EPA/600/R/12/687 | October 2012 | www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
A Framework for Sustainability
Indicators at EPA
Office of Research and Development
.National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology Division
-------
A Framework for Sustainability
Indicators at EPA
Authors
Joseph Fiksel
Tarsha Eason
Herbert Frederickson
Edited by
Tarsha Eason
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Foreword
Science provides the foundation for credible decision-making. Only through adequate
knowledge about the risks to human health and ecosystems, and innovative solutions to
prevent pollution and reduce risk, can we continue to enjoy a high quality life. With a
better understanding of environmental risks to people and ecosystems, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency can target the hazards that pose the greatest risks
and anticipate environmental problems before they reach a critical level.
EPA balances its scientific research activities across the two broad categories of
problem-driven research (to solve current environmental problems of high risk and high
scientific uncertainty) and core research (to improve the underlying scientific foundation
for understanding and protecting human health and the environment). These two
aspects of EPA's research program at times overlap, and can be mutually reinforcing-
work on a particular problem can lead to a fundamental breakthrough, and discoveries
made while conducting core research can solve a particular environmental problem.
EPA needs both types of research, and the synergy between them enhances EPA's
overall research program.
This publication has been produced as part of the Office of Research and
Development's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made available by
EPA to assist the user community and to link researcher s with their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
The development of this report is the result of a collaborative effort that could not have
been accomplished without the input and commitment of many people. We thank the
following individuals for their contributions to this work:
ORD Sustainabilitv Indicator Workgroup
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Subhas Sikdar, Herbert Frederickson, Joseph Fiksel (Ohio State), Patricia Erickson, Annette
Gatchett and Tarsha Eason
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Denise Shaw, Kevin Summers, Michael Slimak, Pat Murphy, Madalene Stevens and Becki
Clark
Office of Resources Management and Administration
Mya Sjogren
SHC 1.2.2.1 Inventory of Sustainabilitv Indicators Task Members
Tarsha Eason, Lead
Alejandra Gonzalez-Mejia (ORISE Post doctoral Associate)
Linda Harwell (Web-tool Development)
In addition, we thank the following researchers from NRMRL for their critical review and
insightful comments
Mary Ann Curran
Ahjond Garmestani
Troy Hawkins
Matthew Hopton
Wesley Ingwersen
Sheryl Mebane
Gerardo Ruiz-Mercado
Raymond Smith
Leisha Vance
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Purpose 1
1.2. The Role of Sustainability Indicators at EPA 2
1.3. Origin of this Document 4
2. Conceptual Foundations 4
2.1. Definitions of Sustainability 4
2.2. Sustainability Indicator Frameworks 6
3. Classification of Sustainability Indicators 8
3.1 Three "Pillars" of Sustainability 8
3.2 Report on the Environment Topics 9
3.3. ORD National Programs 9
3.4. System-Based Indicators 9
4. Global Inventory of Sustainability Indicators 12
4.1. Motivation 12
4.2 Survey Results and Database Development 13
4.3. Searching, Sorting and Filtering in the Database 14
4.4. Future work 16
5. Selecting Sustainability Indicators 18
5.1. Indicators for National Reporting 18
5.2. Indicators for Focused Investigation 20
5.3. Integrated Indicator: Index 22
6. Implementing the Use of Sustainability Indicators 23
7. Conclusions 26
Acronyms 27
Literature Cited 28
Appendix A 31
Appendix B 35
IV
-------
Figures and Tables
Figure 1 - Agency-wide process for implementing sustainability at EPA 3
Figure 2 - The three dimensions (pillars) of sustainability (modified from Beach (2010)) to show the
selection of 1-D, 2-D and 3-D indicators proposed by Sikdar (2003) 7
Figure 3 - Systems taxonomy for resource flow indicators, with examples (in yellow) of specific metrics
for material intensity, recovery, and impact 10
Figure 4 - Basic Steps for Filtering the Database 15
Figure 5 - Sample Custom Filter Search: Regional environmental indicators related to SSWR 16
Figure 6 -Typical categories of sustainability indicators 20
Figure 7 -The Sustainability Assessment and Management Process 23
Figure 8-Selected Key indicators for Mitigation of Nutrient Impairment 25
Table 1 - Major Categories of System-Based Indicators 11
Table 2 - Taxonomy for Sustainability Indicators: Classification Schemes 12
Table 3 - Examples of Sustainability Indicators Used Worldwide 22
Table A. 1-Sample of DOSII 32
Table A. 2 - Sample of the Resource List for DOSII 33
Table A. 3 -Distribution of DOSII within the Classification Schemes 34
-------
A Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide useful methods and guidance to support the application of
sustainability indicators in EPA decision making, and particularly within the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) research programs. The primary target audience is EPA researchers, as well as
Program and Regional Office staff, that have a need for measurement of progress in some aspect of
sustainability. However, it is anticipated that external organizations will find this information useful, as
well.
When choosing goals and indicators, it is important to consider the intended use of the indicators and
how they will be received and interpreted. There are at least four different "lenses" or perspectives that
may be considered in EPA's use of indicators.
1. Public Reporting. The EPA Report on the Environment (ROE) is an example of an informational
document that describes the current state of the environment and observed trends in the US
(USEPA, 2008). It is not related to any particular decision, but serves to characterize overall
environmental conditions. The relevant sustainability indicators should similarly be broad
measures that relate to economic, environmental, and social conditions, mainly at a national
scale. Potential indicators for the ROE are discussed in Section 5.1.
2. Decision Making. In the context of specific environmental problems or agency programs, EPA
will need to make decisions about alternative actions that are possible. These actions could
range from statutory enforcement to voluntary collaboration or communication. As discussed
below, a recent report by the National Resources Council (NRC) of the National Academies (NRC,
2011) provides a detailed blueprint for how EPA can incorporate sustainability considerations
into such decisions. In this case, decision makers should select primary sustainability indicators
that will be used to track specific outcomes of the decision and will be meaningful to the
concerned stakeholders. Guidelines for selection of such indicators are presented in Section 5.2.
3. Research Planning. For ORD's purposes, priorities need to be established across a number of
broad research domains, driven by the needs of EPA Program and Regional offices. The primary
indicators used for agency decision making will provide a basis for identification of additional
indicators to be incorporated into research projects that investigate the causal relationships
among environmental, economic, and social conditions. Thus, the additional sustainability
indicators adopted by ORD will typically correspond either to underlying drivers or to
unintended consequences of changes in the primary sustainability indicators. Selection of
indicators for such investigation is further discussed in Section 6.
-------
4. Program Evaluation. For purposes of analyzing the productivity and effectiveness of ORD
programs, it is necessary to use program evaluation indicators that measure the outputs and
direct outcomes of research activities relative to the time and funds invested. For example, an
output indicator is the number of research publications and a direct outcome indicator is the
number of citations. However, program evaluation is outside the scope of this document. The
primary indicators addressed in this document are measures of ultimate outcomes that are
meaningful to stakeholders, such as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to adoption of
energy conservation practices. While there is a presumed link between research outcomes and
ultimate outcomes, attribution can often be difficult.
Having a uniform, consistent framework of sustainability indicators will facilitate communication among
ORD and the Regional and Program Offices, and will enable integration across the six major ORD
programs focused on air, water, energy, products, communities, human health risks, and national
security. Effective choice of indicators will assure that the benefits of sustainable solutions can be
identified and validated and will enable an adaptive management process that responds to changing
conditions.
1.2. The Role of Sustainability Indicators at EPA
The recently published NRC report, known as the "Green Book", provides a framework for
implementing sustainability at EPA (see Figure 1) (NRC, 2011). An important component of this
framework is the establishment of sustainability objectives, goals, indicators, and metrics as a basis for
evaluating and reporting of the agency's progress. NRC recommends that EPA set breakthrough 3 to 5-
year sustainability objectives based on an overarching vision for the agency and suggests establishing
measurable short-term goals using appropriate indicators to measure progress toward these objectives.
Moreover, it defines the following concepts relevant to performance measurement:
• Goal—what is specifically sought to be achieved. Progress toward a goal is determined through
the use of measurable indicators. An example of a goal is: Reduce mercury emissions from
electric utility steam generating units.
• Indicator—a summary measure that provides information on the state of, or change in, the
system that is being measured. An example of an indicator for the above goal is: Mass of
mercury emitted per unit of energy delivered.
• Metric -the measured value(s) used to assess specific indicators. It defines the units and how
the indicator is being measured. An example of a metric for the above indicator is: Grams of
mercury per kilowatt-hour.
-------
Level 1
Sustain ability Paradigm
EPA
SustainabMKy
Principles
Legal Mandates
EPA
Sustainability
Vision
->
EPA Objectives.
Goals, Indicators
and Metrics
•*
Organization
and Culture
-
Sustalnablllty
Assessment &
Management
-»
Periodic
Evaluation
&
Public Reporting
Level 2
Figure 1 - Agency-wide process for implementing sustainability at EPA
The report also provides guidelines for the Level 2 Sustainability Assessment and Management process,
in which indicators and corresponding metrics play a key role in problem definition, trade-off analysis,
and tracking the outcomes of Agency decisions. Once indicators and metrics are chosen, it is necessary
to define the methods that will be used for data collection and interpretation to calculate the value of
the metric. These methods should be transparent and well documented in order to enable verification
and replication over time. As discussed in Section 5, to apply this process to the investigation of specific
decisions or problems there will be a need to identify indicators at an appropriate spatial and temporal
scale to match the scope of the application. In particular, for purposes of ORD research programs, a
variety of different tools and metrics will be needed to characterize the environmental, social, and
economic aspects that are addressed within the project portfolio. Frameworks like those presented by
Zamagni et al. (2009) and Eason et al. (2011) provide guidance on tools and key considerations useful for
sustainability based development and decision making. In conjunction with these frameworks, this
report provides guidelines for the selection of metrics relevant to sustainability assessment and
management, ranging from broad national indicators for annual reporting to detailed, problem-specific
indicators that address individual communities, regions, watersheds, chemicals, media, receptors, or
categories of impacts.
-------
1.3. Origin of this Document
This document is primarily the result of a Sustainability Indicator project completed in September 2011
by a team of researchers drawn from several ORD laboratories and centers. The principal goals of the
project were:
• To support the development and inclusion of sustainability indicators in a new EPA ROE to be
released in electronic form in 2012.
• To assist ORD's national research programs in the selection of appropriate sustainability
indicators that are compatible across programs at the national level.
• To enable monitoring of long-term trends which are relevant to sustainability.
Accordingly, the project team established a conceptual framework for research planning and
performance measurement and developed a comprehensive inventory of sustainability indicators based
on worldwide benchmarking. This work has since been developed into a task within the EPA Sustainable
and Healthy Communities Research Program (SHCRP) and will be discussed further in Section 4. It is
expected that this document will provide a shared language for the application of sustainability
indicators within EPA, as well as a common framework for guiding the selection and use of sustainability
indicators in specific research projects and decision contexts.
2. Conceptual Foundations
2.1. Definitions of Sustainability
The concept of sustainability is based on the interdependence between human societies and the natural
environment. Current patterns of economic and social development are placing pressures upon natural
resources, and may threaten the continued health and prosperity of human societies. In recognition of
these concerns, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 articulated a growing interest in
understanding the importance of the relationship between humans and the environment. The very
language of the act foreshadows ideals soon to be of great significance globally:
"...to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between
man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man."
In 1987, a World Commission on Environment and Development report (UN, 1987) entitled, Our
Common Future (also known as the Brundtland report) called for the global adoption of these principles
and presented the classic and most quoted definition of sustainable development:
"...development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs."
It is clear that a significant transformation of human production and consumption patterns will be
needed in order to enable continued economic growth while protecting critical environmental
resources. International agencies such as the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic
-------
Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank have focused considerable attention on the
challenge of achieving sustainability while promoting poverty alleviation and economic development. As
stated in the Green Book, "...current approaches aimed at decreasing existing risks, however successful,
are not capable of avoiding the complex problems in the United States and globally that threaten the
planet's critical natural resources and put current and future human generations at risk, including
population growth, the widening gaps between the rich and the poor, depletion of finite natural
resources, biodiversity loss, climate change, and disruption of nutrient cycles" (NRC, 2011). Likewise,
the international business community has recognized the practical and economic consequences of the
sustainability challenge (WBCSD, 2011). With increasing commitments to corporate responsibility, many
companies have adopted global environmental management system standards such as ISO 14001 (ISO,
2004), which specify performance indicators as a required element. The emergence of the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI; http://www.globalreporting.org/Home) (GRI, 2006) and other sustainability
reporting schemes has placed renewed emphasis on the selection, monitoring, and verification of
sustainability indicators.
Although the Brundtland Commission definition succinctly captures the essence of sustainability, it is too
abstract for purposes of program planning and operational management. Many organizations have
developed more functional definitions that are aligned with their specific focus and values. These are
often based on the concept of the "three pillars" of sustainability—environmental, economic, and
social—and may place more or less emphasis on each of the three pillars. For example, the following
definition was used in a recent EPA Executive Order:
"sustainability" and "sustainable" mean to create and maintain 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 (Federal Register, 2009)
Human health is frequently considered to be a component of the social pillar of sustainability. However,
for EPA's purposes, the following may be a useful definition of sustainability, appropriately emphasizing
human health and the environment: Sustainability is the continued protection of human health and the
environment while fostering economic prosperity and societal wellbeing.
In response to the large and growing need for better understanding of how sustainability trends relate
to EPA's mission, the ORD has aligned its research programs with the overarching theme of
sustainability. This is an opportune time for EPA to act as a catalyst for innovation in technologies,
policies, and business models that will enable society to prosper within the limits of available natural
capital. Therefore, ORD's research will focus on understanding the interplay between environmental,
social and economic systems. This approach is required to enable the Agency to fundamentally change
the manner in which it addresses systemic environmental problems (e.g., climate change,
eutrophication, mercury, etc.) - and relates to the "...difference between treating disease and pursuing
wellness" US EPA Lisa Jackson remarks (Greenley, 2012).
-------
2.2. Sustainability Indicator Frameworks
From the perspective of environmental research and regulatory policy, there are two fundamental
questions that underscore the need for indicators of progress toward sustainability (Kates et al., 2001):
• How can today's operational systems for monitoring and reporting on environmental and social
conditions be integrated or extended to provide more useful guidance for efforts to navigate a
transition toward sustainability?
• How can today's relatively independent activities of research planning, monitoring, assessment and
decision support be better integrated into systems of adaptive management and social learning?
Based on the three pillars concept, a sustainability indicator can be defined as a measurable aspect of
environmental, economic, or social systems that is useful for monitoring changes in system
characteristics relevant to the continuation of human and environmental well being.
The use of sustainability indicators and corresponding metrics is essential for an integrated systems
approach to the addressing challenges of sustainability. When carefully chosen and implemented,
indicators can help managers and policy makers to (modified from "An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies" (Singh et al., 2009):
• Anticipate and assess conditions or historical trends
• Provide early warning information to prevent adverse outcomes
• Benchmark against other systems
• Communicate ideas
• Support decision-making
• Formulate strategies and establish improvement goals
• Track progress
The conceptual framework in which indicators are to be applied is an important consideration in the
selection of indicators. Many sustainability frameworks have been proposed and used by different
organizations around the world. These include the three pillars concept mentioned above, the
driver/pressure/state/impact/response (DPSIR) model (European Commission et al., 1999), the
driver/pressure/state/exposure/effects/action (DPSEEA) model (Kjellstrom and Corvalan, 1995; Briggs et
al., 1996; Corvalan et al., 1999)(Serageldin, 1996) and the Daly (Daly, 1973) triangle as discussed by
(Meadows, 1998). System dynamic models can provide more detailed information on the structure and
behavior of complex dynamic systems and can enable the more informed selection of indicators
(Gustavson et al. 1999). The choice of an appropriate conceptual framework and corresponding
indicators is heavily dependent upon an individual's purpose, worldview, and system of values. The
approach presented here is compatible with any and all of these schemes.
The logic of these frameworks can also serve as a basis for aggregating individual indicators into an
integrated/composite indicator or index. An index is a quantitative aggregation of many indicators and
can provide a simplified, coherent, multidimensional view of a system (Mayer, 2008). Many schemes
have been proposed for creating an integrated sustainability index and examples include the
Environmental Quality Index, Genuine progress, the Yale Environmental Sustainability Index, Fisher
-------
information, Ecological Footprint, Energy, and Genuine Savings Index (Redefining Progress, 1995; The
World Bank, 1997; The World Economic Forum, 2001; USEPA, 2010)(Redefining Progress 1995),
(http://envirocenter.research.vale.edu/programs/environmental-performance-
management/environmental-sustainability-index/). However, construction or adoption of such an
aggregation scheme requires insight and careful considered as discussed in Section 5.3.
In the three pillars model, one common approach is to select and consider a set of indicators unique to
each of the three overlapping domains (environmental, economic and social), as illustrated in Figure 2.
Social-Enwonmental
En
Environmental-Economic
Eiwgy EBcncy
Economic-Social
Buaran EOici
far Ira*
Figure 2 - The three dimensions (pillars) of sustainability (modified from Beach (2010)) to
show the selection of 1-D, 2-D and 3-D indicators proposed by Sikdar (2003).
The indicators chosen from each domain and their relative importance in a decision-making process are
important considerations and should be explicitly discussed because they reflect the focus and values of
the decision makers. An analysis of the system to determine which indicators capture aspects that
significantly contribute to movement toward or away from sustainability may provide additional insight
on indicator selection.
Some indicators that reside in only one domain (1-D) can be normalized to create two-dimensional (2-D)
indicators that are more meaningful and comparable. For example, water use, population, and
economic output are 1-D indicators that can be combined to create 2-D indicators such as water
consumption per capita, water consumption per $ of GDP, or GDP per capita. This type of normalization
approach is proposed for inclusion of "resource intensity" indicators in the ROE (see Section 3).
It has been argued that '"...an environmental indicator becomes a sustainability indicator with the
addition of time, limit or target." (Meadows, 1998). Indeed, any 1-D indicator can be tracked over time
-------
to examine the degree of change relative to either a historical baseline or a future objective. As
discussed in Section 4, the rate or amount of improvement is a relative measure, indicating whether the
system is moving toward or away from sustainability (USEPA 2010).
In some cases, a single indicator can be chosen that provides information relevant to two overlapping
domains. For example, average concentration of blood lead (Pb) in humans is an indicator of both
environmental exposures and possible impairment of human health (Fig. 2; SE). Similarly, changes in
industrial employment as a result of green chemistry innovations (Fig. 2; E$) is an indicator of both
natural resource protection and economic development. The annual amount of charitable donations
(Fig. 2; S$) provides an indicator of both economic prosperity and improvements in human well-being.
Some carefully selected single indicators can be relevant to all three domains (Fig. 2; SE$); for example,
the per capita floor space of residential dwellings is a useful indicator because it correlates with both
energy consumption and poverty alleviation, thus capturing the tension between financial prosperity,
quality of life, and resource depletion.
Once indicators are selected and corresponding metrics are identified, criteria must be established and
methods (e.g., Life Cycle Assessment) employed to acquire the data for each metric to evaluate the
systems under study. Zamagni et al. (2009) and Eason et al. (2009) provide further details on topics
related to sustainability based decision making and key tools for evaluating the aspects of the system
related to the pillars of sustainability.
3. Classification of Sustainability Indicators
As defined above, a sustainability indicator is a measurable aspect of environmental, economic, or social
systems that is useful for monitoring changes in system characteristics relevant to the continuation of
human and environmental well being. In order to support the selection of indicators for specific
applications, it is useful to classify sustainability indicators according to clearly defined categories and
subcategories. Such a classification scheme is referred to as a taxonomy. There are numerous
taxonomies that have been developed in the field of sustainability, and most of these have been
surveyed for purposes of this project (see Section 4). The following identifies several taxonomies that
will be helpful to EPA for purposes of program planning and performance tracking.
3.1 Three "Pillars" of Sustainability
The most widely used taxonomy is based on the three pillars of sustainability described in the previous
section, and commonly referenced in traditional definitions of sustainability. These pillars are
characterized as follows environmental, social and economic. Each category can be further divided into
subcategories; for example social sustainability indicators for industrial health and safety are
distinguished from those for community well being. Sometimes classifying an indicator depends on the
scale and type of system being considered: for example, water use can be a one-dimensional or a two-
dimensional indicator depending on the scope of analysis. As discussed in the previous section, some
indicators such as "energy intensity" may capture the intersection of multiple pillars or dimensions of
sustainability.
-------
3.2 Report on the Environment Topics
The 2008 EPA ROE is organized according to a number of topics that provide a taxonomy relevant to
EPA's traditional statutory responsibilities:
• Air
• Ecological Condition
• Human Exposure and Health
• Land
• Water
Additional sustainability topics that could supplement the above might include Social Condition (e.g.,
educational attainment) and Economic Condition (e.g., household income).
3.3. ORD National Programs
Another useful way to organize indicators is by relevance to the newly realigned national research
programs of ORD, listed below:
• Air, Climate and Energy (ACE)
• Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS)
• Homeland Security Research (HSR)
• Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)
• Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC)
• Safe and Sustainable Water Resources (SSWR)
Since these programs are linked to one another, there will be many indicators that are relevant to
multiple programs. For example, sustainable water indicators, which are significant in SSWR, will also be
an important issue for SHC. The scale of research conducted under these programs will vary from a
broad national scope to a regional or local context. Therefore, the framework for sustainability
indicators will support multi-scale applications. In some cases, indicators can be aggregated from a local
or regional scale to national scale (e.g., total emissions of a specified pollutant). In other cases, local or
regional indicators will be specific to the geographic context and cannot easily be aggregated to a
broader scale.
3.4. System-Based Indicators
It is clear that the characterization of sustainability and the development of sustainable solutions require
a comprehensive "holistic-systems" approach with integrated evaluation of the social, environmental,
and economic consequences (NRC, 2011). ORD has developed an innovative "triple value" (3V)
framework, depicted in Figure 3 that helps to capture the dynamic interactions among industrial,
societal, and ecological systems (Fiksel, 2009). There are four major categories of indicators that are
applicable to these systems:
• Adverse Outcome (AOI)—indicates destruction of value due to impacts upon individuals,
communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
-------
• Resource Flow (RFI)—indicates pressures associated with the rate of consumption of resources,
including materials, energy, water, land, or biota.
• System Condition (SCI)—indicates state of the systems in question, i.e., individuals,
communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
• Value Creation (VCI)—indicates creation of value (both economic and well being) through
enrichment of individuals, communities, business enterprises, or the natural environment.
Table 1 shows how these four major categories of indicators can be applied at different scales, and
Figure 4 illustrates the detailed taxonomy of indicators associated with Resource Flow. This approach is
intended to support both high-level aggregate indicators and more focused indicators associated with
specific research areas or programs. Examples of the utilization of system-based indicators for the above
ORD programs are provided in Section 6.
The Green Book (NRC, 2011)describes other types of indicator classifications that have been proposed.
For example, one can distinguish between "policy-oriented' indicators that will respond in the short-
term to policy initiatives and "outcome-oriented" indicators that reflect changes in fundamental stocks
and flows of natural resources such as water, energy, and minerals. However, this distinction is often
ambiguous, and was not deemed useful for present purposes.
