology sustainable, yes or no?

to determine which actions are sustainable and which are not using broadbased, multidimensional criteria

conduct an all-encompassing appraisal to determine whether an activity or event is or is not sustainable (defined in theory but not yet applied either exante or ex-post)

Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

1410

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4043066 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1409−1418

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Table 2. Comparison of Selected Assessment Tools According to Five Criteria for Holistic Sustainability Evaluation, adapted from Gasparatos et al.32 assessment tools criteria for holistic sustainability evaluation

cost-benefit analysis

index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW)

biophysical models

composite sustainability indices

integrateda

yes

yes

no

yes

predictiveb

yes

no

yes

yes

precautionaryc

no

no

some aspects

depends on choice of methodology

no

no


some aspects

some aspects


participatoryd

depends on monetization methodology

consideration of equity issuese

debatable

a

Integrate economic, environmental, social and institutional issues as well as consider their interdependencies. bConsider the consequences of present actions well into the future. cAcknowledge the existence of uncertainties regarding the result of present actions and act with a precautionary bias. dEngage the public. eConsider both intragenerational and intergenerational equity.

sustainable manner”.14 In 2009, President B. H. Obama issued Executive Order 13514, which encouraged “sustainable technologies” and “sustainable buildings in sustainable locations” as part of creating a “clean energy economy”, and defined “sustainability” as creating and maintaining “conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations”.15 Although development of the RA−RM paradigm and sustainability evaluation has, for the most part, proceeded along distinct and unconnected tracks, there have been scattered attempts to reconcile the two approaches,16−22 including efforts to develop new methods and processes.23−26 Nonetheless, there are few examples where combined methodologies have been used as decision-making tools in support of regulatory choices.27−30 In 2011, however, the National Research Council (NRC) published Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (known informally as the “Green Book”), which recommended that EPA “institutionalize sustainability” and adopt it as “both a process and a goal to ensure long-term human well-being”.8 The NRC proposed a conceptual framework for evaluating sustainability in the context of EPA’s mission and provided “guidance about how the EPA decision-making process rooted in the risk assessment/risk management paradigm can be integrated into this new sustainability framework...”.8 We believe the ultimate goal should be an integrated assessment that combines expertise of both sustainability and risk experts to incorporate necessary information about anticipated economic, environmental, and societal (including public health) effects into a systematic analytic-deliberative process aimed at simultaneously protecting ecological resources, safeguarding human health, and realizing sustainable outcomes. In the following discussion we survey the different tools available for sustainability evaluation and examine conceptual frameworks that could be used to combine sustainability and risk assessment into a cohesive and holistic decision-making methodology.

attempt to make society more sustainable.” The purpose of sustainability evaluation according to Ness et al.24 is “... to provide decision-makers with an evaluation of global to local integrated nature-society systems in short and long term perspectives...”. Gasparatos and his colleagues32 suggest that a consensus has emerged about the desirable attributes of sustainability assessment, which include the following: • Integrated evaluationcombined assessment of effects on environmental quality and public health, social wellbeing, economic welfare, and institutional issues as well as their interdependencies. • Predictive capacityconsideration of the future effects of present actions or inactions. • Conservative biasacknowledgment of uncertainties about future consequences of present actions and recognition of the concomitant need to proceed with caution and prudent watchfulness. • Stakeholder participationmeaningful engagement of stakeholders, including the general public. Numerous frameworks for sustainability have been proposed,34−36 and several reviews of sustainability assessment methodologies have been published.17,24,32,36−38 As noted by Pope et al.,17 there are basically two different approaches to sustainability evaluation: an integrated environmental assessment (IEA) that analyzes not only environmental effects but also social and economic impacts with the aim of minimizing “unsustainability” or attaining specific “triple-bottom-line” objectives; and an integrated sustainability assessment (ISA) that focuses on determining whether an action is demonstrably sustainable based on established criteria. The emphasis in IEAs is on reducing adverse effects on sustainability by ensuring that combined consequences from an activity or action are not unacceptably negative and will not cause greater unsustainability in the future. The central focus of ISAs, on the other hand, is on ensuring that activities and actions make positive contributions toward sustainability. There are two different kinds of ISAs that can be used to measure progress toward stated objectives:17,32 baseline-oriented evaluations, which examine net improvement in sustainability over current reference conditions, focusing on the question “are environmental, economic, and social impacts acceptable

■

TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION Sustainability evaluation has been defined by Devuyset et al.31 as “...a tool that can help decision-makers and policy-makers decide which actions they should or should not take in an 1411



1412

•non-integrated (e.g., environmental pressure indicators) -regional flow indicators (e.g., economy-wide material flow analysis, input-output energy analysis) •integrated (e.g., sustainable national income, ecological footprint, human development index)

•life cycle assessment (e.g., guidelines and principles established by the international standards organization) •life cycle costing (e.g., life cycle cost assessment, full life cycle accounting) •product material flow analysis (e.g., material intensity analysis, substance flow analysis) •product energy analysis (e.g., process energy analysis, exergy analysis)

•impact assessment (e.g., environmental impact analysis, strategic environmental assessment) •miscellaneous (e.g., conceptual modeling, risk analysis, vulnerability analysis, cost-benefit analysis)

•examples include contingent valuation, travel cost, hedonic pricing, avoided cost, replacement cost, and factor income

2. product-related assessment •either prospective and/or retrospective analysis with focus on the product-level ramifications

3. integrated assessment •prospective analysis with focus on issues related to a proposed change in policy

4. monetary valuation (cross-cutting) •used when monetary valuations are needed as part of the tools listed above

type of evaluation tool

Table 3. Framework to Categorize Sustainability Evaluation Tools, Adapted from Ness et al.24

subcategories (examples)

compared to baseline sustainability?; and objectives-oriented evaluations, which ascertain the extent to which a specific management option achieves a stipulated level of sustainability, focusing on the question “are environmental, economic, and social impacts consistent with or contributory to stated sustainability goals and objectives? A comparison, adapted from Pope et al.,17 of baseline-oriented and objectives-oriented ISAs in relation to comprehensive sustainability evaluation is provided in Table 1. A review by Gasparatos et al.32 groups current sustainability evaluation tools into three major categories: • Monetary tools, like contingent valuation methods, costbenefit analysis, and indices of sustainable economic welfare. • Biophysical models, such as emergy, exergy, and ecological footprint. • Sustainability indicators and composite indices, as for example indicators and indices that provide early warning of economic, social, or environmental damage. A summary is presented in Table 2 comparing two monetary tools (cost-benefit analysis and an index of sustainable economic welfare), biophysical models, and composite sustainability models according to whether they exhibit the desirable characteristics of sustainability assessment discussed earlier. In general, the classification and evaluation of sustainability indicators can be based on a subset of important measurement dimensions, as summarized in a series of questions posed by Singh et al.37 • What characteristic(s) of sustainability does the indicator measure? • What techniques and methods are used to construct the index (e.g., quantitative/qualitative, subjective/objective, cardinal/ordinal, unidimensional/multidimensional)? • Does the indicator look at the sustainability measure across time and space and does it use an absolute or relative scale? • Does the indicator measure sustainability in terms of input (i.e., means) or output (i.e., ends)? • Is the indicator clear and simple in content, purpose, method, comparative application, and focus? • Are necessary data available across time and space? • Is the indicator flexible enough to allow for changes in purpose, scope, and method and to facilitate comparative applications? A holistic framework for classifying sustainability assessment tools developed by Ness et al.24 is summarized in Table 3. The framework is based on the temporal (i.e., prospective versus retrospective) and objective (i.e., product-level versus policy change) focus of the tool and its integration of nature-society systems (i.e., fusion of economic, environmental, and social evaluations). Based on this schema there are three main categories of sustainability assessment tools: (1) indicators and indices, which can be subdivided into nonintegrated indicators, regional flow indicators, and integrated indicators and indices; (2) product-related tools, which include four main subcategorieslife-cycle assessment, life-cycle costing, product material flow analysis, and product energy analysis; and (3) integrated assessment tools, which include both (a) established methods for environmental analysis that can be extended to sustainability, like multicriteria analysis, risk analysis, vulnerability analysis, and cost-benefit analysis and (b) impact assessment

1. indicators and/or indices •retrospective analysis with focus on issues related to a proposed change in policy

Policy Analysis


1413

ecologic resources and human health

formal process (including risk assessment guidelines) for estimating risk; statute-specific policies for risk management

typically conducted under the auspices of a particular statute

fewer decisions are necessary because the scope is usually narrower

because the process typically occurs under the authority of a specific statute, only one program/agency is usually involved

designated risk assessors (e.g., toxicologists, epidemiologists, exposure scientists) and risk managers (e.g., politically appointed administrators and managers) within agencies

outcomes considered

procedural guidelines

statutory relationship

no. decisions needed

no. agencies involved

assessors & implementers

gradually expanding and sanctioned role in all aspects of the process; generally narrower participation because of the specificity of risk-related questions

environmental pollutants and stressors (primarily chemicals but also nonchemical stressors like the built environment and urban sprawl)

threats addressed

stakeholder involvement

what are the magnitude, probability, and uncertainty of estimated risks? which risks are unacceptable? what should be done about unacceptable risks?

key questions

risk assessment−risk management paradigm

statutory requirements; need to make regulatory decisions that are defensible in public and in court

major drivers

process attributes

generally inclusive throughout the process with broader participation because of the type of questions being addressed

no designated cadre of sustainability assessors; need multi- and interdisciplinary teams, including social scientists, physical scientists, engineers, economists, biomedical scientists, and public health specialists

because the process is likely to cut across diverse statutes, multiple programs and agencies will probably be involved

more decisions are necessary because the scope is usually broader

not required by statute, therefore, discretionary within statutory constraints

no consensus or official approach, but many different methods available (none, however, are verified or validated)

economic, social, and environmental effects, individually and jointly

economic (e.g., jobs), social (e.g., poverty), and environmental factors

which activities, substances, and technologies are unsustainable? how little harm is possible? how do we maximize economic, environmental, and social benefits simultaneously?

moral and ethical concerns about intergenerational equity; opportunities to reduce costs and increase environmental, economic, and social benefits for the current generation; concerns about ‘environmental tipping points’

sustainability evaluation

Table 4. Comparison of Key Attributes of the Risk Assessment−Risk Management Paradigm and Sustainability Evaluation in the Context of Regulatory Decision-Making, adapted from the NRC.8

Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis



Policy Analysis

which national progress can be measured, developing global level indicators of planetary sustainability, and providing individuals with indicators reflecting their own progress and providing positive incentives for further efforts.”

methods, such as environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment, and sustainability impact assessment that are integrated forecasting tools. Monetary valuation tools (e.g., contingent valuation, hedonic pricing, avoided cost, factor income) constitute a fourth, cross-cutting category that can be used when monetary valuations are needed as part of indices, product-related assessments, or integrated evaluation.24 Singh et al.37 developed a comprehensive overview of composite indices that have been used for sustainability evaluation, and identified 12 separate categories: (1) innovation, knowledge, and technology indices (e.g., Summary Innovation Index); (2) development indices (e.g., Human Development index); (3) market- and economy-based indices (e.g., Composite Leading Indicators); (4) ecosystem-based indices (e.g., Sustainability Performance Index); (5) composite sustainability performance indicators for industries (e.g., Composite Sustainable Development Index); (6) investment, ratings, and asset management indices (e.g., Dow Jones Sustainability Group Indices); (7) Product-Based Indices (e.g., Life Cycle index); (8) sustainability indices for cities (e.g., Urban Sustainability index); (9) environmental indices for policies, nations, and regions (e.g., Environmental Sustainability Index); (10) environmental indices for cities (e.g., EcoIndicator 99); (11) energy-based indices (e.g., Sustainability Assessment Tool for Energy System); and (12) social and quality of life indices (e.g., Physical Quality of Life Index). A number of problems have been identified with current indices, including (a) the fact that normalization and weighting of indicators tend to be arbitrary; (b) there is often insufficient discussion of critical assumptions; (c) indices are largely subjective despite the relative objectivity of the methods used; (d) they often combine measures of ends and means and can involve relatively complex procedures; and (e) they can be misleading if poorly constructed and/or misinterpreted.37 Singh et al.37 remind us that “sustainability is more than an aggregation of the important issues, it is also about their interlinkages and the dynamics developed in a system”. This overriding complexity is reflected in the arguments by Gasparatos et al.36 that using a single metric, such as a composite index, biophysical model, or monetary evaluation tool to assess sustainability is not justified because of methodological imperfections and limitations. They observe that individual metrics fail to address the requisite complex set of varied issues over different time and spatial scales, lack necessary involvement of diverse perspectives and areas of expertise, and do not account for the fact that economies, ecosystems, and societies are complex and adaptive systems. According to Gasparatos et al.,36 “Failure to describe these systems in a holistic manner through the synthesis of their different non-reducible and perfectly legitimate perspectives amounts to reductionism”. They contend that no single methodology or metric currently provides a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability, and that use of an assortment of complementary approaches and measures is the most promising way to make sustainability assessments more compete and robust.36 In summary, there are currently viable tools for measuring some elements of sustainability at defined geospatial scales, but virtually all are limited to appraising unsustainable trends that are subject to management actions. Consequently, they neither define nor ensure sustainability. As stated by Dahl,38 “The challenges ahead include finding indicators of change in dynamic systems, establishing sustainability targets towards

■

INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT Within the domain of sustainability evaluation and in the context of related analytical tools, conventional quantitative risk assessment is typically categorized as a diagnostic instrument for evaluating environmental impacts. It is regarded as a useful, if limited technique for estimating the effect of hazardous activities, substances, and technologies on environmental quality and human health as input into risk management decisions about which risks are unacceptable and what, if anything, to do about them. Because the RA−RM paradigm is tied closely to regulatory decision-making, it usually focuses narrowly on hazards covered by statutory mandates, and emphasizes adverse effects on human health and ecologic resources, with secondary priority given to social welfare effects.1−8 Sustainability assessment, in contrast, is not necessarily tied to statutory requirements and is a much broader effort encompassing evaluation of economic, social, and environmental sustainability for the purpose of maximizing benefits across all three dimensions.9,16,17 Some of the key differences between the RA−RM paradigm and sustainability evaluation are summarized in Table 4.8 The RA−RM paradigm was established in 1983 by a groundbreaking report from the NRC, titled Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process,1 also known as the “Red Book”. Its origins can be traced to the important regulatory issues of the 1970s and early 1980s, which focused mainly on carcinogenic chemical pollutants in air and water from heavy industry. The paradigm and its implementation were influenced strongly in the beginning by the prevailing environmental protection ethos of that timenational command-and-control strategies, technology-based regulations, chemical-by-chemical pollution control and end-of-pipe solutions. However, it soon became clear that the nature and scope of the RA−RM paradigm needed to be modified as newer, more complicated and expensive-to-solve problems were identified, advancements in scientific knowledge improved understanding about causal linkages between exposures and effects, and enhanced analytical methods provided more and better risk-related data.3,8,39 The evolution of the paradigm since publication of the NRC’s 1983 Red Book can be traced through a series of public sector reports that offer critiques and recommend modifications (most of which have been adopted in one form or another). • 1983, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process by NRC.1 • 1994, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment by NRC.2 • 1996, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society by NRC.6 • 1997, Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management by PCCRARM.7 • 2008, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making by NRC.5 • 2009, Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment by NRC.3 • 2011, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA by NRC8. 1414



Policy Analysis

Table 5. Comparison of Four Ways to Combine Risk and Sustainability Assessments in Regulatory Decision-Making brief description

references

1. independent assessments of risk and sustainability

relations between assessments

risk and sustainability are treated as separate analytic domains, and are evaluated separately with results from both used in making decisions

represents the status quo, with risk analyzed independently and sustainability, if it is analyzed at all, done separately8

2. sustainability is incorporated into the risk assessment−risk management paradigm

risk is the overarching conceptual construct and sustainability is evaluated within this context

relatively few, case-specific examples16,20,27,29,30,46

3. risk is incorporated into the sustainability paradigm

sustainability is the overarching conceptual construct and risk is assessed and managed with this context

numerous examples8,17,19,24,32,37,47−49

4. integrated analysis of risk and sustainability

risk and sustainability are merged into a single analytic domain and appraised using an integrated diagnostic approach that produces a distinct, amalgamated result

represents a theoretical ideal, where both risk and sustainability are assessed in one seamless, unified procedure45

defining the relative roles of both approaches is a good starting point for answering this question. As summarized in Table 5, there are fundamentally four ways to reconceptualize the roles of the RA−RM paradigm and sustainability evaluation in the context of regulatory decisionmaking.45 First, risk and sustainability can be thought of as independent but complementary and overlapping analytic domains, wherein risk and sustainability assessment are conducted separately and results of both are used in making decisions. Second, risk can be viewed as the overarching conceptual construct within which sustainability is evaluated, which implies treating sustainability evaluation as a subsidiary feature of the RA−RM paradigm. Third, sustainability can be considered the overarching conceptual construct, wherein the RA−RM paradigm is incorporated as a subsidiary feature of sustainability evaluation. And fourth, sustainability and risk could be merged into a single hybrid, analytical domain that does not subordinate one to the other, and that entails an integrated diagnostic approach producing a distinct, amalgamated result.45 Independent risk assessments are routinely conducted to organize and analyze scientific information related to regulatory-relevant effects on the environment and public health. Economic and social factors are considered separately (and usually informally) as part of the subsequent risk management phase. Structured sustainability evaluations are rarely, if ever, conducted in the context of risk management decisions for regulatory purposes, and historically have not been coordinated with or connected to relevant risk assessments. For option 1 (independent analyses of risk and of sustainability) to be both practical and beneficial, it will ultimately be necessary to coordinate assessments of risk and sustainability so that results are complementary and congruent. This will require a mechanism to integrate the results of these independent analyses (such as the principles of sustainability), an all-encompassing evaluation strategy, a harmonized analysis plan, and coherent arrangements for communicating results to decision makers and stakeholders in a timely and understandable way. To our knowledge, this has not yet been accomplished, or even attempted. Option 2 (incorporating sustainability into the RA−RM paradigm) would involve defining the key issues in terms of risk, framing critical questions in terms like “risk, vulnerability to risk, and risk prevention or reduction”, and obtaining concurrence from all relevant risk takers, risk bearers, and risk regulators. The RA−RM paradigm would have to expand to include multidimensional, holistic assessments that explicitly

From these reports it is possible to discern four major trends in the evolution of the RA−RM paradigm over the past three decades. First, there is general agreement that it is important at the outset of the process to develop and formalize a shared understanding of the context, formulation, and scope of the problem being addressed, including concurrence among participants regarding a suitable risk assessment approach.3,8 Second, the need for meaningful involvement of stakeholders, including members of affected communities, in all aspects of the process is now widely accepted as an intrinsic part of assessing and managing risk.5,7 Third, there is formal recognition of the fact that socioeconomically and politically disadvantaged communities, many of whom are ethnic and racial minorities, are likely to be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of pollution because they are both more exposed and more susceptible than the general population.3,39−41 And fourth, a growing consensus has emerged among experts and the public that the domain of risk assessment−management must expand beyond a narrow focus on individual chemicals from single sources or source categories to encompass a broader perspective that includes analysis of combined effects from exposures to multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors released by a diverse array of sources.3,39,41−44 The aggregate impact of these trends has been to make the RA−RM management paradigm more comprehensive and participatory,3,5,7 and to expand the scope of analysis to include (a) both intrinsic (e.g., genetics, gender, age) and acquired (e.g., quality of life and lifestyle attributes) susceptibility factors,3,39 (b) both chemical (e.g., benzene, ozone) and nonchemical (e.g., psychosocial stress) stressors,3,39,44 (c) social welfare effects (e.g., influence of odors and anxiety about pollution on quality of life), as well as (d) effects on human health and ecosystems.3,8,39 At the same time, the importance of appraising environmental, economic, and social impacts of human activities has become widely accepted, and the practicality of sustainability evaluation has been enhanced by development of advanced tools to deal with complex, crosscutting issues.17−24 Given the confluence of these two developments, the key question becomes: How should the U.S. EPA and other government entities merge the RA−RM paradigm with sustainability evaluation to ensure holistic decision-making that is workable within data limitations, prudent in terms of balancing environmental, economic, and social values, and timely in the sense of providing answers to critical questions within a reasonable period? A survey of the conceptual approaches and theoretical frameworks available for 1415



Policy Analysis

The fourth option (integrated analysis of risk and sustainability) represents a theoretical model for what might someday be possible if obstacles such as data deficiencies, lack of mechanistic understanding, and a shortage of methods for cumulative effects assessment can be overcome. Ideally, assessment of risk and sustainability would be merged into one analytic domain and evaluated using an integrated diagnostic approach that produces a distinct, amalgamated result. The ultimate goal (some would say “holy grail”) is to be able to evaluate both risk and sustainability in one seamless, unified procedure.45

involve evaluation of environmental, economic, and social end points, along with equity-related issues.46 To date, risk assessment has been used as a tool to evaluate sustainability issues primarily in the context of specific, well-defined problems; including, sustainable development in the Australian coal industry,29 sustainability of Beluga whale harvesting,27 sustainable urban water systems,30 and sustainability of urban centers.20 In contrast to conventional sustainability appraisal where the focus is on assessing both negative and positive impacts, the emphasis from a risk standpoint tends to be on avoiding negative outcomes (e.g., baseline-oriented) or determining whether minimum threshold values for sustainability have been met (e.g., objectives-oriented). The most intuitively appealing approach is probably option 3 (incorporating the RA−RM paradigm into sustainability assessment) because sustainability is such a broad concept that it seems natural to fold-in the historically much narrower RA−RM paradigm as a mechanism to measure environmental effects, and rely on other analytic tools to appraise social, economic, and equity-related factors.8,17,24,32,37 To be successfully implemented in a regulatory setting, this approach would again require consensus among risk takers, risk bearers, and risk regulators. There are numerous examples wherein risk assessment is described and/or used as a specific instrument for measuring environmental impacts as part of a more comprehensive sustainability evaluation framework, including estimation of energy production from biomass,49 analysis of energy development projects,48 and evaluation of consumer electronic products.47 Recently, the NRC8 advocated using the concept of sustainability both as a goal and a process in regulatory decision-making, and recommended that EPA adopt a comprehensive decision-making framework to evaluate sustainability, and develop suitable tools to further this overarching goal. In the NRC’s schema, the RA−RM paradigm is embedded in an overall framework for making decisions about sustainability. According to the NRC, the “sustainability assessment and management” step in the proposed sustainability decision framework “can be viewed as representing the risk paradigm expanded and adapted to address sustainability goals”.8 In the NRC’s view, the “problem formulation and scoping” (Phase I) of the RA−RM paradigm would embody consideration of options for improvements in economic, environmental, and social attributes, along with evaluation of options to minimize human health risk. The “planning and conducting” step (Phase II) of the RA−RM paradigm would involve not just conventional risk analysis, but also assessment of critical economic, environmental, and social characteristics of identified control options in order to create a sustainability comparison. And risk management (Phase III) would entail consideration of relevant social norms and values, ethical and moral issues, economic costs and benefits, legal constraints, political realities, and technical and scientific information necessary to select a sustainable course of action, instead of focusing exclusively on how to minimize risks to human health and environmental quality as is presently the case with the conventional RA−RM paradigm. From the NRC’s perspective,8 the RA−RM paradigm is part of a toolbox for sustainability appraisal, with includes other methods, such as life-cycle assessment, benefit-cost analysis, ecosystem services valuation, integrated assessment models, sustainability impact assessment, environmental justice analysis, and present/future scenario development.

■

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS The terms “risk” and “sustainability” are unavoidably ambiguous and amenable to interpretation, so it is not surprising that debates about definitions and interpretations are ongoing.16,17,32−38,50−52 Nor is it unexpected that attempts to assess risk and sustainability can quickly turn into ideological and political arguments over what kind of society we want to live in and how best to make progress toward laudable goals.14−16,36,51,52 But discord among stakeholders can obscure the fact that conceptualizations of risk and sustainability are intimately connected, and that one cannot be understood without the other.52 Smith52 identifies four important areas of commonality between risk and sustainability. • Sustainability is concerned with the future and decisions about the future, which necessarily involves uncertainty and concomitant risk. • Risk management and sustainability share mutual relevance as practical alternatives for dealing with the same kinds of problems. • Lay people tend to evaluate risk in a more holistic manner than expert risk assessors by informally and intuitively taking account of social, economic, and environmental impacts of decisions. • Both conceptualizations are subject to the effects of risk perception and social amplification. Mounting evidence suggests that the future of humanity may depend on our collective willingness and capacity to correctly appraise both risk and sustainability in a judicious manner. The reality, however, is that sustainability evaluation is at an adolescent stage of development,48 risk assessment−risk management is approaching middle-age,3 and joint assessment of risk and sustainability is still in its infancy.8 To move forward, it is necessary that we make an explicit choice about whether to (a) keep risk and sustainability assessments separate and then combine results in the final decision-making process, (b) incorporate sustainability into the RA−RM paradigm, (c) incorporate the RA−RM paradigm into sustainability evaluation, or (d) merge assessment of sustainability and risk into one integrated analytical procedure. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that this choice has ramifications for both the process and the product of regulatory decision-making. On the positive side, we find that different definitions of sustainability are more or less adaptable to the RA−RM paradigm and can interact with risk-based approaches in distinctive ways.45 Similarly, different structuring of the RA− RM paradigm can make it more or less compatible with sustainability evaluation. As cumulative notions of risk become more prominent, the kinds of data necessary to complete an inclusive risk assessment begin to overlap with the data needed for a sustainability assessment. Ultimately, as data needs 1416



Policy Analysis

(16) Methta, M. D. Risk assessment and sustainable development: Towards a concept of sustainable risk. Univ. N. H. Law J. circa 1996, 8, http://law.unh.edu/risk/vol8/spring/mehta.htm (accessed on September 15, 2012). (17) Pope, J.; Annadale, D.; Morrison-Saunders, A. Conceptualizing sustainability assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 595− 616. (18) Briggs, D. J. A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systematic risks. Environ. Health 2008, 7, 61−65. (19) Wennersten, R.; Fidler, J. Methods for Risk Assessment within the Framework of Sustainable Development; Department of Industrial Ecology: Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. (20) Carreno, M. L.; Cardona, O. D.; Suarez, D. C.; Barbat, A. H. Holistic Evaluation of Risk in the Framework of the Urban Sustainability; II Congreso Internacional de Medida y Modelizacion de la Sostenibilidad (ICSMM09): CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain, 2009; http://upcommons.upc.edu/e-prints/bitstream/2117/8568/1/p39. pdf (accessed on September 13 2012). (21) Anastas, P. T. Memorandum: The Path Forward; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research & Development: Washington, DC, March 4, 2010. (22) Missimer, M.; Robert, K. H.; Broman, G.; Sverdrup, H. Exploring the possibility of a systematic and generic approach to social sustainability. J Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1107−1112. (23) Senner R. G. B., Colonell, J. M., Isaacs, J. K., Davis, S. K., Ban, S. M., Bowers, J. P., Erikson, D. E. A systematic but not-too-complicated approach to cumulative effects assessment, Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, The Hague, June 2002. (24) Ness, B.; Urbel-Piirsalu, E.; Anderberg, S.; Olsson, L. Categorizing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econom. 2007, 60, 498−508. (25) Senner, R. Assessing the Sustainability of Project Alternatives: An Increasing Role for Cumulative Effects Assessment; IAIA: Calgary, Canada, November 2008. (26) Finkle, A. M. Solutions-focused risk assessment: A proposal for the fusion of environmental analysis and action. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2011, 17, 788−812. (27) Alvarez-Flores, C. M.; Heide-Jorgensen, M. P. A risk assessment of the sustainability of the harvest of Beluga in West Greenland. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2004, 61, 274−286. (28) Hirschberg, S.; Dones, R.; Heck, T.; Burgherr, P.; Schenler, W.; Bauer, C. Sustainability of Electricity Supply Technologies under German Conditions: A Comparative Evaluation; Paul Scherrer Institute: PSI Bericht Nr. 04-15, Switzerland, 2004. (29) Evans, R.; Brereton, D. Risk assessment as a tool to explore sustainable development issues: Lessons from the Australian coal industry. Int. J. Risk Assess. Risk Manage. 2007, 7 (5), 607−619. (30) Vairavamoorthy, K.; Khatri, K. B. Risk Assessment for Sustainable Urban Water Management; USESCO-IHP, 2007. http://www. delfcluster.nl/website/files/Risk_Assessment_for_Sustainable_ Urban_Water_Management.pdf (accessed on May 24, 2012). (31) Devuyst, D.; Hens, L.; Lannoy, W. D. How Green is the City? Sustainable Assessment and the Management of Urban Environments; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, 2001. (32) Gasparatos, A.; El-Haram, M.; Horner, M. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environ. Impact 2008, 28, 286−311. (33) Graedel, T. E.; Klee, R. J. Getting serious about sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36 (4), 523−529. (34) Marshall, J. D.; Toffel, M. W. Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (3), 673−682. (35) Jabareen, Y. A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2008, 10 (2), 179−192. (36) Gasparatos, A.; El-Haram, M.; Horner, M. The argument against a reductionist approach for measuring sustainable development performance and the need for methodological pluralism. Accounting Forum 2009, 33, 245−256.

converge, the analytical features that separate the assessments can be expected to share more procedures in common, and existing barriers to integration will become progressively smaller. In the meantime, we suggest a careful weighing of the choices delineated in Table 5 with a bias in favor of holistic assessments aimed at achieving acceptable risks in the context of a sustainable future.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Phone: +1-956-882-5164; fax: +1-956-882-5152; e-mail: ken. [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Partial funding was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under a contract to The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent Agency views or policy.

■

REFERENCES

(1) National Research Council (NRC). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process; National Academy Press; Washington, DC, 1983. (2) National Research Council (NRC). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1994. (3) National Research Council (NRC). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009. (4) National Research Council (NRC). Improving Risk Communication; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1989. (5) National Research Council (NRC). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008. (6) National Research Council (NRC). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1996. (7) Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (PCCRARM). Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management, Volumes I and II; PCCRARM: Washington, DC, 1997. (8) National Research Council (NRC). Sustainability and the U.S. EPA; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2011. (9) United Nations (UN) World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford: University Press, UK, 1987. (10) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Agenda 21; UNCED: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992. (11) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992. (12) United Nations (UN). Johannesburg Plan of Implementation; World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002. (13) United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). Earth Summit 2012: Objectives and Themes; UNCSD: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011. (14) Bush, G. W. (Presidential Executive Order 13423). Strengthening the federal environmental, energy, and transportation management. Fed. Reg. 2007, 72 (17), 3919−3923 Janusry 26. (15) Obama, B. H. (Presidential Executive Order 13514). Federal leadership in environmental, energy, and economic performance. Fed. Reg. 2009, 74 (194), 52117−52127 October 8. 1417



Policy Analysis

(37) Singh, R. K.; Murty, H. R.; Gupta, S. K.; Dikshit, A. K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indicators 2009, 9, 189−212. (38) Dahl, J. C. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecol. Indicators 2012, 17, 14−19. (39) Callahan, M. A.; Sexton, K. If cumulative risk assessment is the answer, what is the question? Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (5), 799−806. (40) Institute of Medicine (IOM). Toward Environmental Justice: Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999. (41) Sexton, K.; Linder, S. H. The role of cumulative risk assessment in decisions about environmental justice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7 (11), 4037−4049. (42) Linder, S. H.; Sexton, K. Conceptual models for cumulative risk assessment. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101 (suppl 1), S74−S81. (43) Sexton, K.; Linder, S. H. Cumulative risk assessment for combined health effects from chemical and nonchemical stressors. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101 (suppl 1), S81−S88. (44) Sexton, K. Cumulative risk assessment: An overview of methodological approaches for evaluating combined health effects from exposure to multiple environmental stressors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9 (2), 370−390. (45) Linder. S. H.; Sexton, K. Integrating risk and sustainability assessments. Toxics 2014 accepted. (46) Turner, L. R.; Alderman, K.; Connell, D.; Tong, S. Motivators and barriers to incorporating climate change-related health risks in environmental health impact assessment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 1139−1151. (47) de Silva, N.; Jawahir, I. S.; Dillion, O.; Russell, M. A new comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of product sustainability at the design and development stage of consumer electronic products. Proceedings of LCE2006. http://www.mech.kuleuven.be/ Ice2006/083.pdf (accessed May 24, 2012). (48) Frame, B.; Cavanagh, J. Experiences of sustainability assessment: An awkward adolescence. Account. Forum 2009, 33, 195−208. (49) Buytaert, V.; Muys, B.; Devreindt, N.; Pelkmans, L.; Kretzschmar, J. G.; Samson, R. Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: A state of the art evaluation of assessment tools. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3918− 3933. (50) Munda, G. Measuring sustainability”: A multi-criterion framework. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2005, 7, 117−134. (51) Soderbaum, P. Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in sustainable assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 613−626. (52) Smith, D. Understanding Risk and Sustainability − The Future for Risk Managers? http://riskmatters.com.au/doc/ Understandingriskandsustainability.pdf (accessed May 23, 2012).

1418


Integrated Assessment of Risk and Sustainability in ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents