UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
October 21,1992
EPA-SAB-RSAC-LTR-93-001 OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable William K. Reilly SCMENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Subject: Research Strategies Advisory Committee Review of
the EPA draft "Stimulating Environmental Progress;
A Social Science Research Agenda"
Dear Mr, Reilly:
A panel of the Research Strategies Advisory Committee (RSAC) of EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB) met on January 22,1992, to review the EPA draft
document "Stimulating Environmental Progress: A Social Science Research Strategy"
in Alexandria, Virginia. The panel, which was composed of members from a wide
variety of disciplines, was gratified to see that EPA is taking this first step to integrate
social sciences into environmental decision-making and encourages the Agency in its
efforts.
In examining the proposals contained within the draft document, the panel
focused on determining: 1) whether the Agency used the appropriate criteria for
identifying and applying its priorities; 2) whether a proper balance was struck between
short term and continuing efforts; 3) how such activities are integrated into broader
activities within and outside of the Agency; and, 4) the responsiveness of the plan to
recommendations of the SAB "Future Risk" report. The following summaries provide
our responses to each of these charges:
1) Has the Agency used the appropriate criteria for identifying and
applying its priorities?
The Committee feels that the document provides a useful
framework for considering social science issues in environmental
protection. However, it is the general feeling of the members that
categorizing issues by specific environmental problem (e.g. indoor
air, hazardous waste, etc.) is of limited utility for prioritization,
serving only to mimic the organizational structure of the Agency.
instead, we recommend that the Agency approach prioritization
by concentrating on cross-cutting environmental issues (e.g.
pollution prevention, economic incentives of pollution control, etc.).
This would afford planners and decision makers the opportunity to
relate social science issues to generic environmental problems
Printed (HI piptt ilai eortaka
« X>«i ?5*. ncydad Bxx
-------
and related decisions, and to determine the overall direction of
necessary long term components of the program. This could
enhance the ability of social sciences strategists to affect
the psychology of the Agency which controls utilization
of social science tools by identifying a broad issue and
demonstrating the potential impact of social sciences
activities.
2} Has a proper balance_b_een struck between short and long term
efforts?
The Committee is unable to discern the relationship between
the short and long term research proposed within the document. It
was estimated that approximately $2 million are currently devoted
to "ad-hoc" social science activities. If this is indeed the case, most
efforts would be problem specific and of shorter term in duration.
In order to effectively balance the Agency's overall needs, the
panel recommends that the strategy give increased attention to
longer term efforts (with probable results/products within 2 to 5
years) and through a core effort established with an initial base of
at least $5 million.
3) How., are .such activities integrated into broader activities within
.of .the Agency?
It is unclear to the panel how the Issues proposed in the strategy
relate to broader social science concerns (both within the United
States and abroad). This situation reflects a lack of formal tracking
of social sciences research activities which has contributed to
unsuccessful efforts to date by other groups attempting to identify
annual levels of effort for Federally funded social science research
projects.
To address tntra-Ageney integration, we also recommend that the
Agency begin identifying social sciences efforts as discrete items
in planning and budgeting exercises in order to enhance
identification and coordination of such activities.
The document should also separate items which are potential
EPA funding items from those more appropriately funded by NSF.
-2-
-------
4) Is the responsive to recommendationsof the SAB "Future Risk*
report?
The Committee is pleased to note that the draft document cites a
number of SAB reports which influenced its initiation and
development and that the document is itself a major Agency
response to the recommendation for social sciences research
"Future Risk".
In addition, Committee members noted several additional issues concerning the
document. These comments, along with specific line-by-line recommendations have
been forwarded to the program office along with more recent comments provided by
Executive Committee members;
a) A clearer focus is needed on the purpose of social science
research in EPA ~ Why do we need information on individual
and institutional decision-making? How will we use it? How can
changes in social behavior be maintained?
b) The authors should attempt to more tightly focus the baseline for
environmental action. Whom do we target for social science
research? Which segments of society? What population groups?
c) Possible applications for such efforts should be more clearly
defined, (e.g. methodologies for risk and policy managers which
would enable them to develop action strategies and predict
outcomes; curriculum for schools, public administration
programs, and environmental studies; products for use by
community leaders, and directors of institutions or facilities).
d) The document is positive in tone and prospective in
viewpoint. While this type of format is appropriate for
defining research options and establishing priority setting
schemes, a retrospective look at both successful and
unsuccessful historical efforts would also be helpful
(e.g., examination of Agency experiences with asbestos,
radon and emissions trading).
e) The Committee suggests that additional attention be paid to
defining the terms "basic social science research", "applied
research" and "assessment and measurement". Additionally,
the search for alternative prioritizing schemes should not be
abandoned.
-------
The document should address how different elements
of society influence attitudes towards environmental issues.
For example, how are attitudes shaped by media, religion,
education, entertainment, business, government?
g) The Agency should somehow address the impact/influence
of litigation/liability for polluting. How do these liability issues
affect environmentally-related decisions?
In conclusion, the Committee again applauds the Agency's efforts in responding
to Future Risk in this area. We also strongly support an expansion of these activities
and encourage the identification of a lead office for social sciences activities and
establishment of a coordinating council for social science research. We also
recommend the research efforts be integrated with other environmental research and
reiterate our recommendation to establish an combined initial $5 million base level of
effort - essential for attracting talented researchers -for longer term social science
efforts identified as discrete items within Agency planning and budgeting exercises.
Again, we are pleased to have had the opportunity to comment on this strategy
and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
1 >v(
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Chair
Science Advisory Board
Mr. Alvin Aim, Chair
Research Strategies Advisory Committee
Attachments
-------
Distribution List
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
EPA Regional Administrators
EPA Laboratory Directors
ORD Office Directors
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
Frederic Allen -
James Cole
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the
Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency, The Board is
structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to
problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the
Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the
Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
RESEARCH STRATEGIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Social Sciences Research Strategies Panel
CHAIRMAN
Mr, Alvin Aim, Vice President
Science Applications International Corporation
8400 West Park Drive
McLean, VA 22102
MEMBERS
Dr. Stanley Auerbach
Director, Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-B035
Mr. Richard A. Conway
Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 8361
South Charleston, WV 25303
Dr. John D. Spengfer
Department of Environmental Health
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Avenue, Building 1-1305
Boston, MA 02115
Or, Paul Deister
Shell Oil Company (Retired)
11215 Wilding Lane
Houston, TX 77024-5308
-------
-2-
Dr, Morton Lippmann
Professor of Environmental Medicine
Institute of Environmental Medicine
New York University Medical Center
Long Meadow Road
Tuxedo, NY 10987
LIAISON FROM OTHER SAB COMMITTEES
Dr. Allen Knesse
Research for the Future
1616PSt.,N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
CONSULTANTS
Dr. Paul Portney
Research for the Future
1616PSt.,N.W
Washington, D.C, 20036
Or, Fred Hansen
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 South West 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1334
"Unable to attend
------- |