Industry
(economic capital)
ecological goods
and services are
utilized in industry
economic value
is created for society
Society
(human capital)
labor is utilized in industry
\
waste
ivered
cycled
n
emissions may
harm humans
waste and emissions may
degrade the environment
ecologica
amenities
are enjoye
society by society
invests in\
protection &
restoration
Environment (natural capital)
Figure 3 - Systems taxonomy for resource flow indicators, with examples (in yellow)
of specific metrics for material intensity, recovery, and impact
10
-------
Table 1 - Major Categories of System-Based Indicators
Indicator
Catego
Resource
Flow
Indicators
Value
Creation
Indicators
Adverse
Outcome
Indicators
Indicator Typ
^cale Examples
System
Condition
Indicators
Volume
Intensity
Recovery
Impact
Quality
Profitability
Economic Output
Income
Capital Investment
Human Development
Exposure
Risk
Incidence
Impact
Loss
Impairment
Health
Wealth
Satisfaction
Growth
Dignity
Capacity
Quality of Life
• Greenhouse
gas
emissions
• Material flow volume
• Resource depletion
rate
• Cost (reduction)
• Fuel efficiency (gain)
• Energy efficiency (gain)
• Health impacts of air
pollution
• Public safety
• Life cycle footprint of
energy use
• Air quality
• Water quality
• Employment
• Household income
iity Scale Examples
Greenhouse gas emissions
Material flow volume
Water treatment efficacy
Recycling rate
Land use
Cost (reduction)
Fuel efficiency (gain)
Energy efficiency (gain)
Vehicle use (miles per capita)
Health impacts of air pollution
Public safety
Sewer overflow frequency
Air & water quality
Local employment
Local household income
Housing Density
Infrastructure durability
Community educational equity
11
-------
4. Global Inventory of Sustainability Indicators
4.1. Motivation
In accordance with the alignment of EPA research programs towards sustainability, a call to action was
given within ORD to develop an inventory of peer reviewed sustainability indicators and link them to
emerging EPA programs. The primary goals of the effort was to assist the ORD national research
programs in the selection of appropriate sustainability indicators for programs such that a single
taxonomy system is used and to make recommendations for candidate indicators which would be
developed for the Report on the Environment. The project team engaged in an intensive search to
understand the current "state of play" in sustainability indicators work and identify peer-reviewed
indicators at various scales (e.g., national and regional). Further, they developed a taxonomy to help
classify these indicators into a searchable database. The taxonomy itself is comprised of the
classification schemes described in Section 3 (see Table 2) and includes linkages to national ORD
programs. The database is intended to serve as a tool to aid in selecting indicators pertinent to EPA
programs and incorporates information on relevant supporting resources. Outputs of the activity
included draft versions of the indicator database cross-walked according to the taxonomies defined and
a guidance document on the selection of sustainability indicators for EPA programs.
Table 2 - Taxonomy for Sustainability Indicators: Classification Schemes
Ecological Condition
This activity has since been developed into a SHC task (1.2.2.1) supporting the effort to provide
indicators and indices to assess, track and inform community sustainability (i.e., sub-regional, local, city).
Sustainability is recognized as a major factor influencing the long-term success of communities and an
untapped reserve for ecological and human health-related research. However, finding the appropriate
indicators to assess and/or inform community sustainability needs is daunting. The Database of
Sustainability Indicators and Indices (DOSII) provides a searchable inventory of peer reviewed
sustainability Indicators classified into a single taxonomy system designed to assist EPA's research and
management in identifying candidate sustainability indicators and indices relevant to specific
sustainability interests. Specifically, the task involves the development of (1) DOSII, a searchable
database for selecting indicators, which may be used to assess sustainability and (2) a corresponding
guidance document on the selection of sustainability indicators. Further, an interactive web-based tool
will be developed to extend the indicator and indices database search capabilities to communities.
Communities interested in exploring issues related to sustainability will be afforded a mechanism to
develop a "customized" list of indicators and indices to support community-based decision-making, such
12
-------
as cost-benefit analysis, monitoring and assessment, and community outreach, based on the
community's specific sustainability priorities. Other uses of the results generated from the tool are
potentially limitless in the integrated sustainability program envisioned within the Agency. The suite of
indicators generated could supply the basis for, description of, or feedback for any number of modeling
efforts, engagement tools, and analytic processes. Further, there is a plan for future export and
connection to EPA-based tools that will use the results. While DOSII provides the foundation for the
web-based tool, it is a standalone tool in its own right. Although this effort is housed within the SHC
program, this research task is an integrated transdisciplinary and cross-laboratory effort aimed at
providing critical information that will aid in the development and selection of sustainability indicators
for EPA programs. Hence, the database will afford the ability to access indicators for various topics and
scales (e.g., national, regional and community) of implementation to include measures for evaluating
the sustainability of programs, projects and activities related to air, water, energy, products,
communities, human health risks, and national security. This work is intended to serve as both a source
and "sink" for many other activities across the Agency as it is naturally linked to advancing science in
such areas as decision analysis, regional assessments, technology evaluations and ecosystem services.
Hence, a high level of collaboration is desired and expected as it will be connected to activities including
(but not limited to) the Sustainability Metrics project, Sustainable Supply Chains, the Durham project,
CSS Dashboards, Decision Analysis for Sustainable Environmental, Economy and Society (DASEES),
chemical sustainability, Human Wellbeing Index, Environmental Quality Index and New and Emerging
Media. The first iteration of the DOSII will be available October 1, 2012 (with annual updates) and the
web tool is expected to roll out October 1, 2014. A draft of the proposed architecture for the web-based
tool is provided in the Appendix.
4.2 Survey Results and Database Development
There is a plethora of activity related to sustainability indicators throughout the world. The International
Institute of Sustainable Development lists nearly 900 sustainability initiatives worldwide, including
almost 200 indicator development activities (USD, 2011). Indicator evaluation and development projects
often last for several years and involve task groups containing many experts who typically engage in a
high level of review of existing sources and provide comprehensive information and synthesis reports
detailing their efforts.
For this project, a number of well known resources (e.g., World Bank, UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) were initially
reviewed to begin compiling the list of sustainability indicators. As the mining effort has continued, the
lists of resources and indicators have progressively grown. To date, more than 50 resources (e.g.,
databases, reports, websites, workgroup studies and journal articles) were reviewed and over 6000
indicators have been identified and compiled. After eliminating obvious duplication and indicators from
resources with no supporting description or metrics, compiling similar indicators (on-going), the list was
reduced to 1411. Note: It is expected that the size of list change through subsequent iterations. These
indicators have been organized according to the classification scheme (Table 2) and stored in a
Microsoft Excel database; thereby, providing a "lay of the land" of existing indicators of varying spatial
13
-------
scale, scope and topic. Additional indicators will be synthesized, classified and incorporated during
subsequent updates of the database.
As of this iteration, nearly half (48.5%) of the indicators analyzed are multi-dimensional (i.e., 2-D or 3-D)
and most are deemed usable at multiple scales (e.g., national, regional, etc.). While the majority of the
indicators can be linked to Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC), nearly 30% of them relate to the
Air, Climate and Energy. The remaining programs (i.e., SSWR, CSS, HHRA and HSR) are linked to
between 7.65% and 13.75% of the indicators.
The database is stored in a Microsoft Excel 2007 workbook ('DOSII.vl.xlsx') with tabs named [Indicators],
[Sources] and [Summary]. The [Indicators] tab contains an inventory of the indicators and other
pertinent details including the Source (shorthand for the reference (e.g., article, site, database) where
the indicator was gathered), Scale, Pillar, Source theme (relates to the topic/theme as identified in the
source), ROE topic, EPA Program, triple value (3V) classification, Dimension (e.g., two dimensional (2-D))
and Description (and/or metric). The [Sources] tab provides resource information including the Name,
Acronym, Purpose or description of the study, the primary sustainability Pillar (i.e., economic, social
and/or environmental) covered in the source, source themes, affiliated organization, scale (e.g.,
national), reference access information and date of last update. The [Summary] tab is a compilation of
the summary statistics as provided in Table A3. A sample of the indicator database (Table Al) and
resource list (Table A2) are provided in the Appendix.
4.3. Searching, Sorting and Filtering in the Database
The structured database can be used as a tool for selecting indicators relevant to particular programs or
projects. This section provides instructions on how to extract sustainability indicators from the
database by searching, sorting, and filtering according to specified criteria.
Simple techniques such as the Find command (Ctrl+F) and alphabetical sorting may be used to navigate
in Microsoft Excel. For example, an alphabetical sort was used to coarsely sift through and remove
duplicate indicators from the database. While these are effective methods for simple searches,
efficiently maneuvering through the database typically requires more complex actions. By leveraging
the advanced features of Microsoft Excel, users are able to input specific criteria to filter, sort and
search the database as needed.
Suppose a user seeks a list of environmental indicators. One approach is as follows (see Figure 5):
1. Click on the filter pull down in the 'Pillar' column of the database.
2. Unclick the 'Select AN' check box and then select the checkbox next to 'ENV. This filters the list
to include only indicators classified as "environmental".
3. The number of records meeting the criteria is listed on the status bar below the workbook tabs.
In this case, 537 records are returned denoting the number of indicators in the database that are
classified as environmental indicators.
14
-------
Another approach to generating a list from these criteria is to use the [Text Filter] provided in the [Pillar]
pull down heading. By setting the text qualifier [Equals] and entering [ENV], the same results are
returned. An alternative method is to use the text filter [Contains] and enter [ENV] in the Pillar column
and then select [ID] in the Dimension column. Note that with any of the filtering actions, the indicators
not meeting the specified criteria are not lost, but are hidden. The database may be restored in full by
clicking on each of the filtered columns and checking the box next to [Select All].
A different result is obtained when only using the [Contains] ENV text filter and leaving the dimension
column unaltered. The 955 indicators returned contains indicators that are classified as environmental,
but may also relate to social and economic impacts. Thus, the resulting list contains multiple categories
of indicators including ENV, ENV-SOC, ECO-ENV and ECO-ENV-SOC.
r , 'A
—* i Mtw town
*""
ttm
fttMM Viev,
Agricultural |jr"ii growth
ElKtnmv fcncrHM) uf (nc t»ill fuct
n
11 _
12 _
W-
13
!':
K
IS
fl~_
:"J
GEF.o«--ipJi:iK.[]*f '
TfWUMOMf SpCflH. fHh
.'-.., I! ;".!:•.. •,:.. :•• '
• ":---'. •-• i' .:" ..... ;• -i- ••.-•- ;•'•••'• '"H -• -••'•' '-"r'
(t*Cs)
CcoiumpHon of O:oi*-rj*pl*bng Substances -
HVdroctiltMol'lijofotar&arw (HCFCs)
Confarn&tfm at Cnvn9-0vf>lflt*i%5>jtrtanf* . Mtttift
ctJ«ii1*d CfrtHK:at>on Bodi
'g«i*i I-VI vid rxA Ctaulfivd^ '
A"y Jl
Any
S«
-------
[SSWR] (step B in Figure 6). This customized filtering method returns 115 records. A less cumbersome
approach is to select [ENV] in the Pillar column and use the text filter [Contains] [SSWR] in the Program
column. By drilling down a bit further and setting the [Scale] custom filter to [Contains] [Regional] or
A
B
Custom AutoFilter
Show rows where:
Program
contains
21 World Bank
22 World Sank
23 World B»nk
24 World Bank
i23 World Sank
26 woric &a^
27 WWW Sjn*
28 Woric B3ni(
29 worid Sank
» wortdtonk
31 wnldBirtk
32 World Ssnfc
33 woflc Bank
a wens BJ«
3S World Bank
36 Worid Bank
37 world sank
46 UNEP-GEOCOrs
47 UNEP-flEO Core
Any 11
Any ,iJ
Any
National ^
Any
Any
Any
Any ^
Any
Any
Any
*a
National
An,
Any
Any
Any
Gl£ftal/N«iOftJI/l
SMtAteZ
SgrtZEOA
SMltortotor *
£i«t F«et From wn»
FJInBjCoi.. >
Tm Emm *
SBfea«
«u
ECO
r"KO««
i-o -.or
j=v.
5t,v-ECQ
QBR-SOC
rjKJoeco
soc
1 'p. i
*
c.™, 1
Globa!/M»!«;r.ai/Regional ] UNEP [ ESV
^™
1
c
[? |[X 1 II Custom AutoFilter [ ? |fx |
v ^3
©flr«J O»
ail «
Use ? to represent any sngle character
Use " to represent any senes of characters
| OK | | Cancel
Show rows where:
Scale
contain v Q^Q
Ofirxl ©fflr
[contains v |any v
Use ? to represent any single character
Use * to represent any series of characters
| OK Caned ]
Figure 5 - Sample Custom Filter Search: Regional environmental indicators related to SSWR
[Contains] [Any] (Step C in Figure 6), 80 regional environmental indicators related to the SSWR program
are returned.
4.4. Future work
The preliminary database and guidance document were initially used to a gain sense of the "world" of
sustainability indicators, its subsequent linkages to EPA programs and recommend candidate
sustainability indicators for the inclusion of the 2012 online, interactive EPA Report on the Environment.
These products were made available to various researchers within ORD research programs (i.e., CSS,
SHC, and SSWR) as well as others within program offices (e.g., OSWER) and Regional Offices (e.g., Region
1) who had an interest in investigating and identifying sustainability indicators.
Since DOSII is intended to be a repository of indicators for EPA programs, through multiple iterations, it
will be honed and expanded in subsequent updates of the database and guidance document. Additional
indicators and indices from other sources (including internal Agency projects) may be incorporated
during this period, as well. Further, as previously mentioned, the continuation of the SHC task involves
16
-------
the development of the web-tool to enhance database access and extend DOSII's search capabilities to
communities through a user-friendly web interface. The first iteration of DOSII will be available October
1, 2012 (with annual updates) and the web tool is expected to roll out October 1, 2014.
As we have set our sights and efforts on moving in conjunction with the Path Forward, many have
identified and championed the importance of sustainability indicators and indices. This work is an effort
to compile, logically organize (in line with developed taxonomies) and synthesize information on the
abundance of sustainability measures used around the world. In order to further increase the impact of
the work, we propose a few recommendations to enhance consistency foster a collaborative spirit and
capitalize on ourtransdisciplinary expertise:
• Due to the many terms and themes used and outlined in each source, it is necessary to undergo
an iterative update and revision process to provide a succinct list and most accurately group
similar indicators. However, much like typical sustainability indicator projects, it may be prudent
to assemble an "expert" review panel in this effort. While we don't want to limit the amount of
information available to researchers, program and regional offices or communities, a
transdisciplinary approach will provide key understanding of systems, supporting indicators and
corresponding metrics to streamline the database along the taxonomy. The goal of such an
effort is to develop the most rational set of indicators for assessment, planning and analysis.
• An additional recommendation is the development of a core set of Agency sustainability themes
to layer over the ORD research programs as an additional mapping mechanism that provides
grouping themes that are source independent (e.g., World Bank, OECD). The Office of Science
Information and Management's (OSIM) managed vocabulary work may provide some key insight
and guidance toward this endeavor.
17
-------
5. Selecting Sustainability Indicators
"Indicators arise from values (we measure what we care about), and they create values (we care about
what we measure)" (Meadows, 1998). Whether in the context of government policy making or business
decision making, indicators are essential for characterizing current conditions, evaluating management
options that may be proposed, tracking the outcomes of actions taken, and assessing progress towards
overall goals. The selection of indicators effectively determines the "lens" through which one views the
system, and is therefore extremely important in influencing human decisions and judgments.
As discussed in Section 4, there are a wide variety of sustainability indicators used by different
organizations in the U.S. and around the world. Depending upon the perspectives of various stakeholder
groups and interested parties, the preferred indicators may be quite different. In addition, different
indicators are needed at different spatial scales—from national-level reporting and tracking of progress
to local, place-based or program-based investigation. This section addresses the selection of indicators
in connection with two major EPA needs—the Report on the Environment, and focused planning or
decision making.
5.1. Indicators for National Reporting
One objective of the Sustainability Indicators project was to select a small number of sustainability
indicators for EPA's 2012 ROE. The ROE has strict guidelines for the choice of indicators, and requires a
careful statement of rationale as well as supporting data and methodology. The ROE defines an indicator
is defined as a numerical value derived from actual measurements of a pressure, state or ambient
condition, exposure, or human health or ecological condition, over a specified geographic domain,
whose trends over time represent or draw attention to underlying trends in the condition of the
environment or human health (USEPA, 2008). The major categories of indicators reported in the 2008
ROE are discussed in Section 4.
Consistent with the Green Book recommendations, it is possible to augment the current ROE indicators
to represent fundamental trends in sustainability. The simplest way to achieve this is to build upon
existing indicators of pressures on the environment and human health that are already included in ROE.
For example, one important goal for moving toward sustainability in a developed economy is to avoid
adverse health and ecological impacts by reducing emissions of pollutants in the face of population and
economic growth. To capture this trend, airborne emissions can be normalized by population size or
annual economic output to create a 2-D indicator. An example of such an indicator is "greenhouse gas
emissions per capita" or "greenhouse gas emissions per $ of gross domestic product". The normalizing
factors are readily available from demographic and economic statistics maintained by other agencies.
Rather than measuring an absolute condition, these indicators are measures of intensity, and reflect the
rate at which pollutants are being generated in order to support the needs of the U.S. economy.
Airborne emission rates may be seen as an indirect measure of resource consumption, since they
generally correlate with the rate of energy consumption and industrial activity. However, it is possible to
reduce emission rates simply by pollution prevention and control technology, which does not necessarily
lower the rate at which scarce resources are depleted or degraded. Another desirable option is to
increase energy efficiency, thereby reducing the amount of energy (and corresponding impacts)
18
-------
required to deliver the same output (e.g., goods, services, electricity and transportation). Additional
important goals for moving toward global sustainability are to reduce the rate at which non-renewable
resources are consumed and to assure that consumption of renewable resources does not exceed their
rates of natural regeneration (OECD, 2001). Accordingly, this project has investigated several additional
indicators for national-scale reporting, reflecting the resource intensity for water, energy and materials.
• Fresh water is a critical, finite resource, and both the quality and availability of U.S. water
sources are being stressed due to agricultural, urban, and industrial uses. An informative choice
of sustainability indicator for water resources would be the use of water with respect to
economic output (e.g., gross domestic product (GDP): water use per unit of GDP. Water use
measures the amount of water withdrawn from the environment minus the amount discharged
back into water bodies. This is an important consideration because some industrial sectors (e.g.,
electric power generation) return large quantities of treated water to the environment, while
other sectors (e.g., agriculture) do not. Additionally, this water intensity indicator could be
interpreted in the context of water scarcity to enable an assessment of sustainability. However,
data to support this indicator as described above are currently not available. Every 5 years the
US Geological Survey reports data on total water withdrawals compiled at the county level for
industrial sectors. While current data constrains us to total water withdrawal intensities and
limits interpretations with respect to sustainability, trends in water withdrawals per capita and
per GDP can provide useful information on water withdrawal efficiencies by industrial sector or
geographic region.
• Energy is a critical resource for economic growth and human well-being. However, there is
growing concern over shrinking fossil resources, rising energy costs, and adverse impacts of
certain energy generation technologies. The U.S. has achieved significant advances in energy
efficiency and more opportunities exist to reduce energy demand and shift to renewable
sources. Therefore, a useful sustainability indicator is the following measure of energy intensity:
energy use per unit of GDP. Again, energy intensity can be measured on a national level and
can be disaggregated across different energy use sectors.
• Material flow is an important aspect of sustainability because increasing material consumption
requires a greater demand on resources (water, energy, minerals, land, etc.) and larger
quantities of pollutants and wastes. In the U.S., over 90% of the materials that are extracted
from the environment, transported, and processed are eventually discharged as waste or
atmospheric emissions. To achieve sustainability it is necessary to break this pattern by
"decoupling" material consumption from value creation. A suitable indicator of progress in
material use reduction is material intensity, but it is difficult to gather reliable data on a national
scale regarding actual material consumption over the life cycles of all products and services.
Instead, a surrogate indicator for which reliable data are available is waste intensity, which can
be measured as follows: solid waste per unit of GDP. Conservation of mass implies that the
lower the amount of waste generated, the lower the overall material flow through the
economy. This approach is consistent with the "sustainable materials management" initiative
being conducted by EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
19
-------
Although it appears that these intensity indicators only account for environmental and economic
aspects, it is clear that core resources (e.g., energy, material and water) have a significant and
measurable impact on people (hence, the social pillar), both individually and collectively. The goal
of developing and recommending sustainability indicators for the ROE was to enhance the coverage
past its core focus on the environment. Ongoing work on the ROE includes investigating the
feasibility and relevance of these indicators and possibly expanding the use of intensity indicators by
developing per capita measures (e.g., municipal solid waste per capita) to augment the view of
sustainability and further highlight the impact of human activity. Subsequent editions of the ROE
intend to increase the development, tracking and use of sustainability indicators.
5.2. Indicators for Focused Investigation
To accelerate successful adoption of the Sustainability Framework, the Green Book (NRC, 2011)
recommends that EPA pursue a set of place-based and program-based pilot projects to develop
sustainability expertise, encourage cultural change, and demonstrate value for stakeholders. Such
projects will typically involve collaborations both within and outside EPA, making it critical to select a
comprehensive set of goals and indicators that reflect stakeholder aspirations for shared value.
Generally speaking, in the context of decision making, a portfolio of indicators will be needed to
represent the breadth of environmental and socioeconomic issues associated with sustainability. Typical
categories of sustainability indicators that may be relevant to various stakeholder groups are illustrated
in Figure 7. Note that in order to fully capture the dimensions of sustainability, environmental footprint
reduction indicators need to be accompanied by stakeholder value creation. Table 3 further illustrates
various categories of sustainability indicators that have been used by international organizations to
characterize conditions in different countries and cities around the world.
Energy
Intensity
Water
Intensity
Green house Gas
Emissions
Persistent Toxic
Emissions
Reduced
Environmental
Footprint
Material
Intensity
Land
Use
Ecological
Impacts
Human
Dignity
Resource
Conservation
Poverty
Alleviation
Health & safety
Improvement
Asset
Recovery
Biodiversity
& Ecological
Resilience
Prosperity
& Economic
Resilience
Figure 6-Typical categories of sustainability indicators
20
-------
Based on generally accepted performance measurement principles, an overarching criterion in the
selection of indicators is "materiality/' i.e., their relevance to the problem or issue under consideration.
The following is a list of selection criteria that can be used to choose sustainability performance
indicators (Fiksel, 2009). The set of indicators should be:
• Relevant to the interests of the intended audiences, reflecting important opportunities for
enhancement of social and environmental conditions as well as economic prosperity.
• Meaningful to the intended audiences in terms of clarity, comprehensibility and transparency.
• Objective in terms of measurement techniques and verifiability, while allowing for regional, cultural
and socio-economic differences.
• Effective for supporting benchmarking and monitoring over time, as well as decision-making about
how to improve performance.
• Comprehensive in providing an overall evaluation of progress with respect to sustainability goals.
• Consistent across different sites or communities, using appropriate normalization and other
methods to account for their inherent diversity.
• Practical in allowing cost-effective, non-burdensome implementation and building on existing data
collection where possible.
In addition, the Green Book (NRC, 2011) states that indicators should have the following attributes:
• Actionable, so that practical steps can be taken to address contributing factors.
• Transferable and scalable, so that they are adaptable at regional, state, or local levels.
• Intergenerational, reflecting fair distribution of costs and benefits among different generations.
• Durable, so that they have long-term relevance.
While every indicator need not satisfy all of these criteria, a credible portfolio of sustainability indicators
should have the above characteristics. The most effective performance measurement programs are
those that focus upon a small number of quantifiable key performance indicators (KPIs) covering the
most important aspects of sustainability for the specific problem at hand.
21
-------
Table 3 - Examples of Sustainability Indicators Used Worldwide
Poverty
• Unemployment rate
• Poverty index
• Population living below
poverty line
Population Stability
• Population growth rate
trend
• Population density
Human Health
• Average life expectancy
• Access to safe drinking
water
• Access to basic Sanitation
• Infant mortality rate
Living Conditions
• Urban population growth
rate
• Floor area per capita
• Housing cost
Coastal Protection
• Population growth
• Fisheries yield
• Algae index
Agricultural Conditions
• Pesticide use rate
• Fertilizer use rate
• Arable land per capita
• Irrigation % of arable land
Ecosystem Stability
• Threatened species
• Annual rainfall
Atmospheric Impacts
• Greenhouse gas emissions
• Sulfur oxide emissions
• Nitrogen oxides emissions
• Ozone depleting emissions
Generation
• Municipal waste
• Hazardous waste
• Radioactive waste
• Land occupied by waste
Consumption
Forest area change
Annual energy consumption
Mineral reserves
Fossil fuel reserves
Material intensity
Groundwater reserves
Economic Growth
GNP
National debt/GNP
Average income
Capital imports
Foreign investment
Accessibility
• Telephone lines per capita
• Information access
Sources:
United Nations, Indicators of Sustainable Development
World Bank, World Development Indicators
5.3. Integrated Indicator: Index
Many organizations have developed integrated indicators that combine multiple indicators into a single
index as a common "currency". Examples include the Human Development Index used by the U.N., the
Environmental Quality Index and the Genuine Savings Index mentioned earlier. While an index is
convenient for purposes of communication and tracking, it reduces transparency by collapsing a variety
of substantive information into a single index. Thus, it is difficult for a user or stakeholder to interpret
the value of increasing the index or its underlying indicators by a certain amount. While reporting such
aggregate indices, it is generally advisable to also present the information that comprises the index, and
to make it available to interested parties. Many researchers have performed sustainability studies using
multiple indices (e.g., Wilson et al., 2007; Nourry, 2008; Pulselli et al., 2008; Tiezzi and Bastianoni, 2008;
Hopton et al., 2010). Such data can be presented as a spider diagram for visual inspection, but further
aggregating these composite into a single overall index invites similar transparency concerns.
Researchers around the world, including within ORD are wrestling with methods of identifying
underlying drivers of behavior reflected in indices. Methods under investigation include principal
components analysis (PCA), system dynamics models and correlation tests (Vyas and Kumaranayake,
2006; USEPA, 2010; Primpas et al., 2010; Eason and Cabezas, 2012; Gonzalez-Mejia et al., 2012).
Further, scientists are studying and testing methods based on fundamental properties of systems (e.g.,
thermodynamic and information-theoretic approaches) to develop a new generation of sustainability
indices. Examples of these approaches include Fisher Information (Mayer et al., 2007), exergy (Dincer
22
-------
and Rosen, 2007; Baral and Bakshi, 2010), and energy (Odum, 1994). These composite indicators can be
used alone or in combination with other indicators. Emerging indices offer powerful scientific tools for
sustainability assessment and are the subject of ongoing research. However, since the focus of this
document is on the selection and implementation of commonly used, transparent, and meaningful
sustainability indicators, a detailed review of indices is not included in this report.
6. Implementing the Use of Sustainability Indicators
Following the guidance of the Green Book (NRC, 2011), it is assumed that EPA will begin to implement a
Sustainability Assessment and Management (SAM) process as depicted in Figure 8. The important
features of the process include the following:
• Comprehensive and systems-based: Analysis of alternative options should include an integrated
evaluation of the social, environmental, and economic consequences.
• Selective application: The level and depth of analysis should match with the scale and
magnitude of potential consequences for the decision at hand.
• Intergenerational: The long-term consequences of alternatives should be evaluated in addition
to the more immediate consequences.
• Stakeholder collaboration: Stakeholders should be involved throughout the process.
Sustainability indicators play a critical role in the SAM process, from the initial establishment of goals to
the ultimate evaluation of outcomes. Ideally, the indicators used in the EPA sustainability assessment
and management process will be consistent with the indicators in the Report on the Environment, thus
providing linkages between broad national indicators (e.g., GHG emissions per capita) and focused local
or regional assessments (e.g., annual energy use per urban household).
Sustainability Assessment & Management
Screening Evaluation Sufficient
Decision
To Da
Taken
->
Sugtainabrlfty
Evaluation
Analysts
*«d«l
t
Scoping and
Options
Identification
Siafceholdw
Identification
Indicator and
Selection
Collaboration
Opportunities
^
Scoping and
Application of
Suslariabilny
Tools «t
Appropriate
LftVri OT Effort
—
Synsrgy
*
Results to
Dectsnn.
makerts)
->
Decision
Taken And
_,
Evoluirtion of
Outcome
1
1 1
1 Stakeholder Engagement/Collaboration
•
|
Figure 7 -The Sustainability Assessment and Management Process
23
-------
Similar to SAM, the following is a five-step guideline for implementing the use of sustainability indicators
in the context of applied research projects that are intended to support policy or decision-making. These
steps are illustrated using a pilot project that is currently being conducted by ORD on mitigation of
excessive nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) in New England waterways, in
collaboration with EPA Region 1. This is a place-based study focused on the Narragansett Bay and its
watershed, with a broad scope that includes social, economic, and environmental issues.
Step 1 - Problem Definition, Scoping and Planning
Problem definition is a critical activity in the SAM process because it determines the scope and
boundaries of the system to be considered, and explicitly identifies the relevant stakeholder interests.
Systems thinking is needed because an overly narrow problem formulation may omit important
unintended consequences. Therefore, definition of sustainability goals should address all the important
environmental, economic, and social aspects that might be affected by a system intervention. In the
Narragansett example, the overall goal is to reduce nutrient impairment while supporting regional
economic growth and community well being.
Step 2 - Identification and Selection of Relevant Indicators
As discussed in Section 5.2, a portfolio of sustainability indicators should be chosen to address the goals
of the research as well as the interests of different stakeholder groups. For the nutrient study, the triple
value framework (see Section 3.4) was selected to represent the overall system, and ten primary "key"
indicators were chosen covering each of the three major subsystems—industries, communities, and
environmental resources. As shown in Figure 9, the Narragansett Bay project involved identifying and
modeling the causal linkages among these indicators. During the course of the project, a variety of
additional indicators were identified for purposes of modeling the system behavior.
24
-------
Industrial Supply Chains
Community Stakeholders
^T
—>• Employment
Regional water
demand
.. — .
Resource
intensity
Environmental Resources
Figure 8 - Selected Key indicators for Mitigation of Nutrient Impairment
Step 3 - Specification of appropriate spatial scale and units of measure
To implement the use of an indicator, it is necessary to define the scope or scale of measurement (e.g.,
single water body vs. watershed-scale vs. regional or national scale) as well as the physical or monetary
units (i.e., metrics) to be utilized. For example, "water demand" can be quantified in terms of the
following specific metric: millions of gallons of water consumed annually within the watershed. It is
important to distinguish between absolute measures and relative metrics, which are normalized with
respect to another quantity. Examples of relative metrics are time-based indicators, e.g., percent
increase in water demand from 2010 to 2020, and "intensity" measures, e.g., water demand per capita"
(see Section 5.1). Although stakeholder groups often advocate the use of absolute measures, these may
lead to inappropriate comparisons whereas relative indicators are generally less biased by differences in
system characteristics. For example, the largest facilities in a region will typically be the largest
consumers of water, even though their water intensity may be significantly lower than others.
Step 4 - Data collection and quality assurance procedures
Once the indicators and measurement approaches have been determined, data must be collected from
primary or secondary sources. Typically a baseline set of data will be established in a given year for
purposes of future comparison. As in any research effort, care must be taken to assure the quality,
accuracy, reliability, comparability of the data. It is also useful, where possible, to identify the sources of
uncertainty and to establish uncertainty bounds. Since indicators will typically be tracked over a long
period of time, provisions must be made for data archiving, maintenance and retrieval.
25
-------
Step 5 - Communication and reporting
Indicators are valuable tools for purposes of problem analysis, reporting of progress, evaluation of
outcomes and assessment of performance. Through successive iterations of the SAM process,
sustainability indicators can be used repeatedly to support decision-making and stakeholder
communication. The availability of quantitative measures lends credibility to any type of communication
exercise. However, care must be used to assure that indicators are used appropriately, bias is avoided,
uncertainty is communicated and transparency is emphasized. If an aggregated index is used, the
components and weighting factors that comprise the index should be available and understandable.
Implementing the above process across EPA's multiple activities will pose challenges in terms of
coordination and consistency of interpretation. Establishing uniform guidelines, procedures, and tools
for the use of sustainability indicators will not only facilitate coordination, but will also enhance EPA's
long-run credibility and provide leadership to stakeholders in the business community and civil society.
7. Conclusions
Incorporation of sustainability concepts into the EPA policy and decision making process will require the
adoption of sustainability indicators for purposes of problem definition, goal setting, measurement of
progress, evaluation of performance, communication with stakeholders, and public reporting. In
particular, to effectively support sustainability initiatives in Program and Regional offices, coordination
of ORD research programs will be facilitated by the adoption of a common framework for sustainability
indicators. This document provides guidelines for the definition, selection, and implementation of
sustainability indicators that are consistent with EPA's mission. The approach presented here is an effort
to provide a comprehensive and flexible toolkit for tracking of sustainability progress at multiple scales
across the full spectrum of EPA activities.
Sustainability indicators are a powerful tool for focusing attention on important environmental,
economic, and social trends that provide signals of change. However, indicators can potentially be
manipulated to convey biased messages, and therefore the selection of indicators for public policy
purposes should be approached with the utmost effort to assure objectivity, transparency, and
stakeholder consensus. It is in EPA's interest to develop an ongoing repository of sustainability
indicators that are meaningful, verifiable, defensible, and relevant to stakeholder audiences. The
database developed under this project can provide a starting point for such a repository.
The guidelines and tools provided through this work should be helpful as EPA moves forward with
implementation of the Green Book recommendations. Selection and implementation of sustainability
indicators should be coordinated across various Agency activities, including high-level, national-scale
reporting through the Report on the Environment, programmatic activities including policy development
and rule-making, and focused, place-based projects involving collaboration and decision-making.
26
-------
Acronyms
CALCAS Co-ordination Action for innovation in Life-Cycle Analysis for Sustainability
SHCRP or SHC EPA Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
EEA European Environment Agency
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
IWGSDI Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators
USD International Institute for Sustainable Development
ISO International Organization for Standardization
NRC National Research Council
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ORD Office of Research and Development
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
SEDAC Socio Economic Data and Applications Center
SAM Sustainability Assessment and Management
SDI Group Sustainable Development Indicator
DOSII The Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices
PCSD The President's Council on Sustainable Development
ROE The USEPA Report on the Environment
UN United Nations
UNCSD United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme
USEPA or EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
WBCSD World Business Council on Sustainable Development
27
-------
Literature Cited
Baral, A. and B. R. Bakshi. 2010. Thermodynamic metrics for aggregation of natural resources in life cycle
analysis: insight via application to some transportation fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(2):800-
807. DOI 10.1021/es902571b.
Beach, K. 2010. Edmond Oklahoma Info for Citizens Planning to Survive Sustainability. Available from:
http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/edmond-info-for-citizens-planning-to-survive-
sustainability/. July 11, 2011.
Briggs, D., C. Corvalan, and M. Nurminen, editors. 1996. Linkage Methods for Environment and Health
Analysis: General Guidelines. 136. World Health Organization Publications.
Corvalan, C. F., T. Kjellstrom, and K. R. Smith. 1999. Health, environment and sustainable development:
identifying links and indicators to promote action. Epidemiology 10(5):656-660.
Daly, H. E. 1973. Toward a steady-state economy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dincer, I. and M. A. Rosen. 2007. Exergy: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development. Elsevier.,
Burlington, MA, USA. ISBN 978-0-08-044529-8.
Eason, T., D. Meyer, M. A. Curran, and V. K. Upadhyayula. 2011. Decision Support Framework for
Sustainable Nanotechnology Design and Manufacture. EPA Report, EPA/600/R-11/107.
Eason, T. N. and H. Cabezas. 2012. Evaluating the sustainability of a regional system using Fisher
Information, San Luis Basin, Colorado. J Environ Manage94):41-49.
European Commission, Eurostat, and THEME 8 Environment and Energy. 1999. Towards environmental
pressure indicators for the EU. http://esl.jrc.it/envind/tepi99rp.pdf.
Federal Register. October 8, 2009. 74(194):52117-52127. Executive Order 13514 "Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance" into the Agency's Green Purchasing Plan.
Washington D.C.
Fiksel, J. 2009. Design for the Environment. A Guide to Sustainable Product Development. Second
edition. McGraw-Hill., New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-0-07-160556-4.
Gonzalez-Mejia, A. M., T. N. Eason, H. Cabezas, and M. T. Suidan. 2012. Assessing Sustainability in Real
Urban Systems: The Greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Area in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46(17):9620-9629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3007904.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3007904.
Greenley, L. 2012. EPA's Plans for Implementing UN's Agenda 21. The New American.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11224-epas-plans-for-
implementing-uns-agenda-21.
GRI. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, www.globalreporting.org.
Gustavson, K. R., S. C. Lonergan, and H. J. Ruitenbeek. 1999. Selection and modeling of sustainable
development indicators: a case study of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Ecol. Econ.
28(1):117-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00032-9.
Hopton, M. E., H. Cabezas, D. E. Campbell, T. Eason, A. S. Garmestani, M. T. Heberling, A. T. Karunanithi,
J. J. Templeton, D. White, and M. Zanowick. 2010. Development of a multidisciplinary approach
to assess regional sustainability. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 17(l):48-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500903488297.
USD. 2011. Global Directory of Indicator Initiatives. Available from:
http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/searchinitiatives.aspx. July 11, 2011.
ISO. 2004. ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use.
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue ics/catalogue detail ics.htm?csnumber=31807.
Kates, R. W., W. C. Clark, R. Correll, M. J. Hall, C. C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J. J. McCarthy, H. J. Schellnhuber, B.
Bolin, N. M. Dickson, S. Faucheux, G. C. Gallopin, A. Grubler, B. Huntley, J. Ja'ger, N. S. Jodha, R.
E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson, H. Mooney, B. Moore III, T. O'Riordan, and U. Svedin.
28
-------
2001. Sustainability Science. Science 292(5517):641-642.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/641.full?sid=32099442-9bb8-43fa-b048-
3a41f694164e.
Kjellstrom, T. and C. Corvalan. 1995. Framework for the development of environmental health
indicators. World Health Stat Q 48(2): 144-154.
Mayer, A. L 2008. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional
systems. Environ. Int. 34(2):277-291. DOI http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2007.09.004.
Mayer, A. L., C. W. Pawlowski, B. D. Path, and H. Cabezas. 2007. Applications of Fisher Information to the
management of sustainable environmental systems. Pages 217-244 in B. R. Frieden and R. A.
Gatenby, editors. Exploratory Data Analysis Using Fisher Information. Springer-Verlag London,
UK.
Meadows, D. 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development,. The Sustainability
Institute, Hartland VT, USA. http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/lndicators&lnformation.pdf.
Nourry, M. 2008. Measuring sustainable development: Some empirical evidence for France from eight
alternative indicators. Ecol. Econ. 67(3):441-456.
http://dx.doi.0rg/10.1016/i.ecolecon.2007.12.019.
NRC. 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., USA. ISBN-
10: 0-309-21252-9.
Odum, H. T. 1994. Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology. Second edition.
University Press of Colorado., Niwot, CO, USA. ISBN: 9780870813207.
OECD. 2001. OECD Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. Available from:
http://www.oecd.org/environment/environmentalindicatorsmodellingandoutlooks/1863539.pd
f.
Primpas, I., G. Tsirtsis, M. Karydis, and G. D. Kokkoris. 2010. Principal component analysis: Development
of a multivariate index for assessing eutrophication according to the European water framework
directive. Ecol. Ind. 10(178-183. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.007.
Pulselli, F. M., F. Ciampalini, C. Leipert, and E. Tiezzi. 2008. Integrating methods for the environmental
sustainability: The SPIn-Eco Project in the Province of Siena (Italy). J. Environ. Manage.
86(2):332-341. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ienvman.2006.04.014.
Redefining Progress. 1995. 'Gross production vs genuine progress', Excerpt from the Genuine Progress
Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology. San Francisco, CA, USA.
Serageldin, I. 1996. Sustainability as Opportunity and the Problem of Social Capital. 3 Brown J. World Aff.
lll(2):187-203.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.iournals/browniwa3&div=73&g sent=l&collectio
n=journals.
Sikdar, S. K. 2003. Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AlChe J. 49(8):1928-1932.
10.1002/aic.690490802.
Singh, R., H. Murty, S. Gupta, and A. Dikshit. 2009. An overview of sustainability assessment
methodologies. Ecological Indicators 9(2):189-212.
The World Bank. 1997. Expanding the Measure of Wealth. The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, Washington D.C., USA.
The World Economic Forum. 2001. Environmental Sustainability Index. An Initiative of the Global
Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force. The World Economic Forum, the Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information
Network, Davos, Switzerland. This report is available on-line at
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI.
Tiezzi, E. and S. Bastianoni. 2008. Sustainability of the Siena Province through ecodynamic indicators. J.
Environ. Manage. 86(2):329-331. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ienvman.2006.05.020.
29
-------
UN. 1987. Our Common Future. Report transmitted to the General Assembly as an annex to document
A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation, World Commission on Environment
and Development, Oxford, U.K.
USEPA. 2008. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment (Final Report). Washington D.C. EPA/600/R-
07/045F (NTIS PB2008-112484). http://www.epa.gov/roe.
USEPA 2010. San Luis Basin Sustainability Metrics Project: A Methodology for Evaluating Regional
Sustainability, EPA Number: EPA/600/R-10/182
Vyas, S. and L. Kumaranayake. 2006. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal
components analysis. Health Policy Plann. 21(6):459-468.
http://heapol.oxfordiournals.Org/content/21/6/459.full.
WBCSD. 2011. Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation - A framework for improving corporate decision-
making. Available from:
http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails. aspx?ID=104&NoSearchContextK
ey=true.
Wilson, J., P. Tyedmers, and R. Pelot. 2007. Contrasting and comparing sustainable development
indicator metrics. Ecological Indicators 7(299-314.
Zamagni, A., P. Buttol, R. Buonamici, P. Masoni, J. B. Guinee, G. Huppes, R. Heijungs, E. van der Voet, T.
Ekvall, and T. Rydberg. 2009. CALCAS D20 blue paper on life cycle Sustainability analysis.
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Lieden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
30
-------
Appendix A
This appendix provides a sample of the sustainability indicator database, resource list and summary
statistics on the classified indicators.
31
-------
Table A. 1-Sample of DOSII
32
-------
Table A. 2 - Sample of the Resource List for DOSII
# Source Acronym Type #
1
2
3
4
5
6
Biodiversity
Indicators
Partnership
2003 Report on the
Environment
2008 Report on the
Environment
Environmental
Pressure Indicators
European
Environment
Agency(EEA)
Indicators
Eurostat Set of
Sustainability
2010BIP
ROE 03
ROE 08
EPI
used EEA
Core Set
and EURO
SI
EUROSTAT
Report
Report
Report
Reportand
EUROSI DB
Reports and
databases
Report
29
151
85
60
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
144
Purpose/Description
Includes 1 7 headline line indicators from
seven focal areas for assessing progress
towards, and communicating the 2010 target
Studytrends in the condition of the air, water,
land, and human health of the United States
Studytrends in the condition of the air, water,
land, and human health of the United States
Aims to give
a comprehensive description ofthe most
important human activities that have a negative
impact on the environment
European sustainability
European sustainability
ENV
ENVanda
few SOC-ENV
ENVanda
few SOC-ENV
ENV
ALL
ALL
Components of biodiversity, sustainable use,
threats to biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, goods
and services, status of knowledge, innovations
and practices, access and benefits sharing and
resource transfers
Air, Human Health, Water, Ecological Condition,
Land
Air, Human Health, Water, Ecological Condition,
Land
Air Pollution, Climate Change, Loss of Biodiversity,
Environments Coastal Zones, Ozone Layer
Depletion, Resource Depletion, Dispersion of
Environmental Problems, Waste, Water Pollution &
Water Resources
Agriculture, Air pollution, Biodiversity, Chemicals,
Climate change, Coasts and seas, Energy,
Environment and health, Environmental scenarios,
Environmental technology, Fisheries, Household
consumption, Industry, Land use, Natural
resources, Noise, Policy instruments, Population
and economy, Soil, Specific regions, Tourism,
Transport, Urban environment, Various other
issues, Waste and material resources and Water
Socio-economic development, Sustainable
consumption and production, Social inclusion,
Demographic changes, Public health, Climate
change and energy, Sustainable transport Natural
resources, Global partnership and Good
governance
°a? Access u~dfte N°*eS
Global/Natio
nal(UNEP)
US
(National/Re
gional)
US
(National/Re
gional)
Europe
(National)
Europe
(National)
Europe
(National)
http://Www.bipindicat.ors.
net/indicators
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
cfm/recordisplay.cfm?dei
d=56830
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/
cfm /record is play. cfm?dei
d=190806
http://esl.jrc.it/envind/tepi
99rp.pdf
http://Www.eea.europa.eu
/data-and-
maps/indicators/#c7=all
&c5=&cO=10&b starl^O
http://epp.eurostatec.eur
o pa. eu/porta I/page/portal
2010
to 2008
report
2010
(some)
1999
2010
2007
Based on DPSIR;
Considering condensing
these indicators into ten
indices, File: epi99rp.pdf
33
-------
Table A. 3 -Distribution of DOSII within the Classification Schemes
Program*
SHC
SSWR
CSS
ACE
HHRA
HSR
#
1267
194
192
413
182
108
%
89.79%
13.75%
13.61%
29.27%
12.90%
7.65%
Pillar*
ENV
SOC
ECO
#
994
531
629
%
70.45%
37.63%
44.58%
Dimension
ID
2D
3D
#
727
586
98
%
51.52%
41.53%
6.95%
3V*
VCI
SCI
AOI
RFI
#
262
1328
308
583
%
18.57%
94.12%
21.83%
41.32%
ROE Topic*
Air
Ecological
Condition
Human Health
Land
Water
#
395
769
323
352
276
%
27.99%
54.50%
22.89%
24.95%
19.56%
Scale*
Global
National
Regional
Community
Industrial
#
253
1075
764
573
460
%
17.93%
76.19%
54.15%
40.61%
32.60%
This table provides summary statistics on the indicators in this iteration of the database. Note that *
indicates that the categories within classification schemes are not mutually exclusive, i.e., many of the
indicators are linked to multiple categories within each classification scheme (e.g., Pillar: ECO and SOC or
Program: ACE and SHC). Due to the overlap, the total number of indicators will not add up to 1411, nor
will the sum of the percentages equal 100%.
34
-------
Appendix B
This appendix provides a draft of the web-tool architecture. This is a milestone of SHC task 1.2.2.1.
35
-------
SHC Theme 1: Developing Information and Tools to Support Community Sustainability (Betsy
Smith, Lead) • Topic 1.2: Assessing Community Sustainability (Kevin Summers, Lead) • Project
1.2.2: Provide Indicators and Indices to Assess, Track, and Inform Community Sustainability (Lisa
Smith, Lead) • Task 1.2.2.1: Inventory of Sustainability indicators (Tarsha Eason, Lead)
Architecture for an Interactive Web-Tool for
the Inventory of Sustainability Indicators
(Draft Version 1.0)
Linda Harwell
ORD/NHEERL/Gulf Ecology Division
In Cooperation with:
Dr. Lynne Petterson
ORD/OSIM/Information Management Support Division
Prepared by:
Information International Associates, Inc. (Ha)
Gail Hodge, Project Manager
BPA EP10H001216—PO # EP-B11H-0083
September 27, 2012
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Contents
Acronym List and Definitions ii
1.0 Purpose 1
2.0 Scope & Background 1
3.0 Objectives 1
4.0 Architecture Components 2
4.1 Communities 2
4.2 Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices 2
4.3 ORD Managed Vocabulary 4
4.4 Synthesized Vocabularies 4
5.0 Conceptual Data Flow 5
6.0 Conceptual Process Flow 6
6.1 Building and Maintaining the SI I Content 6
6.2 User-System Interaction When Using the SI I Tool 6
7.0 Technology Options 7
7.1 Technology Roadmap and the Interoperability Framework 8
7.2 Technology Options by Architecture Component 9
8.0 Next Steps 10
References 12
Figures and Tables
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Architectural Overview for Sustainability Indicators Inventory Discovery Tool 2
Figure 4-2: ORD MV Keywords are Mapped to Themes and Pillars 4
Figure 5-1: Conceptual Data Flow 5
Figure 6-1: Conceptual Process Flow for Building and Maintaining the Sll Content 6
Figure 6-2: Conceptual Process Flow for Using the Sll Tool 7
Figure 7-1: General SHCRP Interoperability Framework 8
Figure 7-2: Specific Sll Tool within SHCRP Interoperability Framework 8
Table 4.2-1: Example of Sll Database Theme Assignments 3
-------
Acronym List and Definitions
Broader Term (BT)—A term representing a concept that encompasses the concept represented by
another term (i.e., the narrower term). For example, "body part" is the broader term for the term
"arm".
DOSII — Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices
Holistic — A term that describes a whole system, rather than analysis or treatment of parts.
Index (calculated) — A number or symbol, developed from a series of observations or measure and used
to indicate or describe a subject of interest.
Index (search) — The data resulting from the collection and parsing of content to facilitate fast and
accurate information retrieval. The purpose of storing an index is to optimize speed and performance in
finding relevant content for a search query. Indicator — A measure used to describe a particular state or
relationship, which may, or may not, be a direct measure of that state or relationship.
Indices — Plural of index.
Keyword — A term extracted from the ORD Managed Vocabulary and mapped to one or more Themes.
Mapping — The act of semantically linking the concepts in one vocabulary to the concepts in another, or
the actual representation of that relationship as stored in a database table or terminology management
system. For example, the ORD MV keywords will be mapped to Themes.
Metric — A standardized unit of measure.
Narrower Term (NT) — A term representing a concept that is subordinate or is encompassed by to the
concept represented by another term (i.e., the broader term). For example, "arm" is the narrower term
to the broader term "body part".
OEI/OIC/DSB — EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Data
Standards Branch.
ORD MV — ORD Managed Vocabulary; a file of selected terms, relationships and definitions that
represent the broad interests of the EPA Office of Research & Development.
Pillar — One of three elements in a common framework used for the selection of indicators:
environment, society and economy.
Related Term (RT) — Terms that are conceptually associated with one another. For example, the term
"pitching" is related to the term "arm".
SHCRP — Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
Sll — Sustainability Indicators Inventory
Synaptica — The commercial terminology management tool hosted by the OEI/OCI/DSB as Terminology
Services. This commercial tool is used for the ORD Managed Vocabulary, and is proposed as the tool for
managing the mappings of pillars, themes and ORD Managed Vocabulary keywords in support of the Sll
Tool.
Theme (or Source Theme) — One of a series of 22 categories assigned to the indicators in the Sll
database based on the context of the source (e.g., World Bank, UNEP, etc.). Themes are assigned to one
or more Pillars.
-------
Vocabulary — A group of terms collected for a common purpose, domain, or audience that are stored
as a single file with a unique name in the Synaptica terminology management tool.
IV
-------
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to lay the foundation and provide a framework for the development of
the Sustainable Community Indicators web-based discovery tool. It includes descriptions of the
architectural components, the data and processes, and the technology options needed to provide
quality data to support the proposed user experience. Finally, suggestions for next steps are provided.
The Sustainability Indicators Inventory database discovery tool supports the SHC Research Action Plan
(RAP) project as outlined under Theme 1: Data and Tools to Support Sustainable Community Decisions,
Topic 1.2: Assessing Community Sustainability, Project 1.2.2: Provide Indicators and Indices to Assess,
Track, and Inform Community Sustainability, Task 1.2.2.1: Inventory of Sustainability indicators
otherwise known as the Database of Sustainability Indicators and Indices (DOSII).
2.0 Scope & Background
In the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Strategic Research Action Plan (US EPA 2012a),
Sustainability is defined as the ability "to create and maintain conditions under which humans and
nature can exist in productive harmony, [and] that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations."(NEPA 1969). It is recognized as a major factor
influencing the long-term success of communities. Nonetheless, the assessment of the environmental
conditions of a community, its ability to sustain those conditions under various challenges, and to
improve in a particular area or overall is a complex undertaking. It is made more difficult by the
interaction and complexity of the environmental, social, economic and political structures involved; the
fact that there are a number of indicators available; and that the application of these indicators must be
relevant in a local context.
In order to begin to address these issues, a task was initiated within the US Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development's (ORD) National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL) to develop an inventory of Sustainability indicators using a subject taxonomy
system initially designed to assist EPA's research communities in identifying trusted sources of
Sustainability related data. ORD's Sustainable and Healthy Communities (SHC) National Research
Program has recognized the value of this type of effort, particularly as it relates to providing
communities, both internal and external to EPA, with a holistic suite of "... indicators and indices to
assess, track, and inform community Sustainability." (QAPP 2012). To that end, the scope of the DOSII
project has expanded to include the development of an interactive web-based tool for searching its
repository of vetted indicators and related source information. This document provides a high-level
conceptual architecture that describes the strategy for building a synergistic community-centric
discovery tool pairing concepts of controlled-vocabulary and information science with the indicators
inventory.
3.0 Objectives
It is anticipated that this web tool will enhance the utility of DOSII by extending access to these data in a
manner that is both informative and relevant to communities. By using prompts to solicit user input,
customized list(s) of suggested indicators can be built based on user specified Sustainability priorities
(e.g., cost-benefit analysis, monitoring and assessment, education). The existing database will be
assimilated into an information science-based framework to create the basis for a keyword-driven data
mining engine and lay the foundation for integrating additional indicators stemming from ORD's
Sustainability science portfolio. The resulting interface system, the Sustainability Indicators Inventory
-------
(Sll) Discovery Tool, will leverage multi-platform web-based technology to create a stylized approach for
disseminating indicator information.
A major consideration in the development of the web-tool for community use is the negotiation of
language and meaning (semantics). The indicators that have been created are based on field and
laboratory science, at various levels of "indicative granularity" and by diverse groups, both national and
international. They may be expressed in terms which may or may not be understood by the users
looking to select and use the indicators. Therefore, a primary feature of the tool development, and a
critical component of this architecture, is the integration of the ORD Managed Vocabulary to provide
support for improving the search and navigation of the indicators through improved semantics.
4.0 Architecture Components
At the most basic level, the components of this system include data sources, various vocabulary
resources, a database and user interface. The components are integrated using a service-oriented
architecture, but this may be conceptual rather than physical since web services may not be used in the
initial development of the system.
Figure 4-1 depicts a general overview of the Sll and its components. The interfaces, which may be
tailored to particular communities, provide access to resources through an access layer that synthesizes
metadata from indicator resources such as the DOSII and terminology from various terminology services
such as the ORD Managed Vocabulary (ORD MV).
Each of the major components of the Discovery Tool is described below.
4.1 Communities
Communities are individuals, groups, or services that focus on specific uses or aspects of the data
contained in the Sll. These may include scientists, neighborhood groups and local governments, interest
groups, etc. Communities use web-based interfaces via desktops or mobile devices to access Sll services.
The specific look-and-feel of the interface and the
features and services included can vary by
community by virtue of the interface design .'" neighborhoods
or by profiling capabilities in the hands of the
users.
Communities
scientists
educators
individuals
families
interest groups
decision/policy
makers
4.2 Database of Sustainability
Indicators and Indices
Communities use web-based
interface devices (e.g. desktop,
mobile devices) to access Sll
discovery services
The DOSII contains an inventory of
indicators and indices relevant to
sustainability in the context of
community-based assessments. i
ORD's new sustainability-focused
research areas as well as mature
programs, such as the Report on the
Environment (ROE), lacked an easily
navigable repository containing reviewed and
vetted sustainability indicator summary
information to assist Figure 4-1: Conceptual Architectural Overview for Sustainability Indicators Inventory Discovery Tool
research teams in
•n ortginfll gr*phk p«wrrt*d by flick fcg&t* ft PA)
-------
identifying data gaps, available sources, and collaboration opportunities. The DOSII database was
designed using a subject-oriented taxonomy to help database users build lists of subject relevant
candidate indicators. A pool of 1600+ peer reviewed indicators spanning multiple geographic scales
(national, regional, etc.) were selected for inclusion in the initial database by a cross-organizational
workgroup using worldwide benchmarking. The taxonomy was developed to provide intra-Agency
organizations with clearly defined subject groupings that were cross-referenced to existing and planned
research. Additionally, a guidance document was developed to assist EPA programmatic, administrative
and research communities with accessing the DOSII information (US EPA 2012b).
The indicator database is stored in MS Excel. It includes key metadata including the indicator/index
name, acronym of the source name, scale (e.g., national, community), pillar of sustainability, source
theme (e.g., forests and biodiversity), Report on the Environment topic, EPA program, Triple Value
Designation (e.g., system condition), dimensionality (e.g., 2D) and computational units. In the initial
implementation of the Sll tool, the pillars and themes will be the major organizing factors.
At the highest level, pillars represent a common framework for identifying, describing and selecting
indicators. The three pillars are:
• Environment—assurance of continued integrity of natural resources
• Society—assurance of continued human health and well being
• Economy—assurance of continued economic prosperity
Most important for this process are the Source Themes, of which there are 22 unique assignments. The
structure allows for a single indicator to be associated with multiple themes. In addition, a theme can be
assigned to more than one pillar. Some examples of assignments are provided below (Table 4.2-1), using
a partial extract example from the Sll database (version 1) showing indicators from different sources and
assigned to different themes.
Table 4-1: Example of Sll Database Theme Assignments
Source ROE Progra
Indicator Source Scale Country Pillar Theme Topic m
GDP
Population
Population growth
Carbon Dioxide
Emissions - per Capita
(CDIAC)
World
Bank
World
Bank
World
Bank
UNEP-GEO
Core
National
Any (less industrial)
Any (less industrial)
Global/National/Regiona
1
WB
WB
WB
UNEP
ECO
SOC
SOC
ENV-ECO
Economic
Demographic
Demographic
Atmosphere
Air
SHC
SHC
SHC
ACE
As a test, the pillars and themes are stored in EPA's Terminology Services (provided by OEI/OIC/DSB)
using the Synaptica terminology management software. The pillars are treated as the names of specific
vocabularies while the themes associated with them in the Sll database are stored as descriptors or
terms within those vocabularies. The same theme can occur in more than one vocabulary. Following is
an example of the themes under the Economic Pillar Vocabulary.
Vocabulary Name - Economic Pillar
Built capital
Commercial
-------
Demographic Changes
Economic
Economic development
Financial
Financial Instruments
Global economic partnership
Global Partnership
Governance
Human and social capital
Intergeneration equity
International Justice
International responsibility
National accounting aggregates
Product
Quality of life
Social Performance: Product Responsibility
Social Performance: Society
Soci
Environment
\
ety
!5
re
1
to
Economy
^^ J ^
Themes - 22 Unique Assignments
ORD MV Keywords
Figure 4-2: ORD MV Keywords are Mapped
to Themes and Pillars
There are other possible approaches to storing the mappings, which are covered under Next Steps.
4.3 ORD Managed Vocabulary
The ORD MV is a repository of more than 10,000 scientific and technical terms of interest to ORD
research. Terms have been collected in major categories such as the natural environment, chemical
substances, human health, and society and economy. The ORD MV was created from a number of
sources including key documents, web sites, other EPA sources such as glossaries, and other
vocabularies, such as published thesauri, from other agencies such as the US Geological Survey and the
National Agricultural Library.
The ORD MV also includes the hierarchical relationships, broader term (BT) and narrower term (NT). For
example, Economic Analysis is a broader concept than Cost-Benefit Analysis. Therefore, economic
analysis is a BT to Cost-Benefit Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis is an NT to Economic Analysis. Other
relationships may include synonyms, which include acronyms and abbreviations (AB). For example,
Benefit-Cost Analysis is abbreviated by (AB) the acronym BCA.
The relationships stored in the ORD MV can help to improve the retrieval and organization of content
within systems or disseminated by systems. For example, the user can enter the term cost-benefit
analysis and be presented with indicators that are tagged by only the theme (or broader term) Economic
Analysis.
The ORD MV and relationships it can store will be used to map commonly used terms to the DOSII
themes. This will allow users of the tool to enter terms of interest and to obtain information from the
system without having to understand the specifics of the terms used by the system. Because multiple
indicators will be described using the same theme, it will also be possible to link indicators using this
approach.
4.4 Synthesized Vocabularies
The synthesized vocabularies are built by matching the themes from the indicators database against the
ORD MV and extracting the appropriate keywords from the ORD MV. The content from the Keyword
extraction and the Indicator Information are linked based on the theme assigned to each indicator.
-------
An example of the mapping is presented below. In this case, Economic Analysis is one of the Source
Themes. It is found in the ORD MV with narrower terms (NT) and related terms (RT). Related terms are
closely associated but they are not directly hierarchical (broader term or narrower term). Benefit-Cost
Analysis is abbreviated by (AB) the acronym BCA.
Economic Analysis
NT Benefit-Cost Analysis
AB BCA
NT Cost-Benefit Analysis
NT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
NT Economic Impact
NT Green Accounting
NT Input-Output Analysis
NT Marginal Analysis
NT Risk-Benefit Analysis
NT Safe Minimum Standard
RT Decision Analysis
RT Generally Accepted Accounting Principle
In addition, the keywords from the ORD MV can be mapped to terms in the names of the indicators. For
example:
Indicator Name Related Keywords from ORD MV
Rainfall
Rainfall; Precipitation; Water Cycle; Hydrologic Cycle; Drought;
Agricultural Drought; Hydrological Drought; Meteorological Drought
Total delivered domestic energy
demand (electricity, other fuels)
Energy Economics; Energy Market; Energy Consumption; Energy
Management; Energy Use Optimization; Carbon Dioxide Tax; Fossil
Fuel; Fossil Fuel Resource; Coal; Natural Gas; Oil; Carbon-Based
Resource; Energy Production
The use of mappings between the terms in the
indicator names and the keywords in the ORD
MV would provide more granular access.
These more specific terms
could also be used to extend
the pillars and themes in a
browse taxonomy.
Public Domain
Sources
{Data.gov, others}
5.0
Conceptual Data
Flow
.1
Existing & Emerging
EPA Sii^tainability Tools
(Examples; HWBIP EQIr
Communitv Typology)
"Virtual tornmunitv Engagement"
Product
tty Piotlle
Interests/Objectives
* Environments), Social & Economic Fatton
-v
I
arch
u
User Search by Name, KW, etc.
Figure 5-1 shows the data flow for the Sll
tool at the conceptual level. This data
flow is from the system perspective. Key
functions needed to support this data flow
include the extraction of indicators from the
DOSII and eventually other sources. In the
initial implementation, all records and data
elements in the database may be extracted.
change overtime and may not be the —
with other sources. The ORD
Managed Vocabulary will be
used to create a mapping of themes to keywords. These results are used to provide keywords for each
• Planned info Flow
. Alternative flow
Indicator that
^. Matches User —
A Interest
This may
-> feedback C3S6
Figure 5-1: Conceptual Data Flow
-------
indicator. This is the file which is then searched to provide the information when a user enters the
name, a keyword or browses the taxonomy on the Sll tool's user interface.
6.0 Conceptual Process Flow
This section shows the conceptual process flow for the creation and maintenance of the DOSII and the
process flow for the user system interaction of the Sll Tool.
6.1 Building and Maintaining the SH Content
Project Manager
Public Domain Sources
(Data.gov, others)
System
I.-I
Existing & Emerging
EPA Sustainability Tools
(Examples: HWBI, EQI,
Community Typology)
f "Virtual Community Engagement"
Product
Dynamic-Filtering
Candidate list of
relevant indicators t
help measure status
and progress
1 Community Profile
Extract Indicators and
Metadata from DOSII
Extract Themes, Terms from
Names, etc.
Extract Keywords from ORD
MV Based on Themes, Terms in
Names, etc.
I
Create Tables Linking
Indicators and
Keywords
I
Create
—v Searchable
~~ ^ Indexes
Sustainability Interests/Objectives
V • Environmental, Social & Economic Factors
Figure 6-1: Conceptual Process Flow for Building and Maintaining the Sll Content
Figure 6-1 shows the process flow for building and maintaining the content in the Sll. Content can be
added manually to the DOSII, imported from other sources, or contributed by the user's interaction with
the system. In each case, the indicators and themes are extracted from the resulting database, the
themes are matched against the ORD MV and a searchable index is created from the resulting tables for
use by the Sll Tool.
-------
User
System
f "Virtual Community Engagement"
Product
Dynamic-Filtering
Candidate list of
relevant indicators
help measure status
and progress
• Community Profile
Sustainability I nterests/Objectives
V • Environmental, Social & Economic Factors
Refine Search, As
Needed
Search Index for
Relevant Indicators
>
t
Extract Relevant Metadata from DOSII for
Display, Apply Filters
Display Results
Figure 6-2: Conceptual Process Flow for Using the SI Tool
6.2 User-System Interaction When Using the SH Tool
Figure 6-2 shows the interaction between the user and the system as the Sll Tool is being used. The user
accesses the system, enters a search or selects a category from the browse taxonomy (which may be
based on the pillars and/or the themes), and is presented with the results from the synthesized
indicators inventory. The display of the results may vary based on filters, user preferences, or user
profiles. The results are evaluated by the user and may result in another request to the system or
refinement of the current request.
This interaction describes the most basic functionality for discovery and access. In the final system, there
may be a variety of display formats or options and other functions may be available including the ability
to supply indicators or comments on indicators back to the Virtual Community through social media
options. It is expected that the functions will grow as the system is used and user expectations and
needs are assessed and incorporated into the design.
7.0 Technology Options
The conceptual design provided above does not dictate any particular technology options. No matter
what the initial technology set turns out to be, we want to make sure it is implementable and requires
only a basic skill set. However, it is valuable to consider technology options as the project moves
forward if for no other reason than to continue to ensure that the design is technology agnostic. A
-------
technology roadmap can also be advantageous when working with other stakeholders to determine
where their systems will be in the near and long-term futures.
7.1 Technology Roadmap and the Interoperability Framework
A high level technology roadmap ensures that the Sll tool will be in line with the principles expressed in
the SCHRP interoperability architecture shown in Figure 7-1 below. The puzzle pieces representing the
data, the user interface, the analytical tools, and the communication/community engagement through
social media are interoperable pieces that make up the whole.
SHCRP interoperability, standards, and services-oriented
architecture / framework approach to decision support
General
—modified from an original graphic presented by Rick Ziegler (EPA)
Figure 7-1: General SHCRP Interoperability Framework
SHCRP interoperability, standards, and services-oriented
architecture / framework approach to decision support
Specific to SI I
Tool
( Database
V*— • '-N ^~^
—modified from an original graphic presented by Rick Ziegler (EPA)
Figure 7-2: Specific Sll Tool within SHCRP Interoperability Framework
-------
Figure 7-2 uses the general framework to describe the high level components of the Sll Discovery Tool.
Any one of these pieces can be external to the other, allowing other entities to create products and
services that interoperate and enhance the Sll tool.
7.2 Technology Options by Architecture Component
This section describes the various technology options that may be considered in the future for each
component identified in the Architecture Components section.
Vocabulary Management
The ORD MV is currently managed in Terminology Services, one of the registries in the EPA System of
Registries (SoR) provided by the QIC/Data Standards Branch. Terminology Services is run on terminology
management software called Synaptica. This is actually an application over an Oracle database that
manages the terms, controls and validates the entry of relationships between terms and other elements
that are maintained, and provides an interface and APIs to access the terminology.
However, the functionality of terminology management can be provided by several other products. The
common features of these tools include adherence to the rules around the formation of a well-formed
hierarchical vocabulary (aka thesaurus or taxonomy) and the ability to extend such a structure to include
other metadata about each term.
User Interface
The development of the user interface will, in the short term, use an HTML development tool such as
PHP. However, we are recommending that the development move quickly or even initially consider the
use of HTML-5. This approach, along with a device agnostic design approach, will allow the resulting
website to be accessible via all types of mobile devices. Mobile accessibility for end user systems is being
promoted by EPA and by the Administration's Digital Government Strategy (OMB 2012). In this
particular case, one can readily imagine a scenario where the local resource manager is in the field when
attempting to identify or coordinate the selection of sustainable community identifiers. Further,
interface design considerations will include:
• Icon driven user prompts to help transcend language barriers;
• Application assisted community characterization using prompted scripts and SHC community
typology efforts (SCH Task: 2.1.3.2); and
• Future development of an audio component to assist with compliance of Section (508) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Social Media Tools
The Sustainable Community Indicators web site can be viewed as just the beginning of an effort to bring
the community together. Figure 7-2 offers an example of virtual community engagement effort under
development in SHC New and Emerging Media (Task 1.1.2.1) research. One can imagine a robust virtual
community where local officials share expertise, collaborate on challenges, identify joint solutions, and
recommend improvements to indicators that have been provided. This type of forum can be facilitated
by social media tools.
While these types of tools are not the purview of this project, the design should be open enough to
entertain the connection with tools such as Drupal and Jive. In particular, it should be open enough to
be linked to or integrated with social media platforms, such as Julie's Earth collaboration tool, which has
been investigated as a platform by EPA.
-------
Key to the use of social media tools are user profiles and filters against the content that provide
information that best matches the user needs. In addition, there are other social media tools such as RSS
feeds to register and push targeted updates to users, bi-directional communication tools such as
Twitter, community and group facilitation tools that mimic Linkedln and Facebook, and multi-media
content similar to You-Tube videos.
Web Services
As discussed above, the basic architecture takes into consideration a Service Oriented Architect (SOA)
approach which links the resources and functions via web services. However, there can be issues related
to the use of web services, particularly for public facing systems, that involve security issues, firewall
protection, etc. For this reason, we have recommended the use of batch data exchanges between the
layers rather than the use of web services. In addition, there can be performance issues and little to be
gained with the use of web services, if the original content is very static.
However, ultimately, it will be beneficial to move to web services in order to open the tool's data to
other systems and applications. This would also be in line with the Digital Government Strategy (OMB
2012) which calls for APIs for all publicly available data.
8.0 Next Steps
There are several next steps related to further design, development and deployment of the Sll Tool,
specifically related to the vocabulary support. These include data, processes and further testing of the
concepts expressed above.
Most immediately, the next step is to develop a proof of concept and implementation of the tool based
on this architecture. This proof of concept would limit the data to the DOSII database and the use of the
ORD MVto a mapping of pillars and themes.
Further work would extend the data to include the Health and Well-being indicators (HWBI SHC Task
1.2.2.2) and the Environmental Quality Index (EQI SHC Task 1.2.2.3). Plans are already underway to take
the Well-being and the EQI and build direct mappings between them. In these cases, there may be
additional vocabulary work that is needed to support the indicator search and mappings. This would also
extend the keywords from the ORD MV used to categorize and enhance access. Some of these terms
have already been added to the ORD MV as part of its development. Increasing the number of data and
vocabulary sources may raise other process issues, particularly with regard to the maintenance of the
synthesized vocabularies to reflect changes made to the sources. There are also distinct characteristics
of these sources that may need to be reflected in the data or in the user interface. For example, the
HWBI has very distinct grouping categories for indicators/metrics. The appropriate way to incorporate
these "more specific" grouping categories needs to be discussed.
In addition to the design and proof of concept development of the tool, and extension of the data, next
steps should include a complete analysis of the process and data flows between the ORD MV and the
tool, an analysis of the maintenance requirements for all the files, and a review of the best structure for
storing the terms and the mappings. In the initial Proof of Concept, the pillars and related terms are
stored in a single directory (task view) in separate vocabularies for each pillar with the terms stored
within each vocabulary. With this approach the themes are not only linked to the pillars but if the same
theme occurs in multiple pillars, the two occurrences can be linked. There are other approaches for
storing and mapping the pillars, themes and keywords. For example, one approach would store the
themes in the same vocabulary and assign the pillars as top terms. Alternatively, the themes would be
stored in a single vocabulary without duplication, and one or more pillars assigned as categories to each
10
-------
theme. The best approach depends on the format needed when extracting terms from the vocabularies,
the functionality required, and the impact of maintenance.
Additional analysis is also needed to determine whether themes containing multiple concepts or those
that could be considered hierarchical should be stored as single terms, as they were in the test, or in a
different way. For example, the theme, "human and social capital," includes two concepts - human
capital and social capital. In this initial test, the themes were entered into Terminology Services in their
combined, original form. However, they could be represented in the vocabulary as two separate but
related concepts. For example:
Human capital (related term) Social Capital
Social capital (related term) Human Capital
In this way, each concept can have its own mappings to specific keywords.
Similarly, hierarchical terms such as Social Performance: Product Responsibility and Social Performance:
Society were retained as joined strings. These could have been separated and stored with a hierarchical
relationship as:
Social Performance
Product Responsibility
Society
The best approach to the style of the terms will depend on the proposed use cases and the tool's user
interface design.
11
-------
References
OMB 2012. Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Service the American People.
Office of Management & Budget. May, 2012.
NEPA 1969. National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4331a).
QAPP 2012. Sustainability Based Decision Making Rev. No. 0. May 2012. Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, OH.
US EPA 2012a. Sustainable and Healthy Communities Strategic Research Action Plan. US Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. Feb. 2012. EPA 601/R-
12/005
US EPA 2012b. A Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA. (2012). Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
OH.
12
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERM IT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |