EPA/600/R-14/237 | September 2014 | www.epa.gov/ord
Environmenta
Agency
Methods, Metrics, and Indicators Available
for Identifying and Quantifying Economic and
Social Impacts Associated with Beneficial
Reuse Decisions:
A Review of the Literature
Office of Research and Development
-------
EPA/600/R-14/237
September 2014
Methods, Metrics, and Indicators Available for
Identifying and Quantifying Economic and
Social Impacts Associated with Beneficial
Reuse Decisions:
A Review of the Literature
Sustainable and Healthy Communities
3.2.1 Tools to Assist States in Developing
Beneficial Use Determinations for Wastes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
-------
EPA/600/R-14/237
September 2014
Foreword
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading
to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, US EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources
wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's
center for investigation of technological and management approaches for
preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and
their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water,
and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems;
remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and
control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates
with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research
provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting
technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community
levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by US EPA's Office of Research
and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their
clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
EPA/600/R-14/237
September 2014
Acknowledgements
Todd Luxton of U.S. EPA ORD, NRMRL, served as the Task Lead for the SHC
3.2.1.3 project. The team was comprised of David Carson, Gordon Evans, Mark
Kemper, Kirk Scheckel, Stephen Wright, and Hale Thurston. The team would like
to acknowledge the exemplary contribution from the RTI team led by Keith Weitz.
Their help and expertise were critical to the development and completion of the
document. The draft and final versions of this document were prepared under the
ORD STREAMS2 contract (EP-C-11-036), Task 14. We also would like to thank
David Carson (EPA ORD/NRMRL), Alice Gilliland (EPA ORD/NRMRL), and
Thabet Tolaymat (EPA ORD/NRMRL) for providing a Technical review of the
document. Their suggestions helped improve the clarity and readability of the
document. Finally, we would like to thank David Carson (Project Lead), Fran
Kramer (Associate National Program director) Randy Parker (SHC Matrix
Interface), and Michael Slimak (National Program director) for their support of our
work.
IV
-------
EPA/600/R-14/237
September 2014
Executive Summary
Industries in the United States generate large volumes of non-hazardous wastes, sludges, by-
products, and spent materials that require disposal or other end-of-life management. Solid-waste
management stakeholders are increasingly employing or researching methods for beneficial reuse
of these wastes in industrial and commercial applications. The acceleration of this research, both
internationally and domestically, has seen numerous organizations, such as the United Kingdom
Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), take the lead in presenting information depicting the various benefits and drawbacks
associated with such reuse. Although the research and related policy implementation should take
into account the environmental, economic, and social impacts of beneficial reuse, thus far, this
field has been characterized by an extensive focus on the technical feasibility of beneficial reuse
and associated environmental impacts.
To identify information and tools for evaluating economic and social impacts affiliated
economically and socially acceptable forms of beneficial reuse, a review and evaluation of the
existing literature on Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
of beneficial reuse. This report documents the search methodology, the results, and the
conclusions of that review, with the purpose of determining the data, metrics, and methods
required to identify and quantify economic and social impacts of beneficial reuse decisions.
Equipped with such knowledge the U.S. EPA and other organizations can develop improved
decision-making frameworks and programs to better promote beneficial reuse in U.S.
communities.
The current literature review entailed searching journal literature and the Internet using terms
related to various beneficial reuse materials, as well as economic and social impact assessment
terms. The review identified 337 studies of interest, and these were screened and categorized
based on the relevancy of their topical content. Abstracts and executive summaries were reviewed
of those studies to confirm their value for meeting project objectives. Full copies of the
documents that were classified as "Useful" or "Potentially Useful" were obtained and reviewed to
confirm their usefulness and to extract the information relevant to this study. Upon final review,
72 sources were found to assess reuse of a wide variety of materials using several related
methodologies. A majority of the sources analyzed reuse of wastewater, biosolids, and
Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste (in order of decreasing frequency). SIA studies were
less numerous than EcIA studies and many studies contain aspects of both EcIA and SIA
(henceforth referred to as EcIA/SIA studies).
Key methods found within the literature for conducting EcIA and SIA of beneficial reuse
scenarios, in order of most prevalent to least prevalent are listed below.
• EcIA methods:
- cost-benefit analysis (CBA);
- life cycle cost analysis (LCCA); and
- various other methods such as hedonic valuation, contingent valuation, shadow
pricing, economic input-output analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis;
-------
EPA/600/R-14/237
September 2014
• SIA methods:
- qualitative listing and/or description of social impacts;
- social LCA;
- interactive community forum; and
- various other methods such as surveys, multi-criteria decision modeling, and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) type analyses of alternatives.
The most prevalent metrics found within the literature for the most EcIA studies, which primarily
used CBA, included the following:
" direct costs and benefits (e.g., capital and operating expenses and revenues);
• indirect costs and benefits (e.g., materials storage cost, reduced landfill disposal cost);
and
• external costs and benefits (e.g., jobs created, public health or environmental impacts).
In contrast, most SIA sources listed or provided qualitative descriptions of social metrics
summarizing the following:
" existing or potential public attitudes towards beneficial reuse programs;
" perceptions of risk, health, and safety; and
" type and impact of possible nuisances (e.g., odor, noise, traffic).
Estimates or qualitative characterizations for both economic and social impacts were often
presented in the context of internal (direct) facility- or project-level assessments. In general, data
in the literature were lacking for indirect costs and external economic impacts (e.g., estimates of
effects on local industries) and social impacts outside of those related to public acceptance
(attitudes and perceptions) and nuisances, which are difficult to quantify and thus appear
infrequently in the literature. Rather, focus often was placed on characterizing the technical
feasibility, profitability and social acceptance (through attitudes and perceptions) of establishing
beneficial reuse programs and projects. However, several sources used EIS, life-cycle assessment
(LCA), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and other methods for quantifying more indirect
and external economic impacts and social impacts. Key metrics for these indirect and external
costs are typically monetary units so that they may be added or compared with direct costs.
Studies found in the literature also included non-monetary ratings/rankings or purely qualitative
descriptions for indirect and external costs and/or social impacts. Regardless of the exact metric
used, they all provide the value of making the broader range of economic and social impacts more
visible to decision-makers and key stakeholders.
Key data gaps found, and potential research needs, are as follows:
1. Metrics and data for EcIA and SIA were often presented in the context of facility- or
project-level assessments that capture only internal impacts rather than more
comprehensive EcIAs and SIAs that capture both internal and external impacts. Data
for characterizing non-market economic impacts of beneficial use alternatives were
found to be generally lacking, as well as social impacts outside of commonly used
public acceptance and nuisance metrics.
VI
-------
EPA/600/R-14/237
September 2014
2. EcIA literature gave many examples of useful data for evaluating the benefits of reuse.
However, most of it was facility- or project-level financial data rather than information
on the broader range of economic impacts, such as jobs created (both spatially and
temporally), tax revenue, and property value changes.
3. Gaps in quantitative data for all of the SIA categories and metrics included in this
report exist and are particularly acute for the non-acceptance and nuisance metrics.
4. The lack of methods to identify impacts up front. In general, studies and sources
reviewed simply start with a list of impacts that are perceived to be important, or are
important to stakeholders, and then try to characterize those impacts.
Selection of a specific method(s) is not explicitly described in the much of the literature, but is
likely based on the goals of the project, cost of implementing the methods, availability of data,
and other factors (e.g., familiarity of researchers with different methods or tools). Using a
methodology that combines quantitative and qualitative assessment of environmental, economic
and social impacts followed by subjective weighting of priorities (e.g., employment versus local
development), may provide a promising option for assessing beneficial reuse scenarios. Several
sources present innovative ways to quantitative and/or qualitatively rank attitudes towards
projects and nuisance impacts, and then to prioritize social impacts and compare aggregate scores
(through multiplication of impact score times a weight) of scenarios, or to perform optimization
analysis. It is recommended that additional research be performed to build on reuse-related EIS,
LCA, and MCDA frameworks, and more importantly, on how they can be adapted and
standardized based on beneficial reuse, in order to better assist the U.S. EPA and others in
developing beneficial reuse decision-support tools and for overall promotion of the practice.
The importance of this work for communities and decision makers is it summarizes the state of
available information and characterizes approaches to assessing social and economic impacts of
materials decisions. Data evaluated was directly applicable to land-applied BU of waste
materials and BU of construction and demolition materials use scenarios, which comprise a
significant portion of the BUDs being developed. BUDs can be made more useful with
additional research establishing metrics, conducting case studies and establishing data sets of
actual community reuse scenarios. Future research should include the development of a frame
work for applying social and economic methods identified into existing BUD decision analysis
to determine how inclusion of the data impacts the existing BUD. BU of materials comprises a
key component of the broader approach to sustainable materials management.
VII
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table of Contents
List of Tables ix
List of Figures ix
Acronyms x
Key Terms and Definitions xi
1. Introduction 1-
1.1 Background 1-
1.2 Objectives 1-
2. Methodology 2-
2.1 Literature Review 2-
2.1.1 Source Collection 2-
2.1.2 Data Processing 2-3
2.2 Evaluation Process and Criteria Used to Select Useful Sources 2-4
2.2.1 Tier 1 Review 2-4
2.2.2 Tier 2 Review 2-6
2.3 Harmonizing this Impact Assessment with Similar EPA Research 2-6
3. Results 3-1
3.1 Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA) Methods and Metrics 3-2
3.1.1 Methods 3-3
3.1.2 Metrics 3-5
3.2 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Methods and Metrics 3-6
3.2.1 Methods 3-7
3.2.2 Metrics 3-7
3.3 Case Studies 3-9
3.3.1 Combined EcIA/SIA Studies 3-9
3.3.2 EcIA Studies 3-14
3.3.3 SIA Studies 3-15
4. Discussion 4-1
4.1 Key Economic Methods, Metrics, Data and Examples 4-1
4.2 Key Social Methods, Metrics, and Data and Examples 4-2
4.3 Data Gaps and Research Needs 4-4
5. References 5-1
Appendix A: Selected Case Study Examples of Economic and Social Impact Assessment of
Beneficial Reuse 1
Appendix B: Database Description 1
B.I Structure of Tables and Forms 1
B.2 Navigations Functionalities 1
vn
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
List of Tables
Number Page
Table 1. Keywords Used in the Literature Search 2-1
Table 2. Economic and Social Impact Assessment Metrics and Indicators Used 2-6
Table 4 Economic Metrics and their Frequency within the Most Useful Sources 3-5
Table 5. Social Metrics and Their Frequency within the Most Useful Sources 3-8
Table 5 cont. Social Metrics and Their Frequency within the Most Useful Sources 3-9
List of Figures
Number Page
Figure 1 Access Database Data Entry Form 2-4
IX
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
AHP
C&D
CBA
CCP
COD
DMS
EcIA
EIS
EPA
HOPE
LCA
LCCA
LCI
LCIA
MCDA
MCA
MCE
NEWMOA
NOAA
RCA
SCH
SIA
SMM
UNEP
USAID
WRAP
Analytical Hierarchy Process
Construction and Demolition
cost-benefit analysis
coal combustion product
Chemical Oxygen Demand
decision making system
economic impact assessment
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
high-density polyethylene
life-cycle assessment
life-cycle cost analysis
life-cycle inventory
life-cycle impact assessment
multi-criteria decision analysis
multi-criteria analysis
multi-criteria evaluation
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
recycled concrete aggregate
Sustainable and Healthy Communities
social impact assessment
Sustainable Materials Management
United Nations Environment Programme
United States Agency for International Development
Waste Resources Action Programme
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Key Terms and Definitions
Contingent Valuation: A stated preference (i.e., individual's specified response) economic valuation
method that, in the context of environmental decision-making, is used to elicit and study individuals'
willingness to pay for an environmental amenities, or willingness to accept compensation for tolerating an
environmental impact.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: A decision-making aid that attempts to capture the monetary value of benefits
because of the need to compare them with the costs of a project, policy, or program, which are typically
expressed in monetary terms. Where benefits cannot be measured in monetary terms, subjective
judgments are used to assess the benefits in relation to costs.
Direct Economic Impact: A financial cost or benefit borne by an entity that result from a project, policy
or program involved in the scenario, such as reduction in cost borne by a company due to the use of
recovered instead of virgin resources.
Economic Impact: Changes in economic conditions, relative to baseline conditions, that result from a
new project, policy, or program.
Economic Impact Assessment: Characterizing (quantitatively or qualitatively) direct, indirect and
external impacts that result from a project, policy, or program.
Environmental Impact Statement: A document required by the National Environmental Policy Act that
formulaically describes and analyzes a proposed action that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
Full-Cost Accounting: Accounting for all of the direct and indirect monetary cost of resources used or
committed to programs, which may differ from [current] direct cash outlays.
Hedonic Valuation (Pricing): A revealed preference (i.e., related to consumers' behavior and market
decisions) economic valuation method that, in the context of environmental decision-making, is used to
estimate the value of environmental amenities that affect prices of marketed goods. Property prices are
commonly used as proxies for the value of environmental amenities based on the assumption that people
value such amenities and, thus, property prices will reflect the value of a set of environmental
characteristics.
Indicator: Something that shows the condition, state, or level of something, may be qualitative or
quantitative and is generally based on a fact or trend.
Indirect Economic Impact: An effect of a scenario on parties not immediately involved in the scenario,
such as the effect of industrial relocation on a town's tax revenue.
Life-Cycle Assessment: A method of assessing environmental impacts associated with a product's life
stages, from raw materials extraction through production, distribution, use, and end-of-life management.
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: Determines the cost-effectiveness of alternatives by assessing their costs
through their life-cycle stages.
Life-Cycle Inventory: The second step of a typical life cycle assessment (after goal and scope
definition), it catalogues flows of water, energy, and other inputs and outputs embodied in a product's
life- cycle assessment.
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The third step of atypical life-cycle assessment, it assesses the
environmental impacts associated with the life-cycle inventory flows.
Market Economic Impact: An impact to resources that are bought and sold in commercial markets and
that can be used to assign monetary value to human health and mortality, environmental amenities, and
ecosystem services.
XI
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Metrics: application of statistical and mathematical analysis to a field of study, quantitative.
Multi Criteria Analysis: A technique for use when there are several potential benefits and each is
expressed in its own units. Unlike cost-benefit analysis, which has a common monetary unit, the benefits
cannot be simply added together. Thus, weighting factors must be applied to the multiple benefits so that
the total benefit may be summed. Weighting factors may be derived in several ways, such as asking
individuals (public), asking topic matter experts, or asking the decision makers. In effect, the weighting
factors can be viewed as "prices" relating the importing of different benefits, but the end result is non-
monetary.
Non-Market Economic Impact: Impacts to resources not traded in the market (e.g., the effects on
human health and mortality, the loss of amenity from the environment, and impacts on ecosystems and
species).
Shadow Pricing: A technique used to price an intangible item for which there is no ready market from
which to derive a price. In the context of environmental decision-making, shadow pricing typically uses
the cost of pollution control as a proxy for valuing environmental goods and services (e.g., clean air and
water).
Social Impact Assessment: The systematic appraisal of impacts on the quality of life of individuals and
communities as a result of a proposed policy, project, or program. Qualitative and quantitative indicators
of social impact are typically used and presented in manner that can be understood by decision-makers
and individuals.
Social Return on Investment: A method for estimating the environmental and social value of scenarios.
xn
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Industrial, mining, agricultural, commercial, and municipal activities in the United States produce
large volumes of non-hazardous solid wastes. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA, 2012a), the industrial sector alone generates more than seven billion tons of non-hazardous
solid wastes, which are disposed of in landfills. Because these waste materials represent valuable
commodities that can be recycled, there is an ongoing effort to decrease the amount of these materials that
are disposed and instead focus on non-disposal materials management options.
Beneficial reuse of large-volume waste materials is a key part of U.S. EPA's Sustainable
Materials Management (SMM) effort. SMM is a systems approach that seeks to reduce materials use and
their associated environmental impacts over their entire life cycle, starting with extraction of natural
resources and product design and ending with decisions on recycling or final disposal. This approach
helps to identify waste materials (e.g., industrial materials) as commodities that can be utilized and that
are anticipated to grow key industries and associated jobs. U.S. EPA recently completed a beneficial use
state of practice report for the beneficial reuse of these industrial waste materials in the United States
(2012b). According to the report, although data to estimate the amount and type of beneficial reuse
activities in the United States are limited, a database published by the Northeast Waste Management
Officials' Association (NEWMOA) included more than 1,100 active cases of beneficial reuse data in
2011 (NEWMOA, 2012). The NEWMOA database also highlighted that beneficial reuse cases involving
coal ash were most frequently reported, while other large-volume industrial wastes, including foundry
sand and wood ash, were commonly reported (U.S. EPA, 2012b).
The U.S. EPA's SMM effort is part of the larger research project Sustainable and Healthy
Communities (SHC). The SHC research action plan seeks to find ways to integrate environmental,
economic, and social considerations into decision-making processes at various levels of management
(e.g., federal, state, local). The beneficial reuse of waste materials is an important component of the SHC
program. Similar to the SMM effort, the broader SHC program is expected to result in numerous benefits,
including decreasing the use of virgin materials in products or processes; economic development
opportunities for material recyclers; and social benefits. In addition to its benefits, economic, social and
environmental impacts may result from beneficial reuse of materials. Thus decision-makers for beneficial
reuse projects and proposals must balance the objectives of promoting waste materials reuse with the need
to protect human health and the environment, as well as to minimize any negative economic or social
impacts.
The U.S. EPA has applied its expertise and methods for identifying and quantifying the basic
costs and environmental impacts for beneficial reuse applications; however, knowledge of the type of
data, metrics, and methods of analysis needed to identify and quantify broader economic and social
impacts for such decisions is not yet well-established. There is a current need for information and tools to
identify economically and socially acceptable forms of waste reuse to assist in the beneficial reuse
determination by communities, states, and federal agencies. This report presents the results of an effort to
support SMM and SHC program objectives for beneficial reuse of waste materials. The current document
outlines methods and metrics to identify and characterize potential economic and social impacts that were
identified through a review of the literature.
1.2 Objectives
The primary goal of this project was to identify the data, metrics, indicators, and methods
currently being used to quantify (i.e., measure/evaluate) the economic and social impacts of beneficial
reuse and other environmental decisions. Such information is critical for providing a comprehensive,
sustainability-based assessment of beneficial reuse projects. The results of this type of assessment are
1-1
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
necessary to provide information to support decision-making by regulatory bodies at the federal, state,
and community levels.
The project objectives were to identify up-to-date, comprehensive, accurate, and well-
documented data, metrics, and methods available to quantify potential economic and social impacts.
Specifically, the aim was to conduct a literature review and prepare a report describing economic and
social data, metrics, and methods that may be useful for supporting beneficial reuse decisions. This
project did not involve direct measurement of environmental conditions, collection of environmental
samples, or laboratory analysis.
The current project entailed:
" Searching the literature for economic and social data, metrics, indicators, and methods that
may be useful for characterizing beneficial reuse impacts;
" Developing a database to store the information on studies identified during the literature
search;
" Analyzing which methods and metrics (e.g., direct and indirect costs, nature of potential
employment, social nuisance factors) appear most and least frequently within the literature;
and
" Identifying data gaps and research needs.
The remainder of this report is organized into five sections. Section 2 presents the literature
review and documentation methodology. Section 3 reviews the results and includes descriptions of
studies that best illustrate key socio economic impact assessment methods (a subset of those presented in
Appendix A). Section 4 provides discussion of the results, data gaps, and recommendations. Appendix A
provides information on studies that were found to be useful and that deal with beneficial reuse. A
database of all information collected as part of this literature review was also prepared as part of this
project and provided to U.S. EPA as a separate deliverable. Appendix B provides a description of this
database.
1-2
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
2. Methodology
A comprehensive literature review was conducted, including source collection and data
processing, to gather and extract the relevant information from recent studies, research, and/or case
studies regarding the identification and characterization (quantitative and qualitative) of economic and
social impacts associated with environmental decision-making. While the literature review was scoped to
include resources to identify and characterize economic and social impacts as related to environmental
decision making in general, priority was given to resources and information that are specific to beneficial
reuse of materials and/or materials management.
The following subsections provide details on the review's source collection, which included
defining search criteria and the process of searching bibliographic databases, the Internet, and webpages
for specific materials and organizations, and data processing, which entailed developing criteria and
procedures for evaluating sources identified and compiling references and related information in a
searchable database. It should be noted that this project did not include the development of data, methods,
or metrics for characterizing economic and social impacts. Instead, this project relied solely on secondary
data available from scientific and commercial literature, as well as non-published literature. All non-
published data sources used in the report were subjected to the criteria listed in the U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Requirements for Secondary
Data Projects. In addition non-published research in the report is identified and any significant limitations
to the data/information are reported. When possible, copies or links to documents identified during the
literature search were included in the database, which was packaged with the limited-access documents as
a separate deliverable.
2.1 Literature Review
2.1.1 Source Collection
Source collection for the literature review was broken down into a bibliographic journal search
and an open Web and targeted search in order to also capture grey literature. In general, the search
consisted of the following steps:
1. Defining keywords to use as search terms (see Table 1).
Table 1. Keywords Used in the Literature Search
Beneficial Reuse Terms
"Beneficial use or reuse or recycling or recycled &
impact or impact assessment or impact evaluation
or/and impact metrics & economic or social"
"Waste or ash or residue or dust or sludge or slag or
sand or reclaimed or residual or sweeping or
biosolids or byproduct or asphalt or soil or tire or
sediment or glass or auto fluff or salvaged &
beneficial use or reuse or recycling or recycled &
impact or impact assessment or impact evaluation
or/and impact metrics & economic or social"
Economic and Social
Impact Assessment Terms
"Impact assessment or impact evaluation or/and
impact metrics & economic or social"
"Social Return on Investment or SROI & economic
or social or cost"
"Beneficial use or reuse or recycling or recycled &
impact or impact assessment or impact evaluation or
impact metrics or decision making or decision
support & economic or social"
"Life cycle or LCA & economic or social or cost"
2. Using keywords to conduct searches of bibliographic databases, including: ScienceDirect;
Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation
Index); GreenFILE; EBSCO Science and Technology Collection; and Environmental
Sciences and Pollution Management.
2-1
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
3. Performing open Web searching (on Google) using the following subsets of keywords:
"Reuse" and "social" and "impact"
- "Reuse" and "social" and "impact assessment"
- "Reuse" and "economic" and "impact"
"Reuse" and "economic" and "impact assessment"
- "Waste reuse economic impact"
"Waste reuse social impact"
- "EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] social indicators"
- "Reuse bottles social impact"
"Biosolids reuse EIS"
- "Biosolids reuse social"
"Construction and demolition waste reuse social"
- "Construction and demolition waste economic benefits"
- "Reuse electronics social benefits"
"FGD gypsum reuse soils economic"
"Reuse furniture economic"
"Reuse metal economic"
- "Reuse remediated soil economic"
- "Reuse tires economic"
"Reuse wastewater social"
- "Reuse wastewater EIS."
Generally, a search returned between 40 and 90 Google results for consideration, and the
same searches were often performed using Google Scholar to narrow down the results. These
permutations of social or economic and material terms were chosen to reflect how EISs are a
good resource for certain types of materials and how certain materials among those found in
the primary search were more commonly associated with reuse social or economic
considerations (e.g., the latter being more prevalent within the literature of reuse of industrial-
type goods, such as metal). As previously stated any grey literature used in the report has
been identified and any significant limitations or biasness of the information/data is
discussed.
4. Performing targeted Web searches and visiting the sites of non-profit, academic, professional
society, local government, state government/agencies, national government/agencies,
international work groups/organizations/agencies, and for profit institutions that were
identified as performing work in the area of social and economic analysis of beneficial resue,
such as the following:
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
- Environmental Research and Education Foundation
- Institute for Southern Studies
International Association for Impact Assessment
- Inter-Organizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact
Assessment
- Japan Environmental Management Association.
2-2
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association
Solid Waste Association of North America
U.S. EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Research and
Development, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, and Office of Air Quality,
Planning, and Standards
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
- United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
- World Bank
The same keywords used for the open Web search were also used to search the websites of
these organizations. In particular, lists of publications whose links were available through the
sites were reviewed.
2.1.2 Data Processing
Descriptor information (such as author and abstract) for studies captured by the bibliographic
search was automatically uploaded into a Microsoft Access database, while descriptor information for the
Web search results was transcribed manually. Figure 1 presents the database's Data Entry form, which
serves as the template for manually entering descriptor text for the Web search-acquired sources, as well
as text regarding content evaluation for all sources. Evaluation text was entered into the form's Tier 1
Review and Tier 2 Review blocks in (see red box in Figure 1) by the assigned literature review
coordinators. These entries required the review coordinators to assess and determine the following
information for each study:
• Topic area—Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and/or Economic Impact Assessment (EcIA);
• Type of environmental decision—beneficial reuse, land use decision, or waste disposal
options;
• Type of material (if focused on beneficial reuse);
• Type of social or economic impact information presented (usually "methods or metrics");
• Usefulness category—"Follow-Up," "Not Useful," "Potentially Useful," or "Useful"; and
• Methods and metrics—specific type of impact assessment and potential reuse-related
indicators, respectively.
2-3
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Figure 1. Access Database Data Entry Form
iH] Data Entry
j 307 FindArtd
Titte
Author
Abstract
File location 1
File location 2
Publication name
Publication year
Volume number
Keywords
e | ^ | Click here to search the database by typing a name or keyword
Sustainable management of demolition waste - an integrated model for the evaluation of environmental, economic and social aspect
Klang K, Vikman P, Brattebg H
A model is presented for evaluating waste management systems for their contribution to a sustainable
development, including environmental, economic and social aspects. The model was tested in a case-study,
where groups of long-term unemployed people were offered both education on environmental issues and
practical work with the recovery and recycling of building and demolition waste as a form of vocational
development. Application of the suggested model revealed the overall effects on sustainability of different
methods of waste management. In addition, negative aspects of the systems analysed were identified, which
led to discussions about possible improved practices within the waste management systems. Two of the waste
management systems investigated (the recycling of steel and re-use of sanitary porcelain) showed a potential
contribution to sustainable development in all of the aspects studied. Preparing bricks for re-use showed the
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344902001672
Resources, Conservation and Recycling; Life Cycle Analysis; Triple Bottom Line; Sustainable Jobs; Unemployment
2003 Publication date Start page 317 End page |334
38 Issue number Publication type |jOUR
Construction and demolition waste
Tierl Review
Usefulness category | Useful [r] Next Steps | Find document [V]
Reviewed By iGligon [rl
TierZ Review
Usefulness category
Type of material
Type of social or economi
information presented
Useful [TJ Topicarea [Social and economic impact assessment |^rj
C&D waste fTI Type of environmental [Beneficial reuse [T|
L- ' decision
: impact [Economic impact assessment 1^1
Methods |4, 6 [V] Metrics |39, 42, 43, 49, 66, 67 \^\
Notes C&D waste constituted bricks, steel and porcelain Reviewed By IGligon [7]
toilets/washbasins. Social aspects are mostly focused on worker
safety and post-project employment/ skills.
2.2 Evaluation Process and Criteria Used to Select Useful Sources
After completing the literature search and gathering all of the basic study information, it was
necessary to develop evaluation criteria and screening methods to select those sources that were most
valuable. Two screening procedures were developed to evaluate the usefulness of the identified literature,
referred to as Tier 1 and Tier 2 reviews.
2.2.1 Tier 1 Review
For the Tier 1 review, the abstracts and sources were categorized as "Useful," "Potentially
Useful," "For Follow-up," or "Not Useful." The breakdown of these categories is as follows:
• "Useful" indicated that the study's abstract (or introduction section within their Web pages)
directly provided specific information on economic and social impact assessment methods,
metrics, and/or data in relation to beneficial reuse, or to land-use or waste-disposal options
(environmental decision-making) related to such reuse.
2-4
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
11 "Potentially Useful" indicated that the study's abstract implied that the full-text included the
previously described specific information. Information for identifying and characterizing
social impacts for beneficial reuse and environmental decision-making was found to be very
limited; therefore, exceptions were made for studies whose abstracts referenced SIA
frameworks outside of the environmental decision-making context. These studies were
labeled "Potentially Useful" throughout all review tiers.
" "For Follow-up" studies were those studies whose usefulness could not be confirmed by
reviewing their abstracts or those for which abstracts (or full texts at Tier 2 review) were not
available.
" "Not Useful" studies were those whose abstracts did not describe beneficial reuse, economic
or social impacts.
Standard categories were developed for assigning methods and metrics, as a general lack of
consistency in how metrics and methods were named was found throughout the literature. Based on the
review of abstracts, a classification grouping for EcIA and SIA methods was developed to determine
which types of methods were commonly represented within the sources. The methods for evaluating
beneficial reuse were grouped as follows:
" Interactive Community Forum: This classification refers to sources that seek individuals'
and community judgments of social impacts that may result from policy, project, or program
alternatives in an environmental-type impact assessment (Becker et al., 2003)
" Life Cycle Assessment - Social: This classification refers to sources that used LCA based
methods to capture potential social impacts
" Cost-Benefit Analysis - Economic: This classification refers to sources where direct and/or
indirect costs were assessed,in addition to sources using life-cycle cost analysis [LCCA]
" Study-Specific: This classification refers to sources that address economic and/or social
impacts using all other standard economic methods, such as hedonic valuation and full cost
accounting, as cited by the authors themselves; decision-modeling (such as multi-criteria
decision analysis [MCDA]); or informally listing metrics and/or describing them
qualitatively.
Social metrics were not described or named in a consistent and standard manner in the literature;
thus, standardization of social metrics was necessary. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact
Assessment (NOAA, 1994) was used as a starting point for standardization. The NOAA categorizes SIA
variables under the following main categories: Population Characteristics, Community and Institutional
Structures, Political and Social Resources, Individual and Family Changes, and Community Resources.
Further, economic and other recurring social indicators were added during the review stages by
drawing from different EcIAs and SIAs, as well as other sources, such as the documents Reuse and
Recycling Systems for Selected Beverage Packaging from a Sustainability Perspective (Albrecht et al.,
2011), which provided many infrequently recorded economic metrics, and Guidelines for Social Life
Cycle Assessment of Products (UNEP, 2009), which presented a 31-indicator framework that mostly
focuses on workers' conditions. Indicators are called "Subcategories" and are grouped by stakeholder
type (i.e., worker, consumer, local community, society, and value chain actors) with nine subcategories
that are most comparable to the NOAA indicators. Employment-related impacts were found to be loosely
defined in the literature and often based on a source's own definition. Generally, employment impacts
referred to jobs related to project operations or nearby industries (e.g., suppliers). Useful definitions, as
well as an example of a framework providing additional standardized economic metrics, were obtained
from the EIS framework in Preston (2013).
2-5
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table 2 lists the specific EcIA and SIA metrics that were selected from the literature or
developed to standardize and organize sources from the literature review.
Table 2. Economic and Social Impact Assessment Metrics and Indicators Used
Economic Metrics and Indicators
Direct
Indirect
External
Cost (e.g., capital, operating); employment (including short-term, long-term, local
region); cost of pollution treatment/abatement
and out of
Employment in other industries or sectors (including local and out of region); tax revenue;
property value; effects on worker skills; cost-sharing; start-up difficulties, industry and
government resistance or bureaucracy
Monetary values placed on non-market economic impacts such as environmental
and services or health impacts.
goods
Social Indicators
Population
Characteristics
Community and
Institutional
Structures
Political and Social
Resources
Individual and
Family Changes
Community
Resources
Other Social
Population change; ethnic and racial distribution; relocated populations; influx or outflows of
temporary workers; seasonal residents
Voluntary associations; interest group activity; size, structure, and efficiency of local
government; historical experience with change; employment/income characteristics;
employment/income/other equity for minority groups; local/national/regional linkages;
industrial/commercial diversity; presence of planning and zoning activity
Identification of stakeholders; interested and affected publics; leadership capabilities,
governing authority, and characteristics
Perceptions or characterizations of risk, health, and safety; displacement/relocation
concerns; trust in political and social institutions; residential stability; density of
acquaintanceship; attitudes towards policy/project; family and friendship networks; concerns
about social well-being
Change in community infrastructure; effects on Native American tribes/indigenous peoples;
land-use patterns; effects on cultural, historical, and archaeological resources; effects on
traffic; scenery/aesthetics; noise; odor; change in community infrastructure - housing;
change in community infrastructure - services
Recreation; behavior change; presence of an outside agency; introduction of new social
classes; presence of weekend residents; changes in mechanisms for exercise of power and
authority; dissimilarity in religious practice; overall community character; community
cohesion; population shift - influx or loss of older/younger residents; changes in lifestyle;
changes in values/customs; worker satisfaction; worker safety
2.2.2 Tier 2 Review
The Tier 2 review involved further categorizing the sources categorized in Tier 1 as Potentially
Useful and Useful. The Tier 2 review process involved a review of the full article's text, with the same
general usefulness categorization as in the Tier 1 Review, except for the distinction between Useful and
Potentially Useful classification. The former was chosen to classify articles that directly provided in-depth
information on economic and social impact assessment methods or metrics in relation to beneficial reuse
or land reuse, often with metrics-related data or clear execution of unique methodological frameworks.
"Potentially Useful," was chosen to classify articles that provided superficial description of methods and
metrics or poorly-defined methodological frameworks.
2.3 Harmonizing this Impact Assessment with Similar EPA Research
The U.S. EPA's^4 Framework for Sustainability Indicators at EPA (2012c) and three other U.S.
EPA reports: The Use of The Soil Amendments for Remediation, Revitalization, and Reuse (U.S. EPA,
2007); Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials -
Coal Combustion Products (Industrial Economics, Incorporated [IEI], 2008); Handbook on the Benefits,
2-6
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Costs and Impacts of Land Cleanup and Reuse (U.S. EPA, 2011) were reviewed to assess how well their
content could inform and lead this research:
" The findings of the U.S. EPA report on soil amendments (2007) included text on treatment,
application, transportation, and other costs, as well as public outreach, odor, and "community
demonstration," which constitute social impacts to be recorded.
" The IEI reuse report on coal combustion products (2008) reuse report gave typical market
prices for virgin materials and their coal combustion products (CCP) substitutes, as well as
Economic Input Output-LCA modeling of total economic value.
" The land reuse report (U.S. EPA, 2011) framed indicators as impact measures and reuse
benefits, with listing and description of many economic and social metrics.
Although these methodologies and metrics were recorded within the database, the studies
themselves contain very limited and qualitative descriptions of economic and social impacts. Rather, they
provide more of an analysis of the technical feasibility and basic cost aspects of beneficial reuse.
Information about the broader range of economic and social impact is limited. The U.S. EPA report on
soil amendment (2007) is, however, included as a case study profiled in section 3.3 of this report because
it highlights the importance of considering direct costs for any beneficial reuse project.
2-7
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
3. Results
The initial outputs of the literature review were based on four main parameters:
1. The number of sources classified by various levels of use previously identified (focusing on
Potentially Useful or Useful);
2. The number of studies for a specific beneficial reuse material
3. EcIA and/or SIA type
4. The frequency with which specific methods and metrics reported.
A total of 337 sources were initially identified and reviewed using the criteria identified for Tier 1
screening. The screening process revealed:
• 33 sources categorized as Useful
• 95 sources categorized as Potentially Useful
• 19 sources categorized as For Follow Up
• 190 sources categorized as Not Useful
Of the 19 sources categorized For Follow Up, none of the sources proved useful. The Tier 1
screening identified 128 studies were identified as Useful or Potentially Useful. The breakdown of the
remaining studies based on reuse material and Impact analysis type are presented in Table 4.
As discussed in Section 2, the 128 sources identified were subjected to a more in-depth Tier 2
review of the full article text. Results from the Tier 2 review were as follows:
• 61 sources were categorized as Useful
• 32 sources were categorized as Potentially Useful
• 22 sources were categorized as For Follow Up
• 13 sources were categorized as Not Useful
After Tier 2 screening a total of 93 sources were categorized as Useful or Potentially Useful, 72
were directly related to the reuse of specific materials, and the remainder were classified as "None" (i.e.,
not related to the reuse of a specific material, Table 4). The "None" classification was applied to studies
that described general frameworks (usually SIA) or methods that did not apply to beneficial reuse or
environmental decision-making. The studies were included in the results because they provide
information that will aid EPA in developing EcIA and SIA frameworks for beneficial reuse decision-
making (e.g., UNEP, 2009). Within the remaining 72 studies, the top three most-represented materials
were wastewater (22 studies), biosolids (10 studies) and C&D waste (6 studies), with tires being the only
other reuse materials to be the primary subject of more than 2 studies. Biosolids and wastewater do not
represent an industrial waste, but due to the small volume of literature available they were included in the
report.
3-1
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table 3. Number of Studies By Material and Impact Type
Economic Economic & Social
Material Type Impact Social Impact Impact Total
Wastewater
None (General)
Miscellaneous1
Biosolids
C&D waste
Waste disposal
Tires
Coal combustion products
Land
Metal
Soil
Automobile shreddings
Coal ash and foundry sand/slag
FGD Gypsum
Steel
Total
Total excluding general
frameworks
4
1
11
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
29
28
15
9
3
6
4
1
1
2
1
42
33
3
11
4
4
22
11
22
21
14
10
6
5
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
93
72
3.7 Economic Impact Assessment (EelA) Methods and Metrics
EcIA involves the quantifying in monetary terms or qualitatively characterizing the broad range
of economic impacts that may result from a project, policy, or program. Economic impacts can include
direct costs, indirect costs borne by an entity, and external costs that are [typically] borne by society.
Costs borne by entities can include direct cost outlays (e.g., materials purchase) and indirect costs (e.g.,
materials storage) that are typically "hidden" in general and administrative (G&A) accounts. External
costs may or may not result in actual costs to an organization. Externality costing is often used to
characterize environmental and health impacts (e.g., impact of water pollution on drinking water
resources and subsequently public health) in order to compare such costs back with direct and indirect
costs. Thus, EcIA can involve the characterization of actual financial costs and external costs that are
borne by society. External costs may be characterized qualitatively using a simple descriptor, or
quantitatively by assigning a monetary value through various techniques.
Based on the review of available literature it was found that most authors performed EcIA
through the use of traditional CBA and LCCA, accounting primarily for the direct costs attributed to a
specific facility, process, item, or activity. Indirect costs can be calculated or estimated with relative ease,
such as monitoring and reporting related costs, and incorporated into EcIA. The additional data add value
to an EcIA by providing a more complete picture of all costs that are or may be associated with the
product, project, or program. External costs or economic impacts often relate to the [economic] effects on
local industries, employment, and/or environmental/social externalities (e.g., water quality)
1 Includes appliances, bulky waste, cell phones, clothing, electronics, furniture, paper, plastic and general
recyclables, which do not constitute typical beneficial reuse materials. Sources covering reuse of these materials
were captured because they provide useful information for EcIA and SIA of waste reuse.
3-2
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
3.1.1
The EcIA methods employed in the 72 studies, hereafter referred to as the "most useful" (i.e.
relevant) studies, can generally be grouped as
" CBA (29 studies)
" Study-specific economic methods (43 studies).
CBA is a well-established practice and often-used approach to capture the monetary value of
benefits (direct, indirect, and external) to compare them with the costs of a project, policy, or program,
which are typically expressed in monetary terms. It is not, however, a requirement of CBA that all costs
and benefits be expressed in monetary terms. Where benefits cannot be measured in monetary terms,
subjective judgments are often used to assess the benefits in relation to costs. A key strength of CBA is
that it attempts to avoid making subjective judgments by treating costs and benefits in common terms
(i.e., monetary units). This allows for decision makers to directly compare the potential cost and benefits.
A weakness of CBA may be the use of monetary terms to characterize benefits, which can oversimplify
the complex nature of benefits such as their distribution among groups and/or through time. Monetization
of benefits estimation is an uncertain science; however, this is a shortcoming for all techniques
characterizing externalities. A variety of techniques are available to monetize non-market benefits. The
most commonly found in the literature include:
" Direct valuation techniques aim to measure the monetary value of environment benefits.
Since environmental benefits (e.g., improved air or water quality) are not bought and sold in
markets, monetary valuation of such benefits is accomplished by establishing a surrogate
market or by using an experimental design to express hypothetical valuations of benefits.
Monetary values from existing markets or programs (e.g., pollution control costs) may also
be used to as proxy values for environmental benefits.
- Contingent valuation—CVM is based on a direct approach of asking individuals what
they are willing to pay for a benefit and/or what they are willing to receive in the form of
compensation to tolerate an impact. The process of asking these questions is usually
done using a survey or questionnaire. Ultimately, the process aims to elicit individual's
valuations for increases or decreases in a good or service, if one existed for an
environmental good or service (thus "contingent"). A key strength of CVM is that it
should be applicable to any circumstance, whereas other methods (e.g., hedonic or
shadow pricing) may lack available cost information.
- Hedonic valuation (Pricing)—This technique is used to estimate the value of
environmental amenities that affect prices of marketed goods. Residential housing prices
are commonly used to estimate the value of environmental amenities based on the
assumption that people value the characteristics of environmental goods and services,
thus property prices reflect the value of a set of environmental characteristics. Hedonic
pricing aims to identify the impact of environmental factors on goods by analyzing price
differentials that are due to a particular environmental aspect and predicting how much
individuals would be willing to pay for an improvement in environmental quality and/or
the social value of the improvement.
Shadow pricing—This technique is used to price intangible items for which there is no
ready market from which to derive a price. Shadow prices are most commonly used in
CBA, where some elements of the analyses cannot be quantified by reference to a market
price or a cost. In the context of environmental issues, shadow pricing typically uses the
cost of pollution control as a proxy for valuing environmental goods and services (e.g.,
clean air and water).
3-3
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
11 Indirect valuation techniques, establish a relationship between pollution and an
environmental effect. In contrast to direct valuation techniques, they do not try to measure
direct values or preferences for an environmental good or service. Indirect techniques are
often used to estimate human health impacts associated with environmental pollution, where
a dose-response type relationship is calculated for a pollutant and resulting health impact. A
dose-response type relationship can also be established for environmental problems (e.g.,
reduced crop yields, reduced water quality, or damage to infrastructure [acidification]).
Calculating measures of damage range in the level of sophistication. The simplest technique
is multiplying a reduction factor by the market price, such as multiplying a reduction in corn
crop yield by the market price for corn. At the more sophisticated end of the range, models
can be constructed to estimate the market changes in demand and supply based on a pollution
prices to better account for potential changes in market price through time.
Study-specific EcIA methods include a variety of techniques designed to capture specific indirect
and external cost aspects that go beyond traditional CBA or provide an alternative approach. Descriptions
of commonly used techniques as found in the literature include:
" Full-Cost Accounting—In the accounting profession, FCA entails accounting for and
assigning all monetary costs (e.g., capital, labor, administrative, regulatory, reporting) to
specific products, projects, or programs. In the context of materials management, FCA is
often used to describe a similar process that accounts for both the current outlays of cash and
the monetary costs of resources used or committed to programs, which may not be actual
cash outlays.
" Life Cycle Cost Analysis—This method can be viewed as an expanded CBA that aims to
capture all the costs associated with purchasing and owning a product throughout its life
cycle. Conducting a LCCA requires that future costs consider the time value of money
because money spent (or received) will occur at different times throughout the life cycle. The
strength of LCCA is that it accounts for all potential costs that may be incurred through the
life of a product, instead of just the initial procurement cost. Costs associated with owning,
maintaining, and decommissioning the product could be significant and provide a more
complete understanding of cost beyond procurement cost. Typically, LCCA focuses on
direct and indirect cost, but it may be expanded to include external costs as well.
" Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)—This EcIA method can be viewed as a variant of CBA,
where only costs are measured in monetary terms. Benefits are simply listed and/or described
in more qualitative terms, or a semi-quantitative scheme is employed to rank benefits. CEA
may best come into use when the expression of benefits in monetary terms is thought to be
improper or otherwise unacceptable, but such benefits need to be made explicit as part of the
decision-making process.
" Multiple-Criteria Analysis—This method is used when there are several potential benefits
(as part of CEA, for example) and each is expressed in its own units. Unlike traditional CBA,
which has a common monetary unit, the benefits cannot be simply added together. Thus,
weighting factors must be applied to the multiple benefits so that the total benefit may be
summed. Weighting factors may be derived in several ways, such as obtaining input from
individuals (public), asking topic matter experts, or asking the decision makers. In effect, the
weighting factors can be viewed as "prices" relating the importing of different benefits, but
the end result is non-monetary.
" Decision Analysis—This method generally has developed to facilitate decision making in
situations where there is uncertainty about the outcomes from a project, policy, or program.
In decision analysis, the aim is to assign probabilities to benefits or costs. The value of this
technique is that it makes uncertainties explicit and allows for various objectives to be used.
The key shortcoming is that there is no clear approach for assigning uncertainties.
3-4
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)—This method typically requires that all impacts
(positive and negative) of a project, policy, or program be assessed. Focus is placed on the
environmental consequences of alternatives, and the monetization of impacts may or may not
be included; thus, EIA can be thought to be encompassed by CBA. In EIA, the positive and
negative consequences are listed, but no aggregation is performed to yield a total impact (or
benefit). Rather, decisions are made by inspecting the listing of consequences, and the
judgment values used may not be clearly defined.
• Economic Input-Output and Economic Impact Analysis—These are general methods that
enable the inclusion of broader array of economic aspects, namely economic impacts to other
associated industries or sectors.
Selection of a specific method(s) is not explicitly described in the much of the literature, but is
likely based on the goals of the project (e.g., soliciting individuals' valuation of defined environmental
goods and services), the cost of implementing the methods, the availability of data, and other factors.
Different approaches for valuing non-market economic impacts are useful in cases where no reasonable
market data or proxy data for the environmental good or service in question is available, but employing
multiple approaches can be time consuming and expensive to perform.
Table 4 presents the frequency of economic metrics, by type.
Table 4 Economic Metrics and their Frequency within the Most Useful Sources
Metric
Net cost- direct
Employment - direct
Effects on Local Industry(ies)
Employment- local
Property Value
Effects on Worker Skills
Employment - indirect
Willingness to pay
Net cost- indirect
Employment - short-term
Employment - long-term
Cost of pollution treatment
Tax Revenue
Cost-sharing
Start-up difficulties, and industry and gov't resistance/bureaucracy
Employment - external
Frequency
51
22
17
7
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
0
3.1.2 Metrics
Given the predominance of CBA, and to a lesser extent LCCA and other economic impact
assessment methods, it follows that direct costs (and revenues) comprised the most-cited metrics and most
useful data in understanding the economic benefits attributed to reuse. Direct costs are usually presented
for activities or items that are internal to a facility or project and typically include capital costs, operation
and maintenance costs, and any revenues. The most detailed studies used basic CBA and LCCA to assess
the financial viability of treatment processes required for reuse (typically of wastewater), while several
only described selective indirect and external costs (or benefits) of reuse materials. Key metrics for these
3-5
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
indirect and external costs are typically monetary units so that they may be added or compared with direct
costs. Studies also included non-monetary ratings/rankings for indirect and external costs or purely
qualitative descriptions. Regardless of the exact metric used, they all provide the value of making indirect
and external cost more visible to decision-makers and key stakeholders.
3.2 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Methods and Metrics
According to Burdge (2004), SIA can be thought of as the systematic appraisal of impacts on the
quality of life of individuals and communities as a result of a proposed policy, project, or program. SIA
aims to provide qualitative and quantitative indicators of social impacts in a form that can be understood
by decision-makers and individuals. Various guidelines for SIA have been developed by different
organizations, such as NOAA, the World Bank, USAID, and the International Association for Impact
Assessment. The NOAA framework is often quoted as a seminal work in the field of SIA. Gomez et al.
(2013) considered it to be one of the two key conceptual studies, with the other being an internationally
focused article (Vanclay, 2003). However, the style in which Vanclay (2003) groups indicators lends
itself less-effectively as a specific usable framework compared to the NOAA framework.
The completeness and importance of the NOAA framework was illustrated in an EPA Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response literature review (Turnley, 2002). The author details how NOAA
drew their social indicators from a wide range of literature over the prior 15 years. Turnley (2002) also
noted that the NOAA indicators were consistent with other reviewed sources, and subsequently based
their social, cultural, and economic impact indicators for EPA on a modified version of the NOAA
indicators. Similarly, as described in Wong (2013), Rabel Burdge—an author of the NOAA framework—
developed his own list of 26 indicators with little difference from the original NOAA framework, further
implying how the NOAA framework provides a standard and leading form for SIA.
SIA methods often attempt to adapt assessment methodologies that were originally designed for
environmental aspects and apply them to characterize socio-economic aspects (Burge, 2004). Another key
challenge with SIA is eliciting individual and collective perspectives in a meaningful and efficient way
(Burge, 2004). Capturing stakeholder perspectives is an important part of SIA, though, and one that
cannot only be developed in a top-down manner since they may not accurately represent the views and
priorities of the impacted individuals, entities, or communities (UNEP, 2009). In general, determining
which social impacts are to be covered in an assessment and the way they should be assessed and/or
measured should be case and context specific. Consequently, no general consensus in the literature exists
on which indicators to use and how to assess social impacts of planned interventions with SIA.
Based on the review of available literature, it was found that most authors performed SIA through
a simple listing of metrics and/or by describing them qualitatively; through expert consultation and/or
self-selection of impact ratings and their weights within their own criteria-based modeling of optimum
reuse outcomes; or through subjective rating, such as in Padilla et al. (2013). For scenario modeling and
weighting, Dehghanian & Mansour (2009) performed Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) modeling of
reuse (for tire pulverization or incineration) using expert-led self-selection of weights for worker safety
and perceptions of risk, health, and safety (as well as employment and local development), which helped
calculate a social indicator score within their Expert Choice 2000 software. This common weighting
process was often prefaced with subjective assessment of social impacts to accompany more quantitative
LCA-type datasets, as shown in Craighill and Powell (2000), which rate land use, visual, and other
impacts (caused by transportation of C&D waste in the United Kingdom, as modeled in their LCA) as
low, medium, or high.
Subjective ranking and/or qualification of social impacts was also performed throughout ElS-type
literature and sources, such as Goldstein and Beecher (2007), which covered a wide range of social
metrics through description within paragraphs concerning "risk perceptions, outrage factors, risk
communication and public participation [and] earning (public) trust." These trends of listing with
3-6
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
qualitative description of social metrics and assigning impact values with a low range of values (e.g., 3-5
possible rankings) are further illustrated in many of the case studies profiled in Section 3.3. Descriptions
of these key and representative sources suggest ways forward for future work in determining
methodologies for framing the advantages of beneficial reuse.
3.2.1 Methods
SIA methods used in the literature sources were either
• Study-specific social methods (58 studies)
• Social LCA (4 studies)
• Interactive community forum (ICF; 2 studies).
Study-specific social methods refer to studies lacking the above and other methodological
frameworks (e.g., deliberately evaluating NOAA 1994 indicators) that generally consist of listing social
impacts and/or describing them qualitatively. Although as shown in the case studies in Section 3.3, these
methods often entailed surveys (as with the EcIA methods), modeling techniques, ElS-type analyses of
project alternatives, and other tailored methods. Insightful techniques to quantify social impacts were
usually not developed in these studies. This more qualitative description method may have the most
potential for studies with low projected social impacts, such as those primarily focused on small-scale
and/or on-site reuse of waste products, as studied in Begum et al. (2006). .
Social LCA refers to a method to assess the positive and negative social aspects of products,
projects, or programs along the life cycle from the extraction and processing of raw materials to end-of-
life management. Social LCA often makes use of generic and site-specific data and can be quantitative,
semi-quantitative or qualitative. The resulting information can be used to complement a conventional
[environmental] LCA, applied on its own or used in combination with the other techniques. The basic
methodology for social LCA is expressed within Padilla (2013), as well as UNEP-type indicator
evaluation, and other sources such as Sa-nguanduan and Nititvattanan (2011) and Craighill and Powell
(2000). These later sources focus on wastewater reuse and C&D waste reuse, respectively, and include
social indicators to compliment environmental LCA results.
Interactive Community Forum is a method created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
incorporation into their EIS of alternatives for salmon recovery in a Snake River basin (U.S.) project. The
method evaluates citizens' judgments about predicted impacts on their community by EIS alternatives
(Becker et al., 2003). This participatory approach seems useful for projects that have anticipated large,
negative social impacts, such as through traffic and odor associated with biosolids hauling and
management, as understanding that the nature and extent of the public's concerns are more relevant in
those cases.
3.2.2 Metrics
Table 5 presents the frequency of social metrics recorded for the 72 beneficial reuse material-
specific "Potentially Useful" and "Useful" sources, as evaluated at Tier 2 review. As mentioned in
Section 2.2.1, above, the categories of SIA variables are based onNOAA's 1994 Social Impact
Assessment Framework.
Several authors analyzed social impacts of beneficial reuse through the lens of a basic SIA
framework, such as that of UNEP (2009) or the social impacts-inclusive format of the U.S. National
Environmental Policy Act EIS. Padilla et al. (2013), for example, used the UNEP Social LCA framework
to analyze urban versus rural wastewater reuse projects in Mexico. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the
UNEP indicators focus primarily on workers' conditions and employment impact types (including direct
and those for nearby industries). Preston (2013) gave the most detailed analysis within the standard EIS
3-7
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
framework by quantifying many of the impacts (usually described in qualitative terms) for proposed
options for land reuse of a naval base
Table 5. Social Metrics and Their Frequency within the Most Useful Sources
NOAA Category Metric
Population
Characteristics
Community and
Institutional
Structures
Political and
Social Resources
Individual and
Family Changes
Community
Resources
Population change
Ethnic and racial distribution
Relocated populations
Influx or outflows of temporary workers
Seasonal residents
Voluntary associations
Interest group activity
Size, structure, and efficiency of local government
Historical experience with change
Employment/income characteristics
Employment/income/other equity for minority groups
Local/ regional/ national linkages
Industrial/ commercial diversity
Presence of planning and zoning activity
Distribution of power and authority
Identification of stakeholders
Interested and affected publics
Leadership capabilities and characteristics
Perceptions of or proxies for risk, health, and safety
Displacement/ relocation concerns
Trust in political and social institutions
Residential stability
Density of acquaintanceship
Attitudes towards policy/project
Family and friendship networks
Concerns about social well-being
Change in community infrastructure
Native American tribes/indigenous peoples
Land use patterns
Effects on cultural, historical, and archaeological resources
Traffic
Scenery
Noise
Odor
Change in community infrastructure - housing
Change in community infrastructure - healthcare and other
services provision
Frequency
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
7
11
3
1
2
4
8
3
0
16
3
4
2
0
18
0
2
4
1
10
4
10
8
14
15
2
2
3-8
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table 5 cont. Social Metrics and Their Frequency within the Most Useful Sources
NOAA Category Metric Frequency
Other
Recreation
Behavior change
Presence of an outside agency
Introduction of new social classes
Presence of weekend residents
Changes in mechanisms for exercise of power and authority
Dissimilarity in religious practice
Overall community character
Community cohesion
Population shift - influx or loss of older/younger residents
Changes in lifestyle
Changes in values/customs
Worker satisfaction
Worker safety
7
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
8
3.3 Case Studies
Selected case studies, from the literature review, employing EcIA and SIA are summarized to
provide insight into different methods and metrics used, how and why those methods and metrics were
chosen, and if and how they are used to support decision-making. Note that many studies contain
elements of both EcIA or SIA, with each presented in varying levels of detail and quantification, and
these are referred to as EcIA/SIA studies. These and additional case study examples are provided in
Appendix A. The appendix lists and summarizes all case studies covering EcIA and SIA methods and
metrics found in the literature that were specific to beneficial-reuse topics. The studies discussed in the
sections below were selected for inclusion in Appendix A because they best illustrate the application of
the most commonly used economic and social methods and metrics.
3.3.1 Combined EcIA/SIA Studies
EcIA/SIA Case Study 1: Youngqist & Goldberger (2013) a Summary Report: a Survey of
Skagit County Residents: Opinions about Local Reuse and Recycling of Biosolids
Compost.
Youngqist, C.P., and Goldberger, J.R. (2013). A summary report: a survey of Skagit County
residents: opinions about local reuse and recycling of biosolids compost.
http://www.laconner.net/uploads/Skagit%20Biosolids%20Survev%20Summarv%20Report%20bv
%20Caitlin%20Pricel.pdf
Material and Context: "Class A" biosolids reuse in a composting research project at the wastewater
treatment plant in Skagit County, Washington.
Methods: Using the Tailored Design Method in Dillman et al. [2009], mail surveys were collected from
1,374 households. Respondents received a pre-notification letter, first questionnaire, postcard reminder,
and replacement questionnaire over the course of an 8-week data collection period.
Metrics: Odor; attitudes towards policy/project; concerns about social well-being and perceptions of risk,
health, and safety; economic impacts on local industries.
3-9
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: Survey questions (related to
metrics) were chosen to better understand "residents' attitudes, opinions, and knowledge about the use of
'Class A' biosolids and to explore potential correlations between attitudes about biosolids and the
demographics and lifestyle choices of respondents." Response data for the questions were given as mean
scoring, scaled 1 (not concerned) to 5 (very concerned). This approach provided a simple means of
eliciting public perceptions, concerns, and values surrounding the issue (in this case biosolids use).
Although specific analysis or assessment was not performed to determine an overall result, the findings
can be useful for informing officials about the key economic, environmental, and social concerns that
may require additional attention or characterization.
Key Findings and Notes: This study did not attempt to draw conclusions about potential economic or
social impacts. The authors elected to compile the data and discuss the survey results. The complied
survey results indicated that residents were more concerned about public and environmental health than
loss of property value and odor.
Ed A/SI A Case Study 2: Sa-nguanduan and Nititvattanan (2011) Strategic Decision
Making for Urban Water Reuse Application: A Case from Thailand.
Sa-nguanduan, N. and Nititvattananon, V. (2011). Strategic decision making for urban water reuse
application: A case from Thailand. Desalination 268(1-3): 141-149.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916410007253
Material and Context: Proposed wastewater reuse in options in Pattaya, Thailand. The potential reuse
options included six scenarios: landscape irrigation in public areas; irrigation in household areas; toilet
flushing; industrial application; blending with drinking water supply; and recreational/environmental uses
(e.g., within lakes or ponds).
Methods: Contingent valuation was used to elicit the public's willingness to pay for improved water
resources and willingness to accept payment for tolerating decreased water resources or quality. Survey
questionnaires were given to 200 households, and interviews were conducted with 33 local and central
government officials and researchers.
Given the stated importance of stakeholder opinion, significant effort was put into engaging primary (city,
producer, and consumer), secondary (government environmental, industrial, and other related
department), and tertiary (educational institution and non-governmental organization) stakeholders and
eliciting their environmental, economic, social, and technical interests.
Data analysis was conducted using the "importance order of criteria method" to score and then rank reuse
scenarios. This process entailed summing the product of the assigned weight of each individual criterion
(14 in total) by its rank value as assessed by the authors (often based on public/key interviewee's
opinions) for all criteria for each of 6 wastewater reuse scenarios. The reuse scenario score/sum was
ranked from highest to lowest score (most to least favorable option.
The authors evaluated the survey and interview results using 4 different weighting models, to
evaluate the impact of weighting all factors evenly, or emphasizing a specific aspect, either
technical/economic, social/environmental, or interviewee responses.
Based on the weights and assessed values for each criteria and summing them for each of the 6
alternatives, the reuse options were then ranked 1 (best) through 6 (worst) for each of four models.
Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to determine the effects on rank based on increased water demand
and tap water price, and decreased water demand.
Metrics: Direct costs and willingness to pay for externalities; elicited public values towards policy/project
and perceptions of risk, health, and safety.
3-10
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: The survey interview and public
questionnaire methods were developed to efficiently generate semi-quantitative stakeholder and public
opinion responses that could be converted into scaled data compatible with the importance order of
criteria methodology. The weighting methodology was utilized to give the authors the opportunity to
observe differences in ranking (suggesting which decisions are best given the local context) based on
weighting the importance of specific aspects (Table 8). The interviewee model (Model 4) facilitated a
major purpose of the paper, which was to ensure that reuse decisions would be based on technical cost
information, and the opinions of stakeholders. Direct costs and willingness-to-pay were analyzed because
they represent the actual financial outlays necessary for wastewater reuse implementation and the best
indicator for valuing the environmental and other aspects not captured by direct cost, respectively.
Key Findings and Notes: For the economic and technical considerations-only weighting scenario (Model
2), the status quo of landscape irrigation in public areas ranked the highest, due in part to how the
potential for institutional cooperation was judged to be the highest for this scenario. For all other models,
industrial reuse ranked the highest (Model 1), given how it was generally judged to be the best economic
and social scenario. Recreational/environmental uses and blending with drinking water supply were
consistently the lowest-ranked alternatives (Model 3). Additionally, several metrics revealed interesting
public/interviewee opinions, such as how the willingness to pay for reused wastewater was 31% of the tap
water price.
Ed A/SI A Case Study 3: Donalson et al. (2010) Sustainable Assessment of Recycled
Concrete Aggregate (RCA) Used in Highway Construction.
Donalson, J., Curtis, R. and Najafi, F. (2010). Sustainable assessment of recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) used in highway construction, http://docs.trb.org/prp/ll-0492.pdf.
Material and Context: C&D waste (concrete) substitution of virgin limestone for road base aggregate in a
project in Winter Haven, Florida.
Methods: LCCA for cost/economic consideration; LCA for select (e.g., carbon emissions) environmental
consideration; and assessment of leachability as a proxy for social considerations.
Metrics: Direct and indirect costs; net energy consumption and carbon emissions; and leachability.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: No description was provided as to
why specific methods and metrics were selected for use. The LCCA method was adopted from the
Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC, 2012) which analyzed basic acquisition, delivery,
installation, and maintenance costs determined, in this case, through consultation with a local construction
company. Select LCA data were developed, via the EPA WARM tool, to provide an estimate of the net
life cycle energy and carbon emissions, as well as an overall view of potential tradeoffs in environmental
impacts between the recycled and virgin aggregate. Social impacts were determined to be important to
consider and the authors determined that use of leachability of pollutants from the road base material
served as a meaningful proxy for potential public-health issues.
Key Findings and Notes: Recycled concrete aggregate was found to be more cost-effective than virgin
limestone aggregate for price of delivery and installation, as well as annual life-cycle cost (equivalent to
delivery cost times capital recovery cost plus annual maintenance cost). This finding was due in large part
to how virgin material transportation required 30 miles more travel compared to recycled aggregate
transportation. Overall, the LCA results found recycled aggregate to be preferable to virgin aggregate,
while the leachability assessment determined that both recycled and virgin aggregate were socially
acceptable.
3-11
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Eel A/SI A Case Study 4: Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working Group (2007)
Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Report.
Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working Group (2007). Mediterranean -waste-water reuse report.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/pdf/final report.pdf.
Material and Context: Wastewater reuse for agriculture, livestock, industry and power generation, urban
irrigation/landscaping, and groundwater recharge in Mediterranean and other contexts.
Methods: LCCA.
Metrics: Direct costs and employment; identification of stakeholders; concerns about social well-being;
recreation; and attitudes towards policy/project.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: The cost methodology was
chosen because it was perceived to be a useful way to evaluate the conditions under which treated
wastewater reuse can be cost-effective and also to compare and contrast cost performance of competing
options. Direct costs were presented for each scenario quantitatively as a function of capacity and end-use
quality/other requirements. In contrast, potential social and health risks and benefits were described
qualitatively, in the commonly encountered bullet-point style, and did not contribute insightful
commentary or analysis.
Key Findings and Notes: No specific conclusions about the preference or ranking of wastewater reuse
options were provided. Rather, the authors presented a range of published (from Asano, 1998) cost
estimates by reuse option as a method of assessing economic costs-benefits. Advanced treatment for
agriculture, livestock, industry, and landscaping use were associated with full annual costs of $7.4 to
$27.9 per ft3 (for 1.4 million ft3 to 141,000 ft3 per day flow, respectively)2, as taken from Asano (1998).
European and U.S. case studies demonstrating treatment costs were also presented.
Key Findings and Notes: C&D reuse and recycling was estimated to be profitable at the site, with net
benefits equivalent to 2.5% of the total project budget. With respect to the more intangible costs, or
externalities, judgment was used to determine that the external benefits outweighed the external costs and,
thus, a net external benefit would be achieved.
Ed A/SI A Case Study 5: Begum et al. (2006) A Benefit-Cost Analysis on the Economic
Feasibility of Construction Waste Minimisation: The Case of Malaysia.
Begum, R.A., Sewar, C., Pereira, J.J., and Jaafar, A.H. (2006). A benefit-cost analysis on the
economic feasibility of construction waste minimisation: The case of Malaysia. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 48(1): 86-98
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344906000139
Material and Context: C&D waste reuse and recycling at a project site in Malaysia.
Methods: CBA, based in part on surveys of industry leaders for basic cost data.
Metrics: Direct and indirect costs; externalities (noise, odor, and worker safety).
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: The authors selected CBA
because they perceived it to be one of the standard techniques for measuring profitability and could assist
in their major goal of determining economic feasibility of C&D reuse. This was a common theme
throughout the major goal of the majority of the 72 "most useful" studies identified as part of the
literature review conducted for this project. They did not attempt to quantify externalities, but instead
opted for a more simple assessment (based on judgment) of whether externalities were positive or
2 Values presented were converted from Euros to Dollars (1.00 Euro = $1.35 values based on July, 2014 conversion
rate) and from metric to US standard.
3-12
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
negative for the proposed project. Using such a simple approach for characterizing environmental and/or
social externalities may constitute a weakness, but it also is much easier and cheaper to implement than an
effort to quantify the externalities via a survey or other mechanism. In addition, since the focus was on
the economic feasibility, the use of a qualitative evaluation of externalities at a minimum makes their
consideration more explicit.
Direct and indirect cost metrics, determined when preparing the survey of industry leaders, included
benefits such as purchasing cost savings; re-sale revenue; waste collection cost savings; and landfill
charge savings, and costs such as those for collection and separation, equipment purchase, storage, and
transportation.
Key Findings and Notes: C&D reuse and recycling was estimated to be profitable at the site, with net
benefits equivalent to 2.5% of the total project budget. With respect to the more intangible costs, or
externalities, judgment was used to determine that the external benefits outweighed the external costs and,
thus, a net external benefit would be achieved.
Ed A/SI A Case Study 6: Craighill & Powell (2000) A Life Cycle Assessment And
Evaluation of Construction and Demolition Waste.
Craighill, A., and Powell, C. (2000). A life cycle assessment and evaluation of construction and
demolition waste, http://www.cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wm 1999 03.pdf.
Material and Context: C&D waste management in the United Kingdom. Scenarios included reuse on site
(through crushing and usage as building foundation or road/parking lot base), landfill disposal; 50:50
mixes of either landfilling and off-site recycling or reuse and recycling; or evenly allocating one third of
total waste among all three options.
Methods: LCA; full cost accounting; contingent valuation and other techniques for externalities; multi-
criteria evaluation (MCE) analysis modeling. Social impacts (land use, visual and noise) were qualified as
low, medium, or high and then converted to numerical scores of 1, 2 or 3, respectively, for inclusion with
quantitative LCA data. Literature review and expert/industry consultation via 9 site visits were used to
collect data to value direct financial costs (e.g., transportation, landfilling) .
In addition, willingness-to-accept estimates were collected for characterizing the externality costs of
tolerating mining and other operations associated with primary aggregate production. Social impacts
considered included casualties, jobs, noise and traffic, scenery, and odor, listed in order of descending
weight. These estimates were combined with a subjective weighting of all [20] impacts within four
weighting schemes: 1) equal weighting for cost and resources such as energy, water, etc., 2) 100% weight
on internal cost, 3) social-heavy weighting, 4) environmental-heavy weighting.
The weighting process was executed in the MCE using HIVIEW software (2014) that permits the usage
of non-monetary and qualitative decision criteria.
Metrics: Author- or literature review-based subjective quantification or qualitative valuation of health,
risk, and safety; land use patterns; scenery; noise; traffic and odor; direct and indirect costs; and
employment.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: The reasoning for the selection
and formation of the overall LCA methodology was not explicitly given, except for the concluding
statement that "by using a technique such as lifecycle assessment, a number of alternative waste
management strategies can be judged against a range of environmental, social and economic criteria." The
benefit of LCA is that it provides a standard framework for evaluating environmental impacts and other
potential tradeoffs among alternative waste management options or strategies.
3-13
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
A more qualitative LCA was performed using a low/medium/high ranking scale, which were translated
into 1, 2, and 3 numerical values respectively. This more qualitative ranking was viewed as being
adequate for facilitating comparisons and emphasizing rather than quantifying specific impacts.
Clarification was given that the ranking scale was sufficient since impacts were more directly associated
with a site proper, rather than with its throughput; therefore, they reflect a "fixed externality" rather than a
"variable externality." Quantitative LCA results were also compiled from literature sources and included
measures for traffic (in km), malodorous air (in m3), jobs (person-days), and land use, scenery (visual),
and noise impacts.
Key Findings and Notes: Landfill disposal or reuse generally rated better in land use, visual, and noise
impacts than combination of options. Reuse rated best for odor, minimized external cost, and every
component of the triple bottom line, but worst for job creation. However, based on the weight schemes
used, reuse ranked the highest in all schemes while landfilling consistently ranked the lowest.
3.3.2 EclA Studies
Eel A Case Study 1: Molinos-Senante et al. (2011) Cost-Benefit Analysis of Water-Reuse
Projects for Environmental Purposes: A Case Study for Spanish Wastewater
Treatment Plants.
Molinos-Senante, M., Hernandez-Sancho, F., and Sala-Garrido, R. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis of
water-reuse projects for environmental purposes: A case study for Spanish wastewater treatment
plants. Journal of Environmental Management 92(12): 3091-3097.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147971100288X
Material and Context: Wastewater utilized at 13 reuse projects in Spain.
Methods: LCCA; shadow pricing for environmental externalities.
Metrics: Direct and indirect costs; external costs using pollution control cost as a proxy.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: The authors selected internal
facility and financial cost metrics combined with estimates of external pollution costs based on the stated
need to use conventional methodology (e.g., CBA). Usage of the shadow pricing technical to value
externalities was justified for how it provides a cheaper alternative compared to developing and
administering willingness-to-pay type surveys for contingent valuation. The use of pollutant control costs
as shadow prices for environmental attributes and quality provided a methodology to assess the economic
viability of wastewater treatment technologies that considered internal and external impacts. Although the
methodology is not new, it does further point to the trend towards demonstrating economic viability as a
crucial (if not the only) prerequisite for scaling up reuse projects.
Shadow prices for suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) pollution
of-$0.010, -$21.60, -$50.60, and -$0.13 per pound3, respectively, were taken from Fare (2006). No
reasoning was given for selection of that source or pollutants. These pollutants are standard for
wastewater treatment and, thus, pollution control cost data is readily available, thereby lending to the use
of the shadow pricing technique in this case. If these pollutants were not typically controlled and/or have
data available to characterize control costs, then the external costs would need to be estimated by another
means such as contingent valuation.
Key Findings and Notes: The 13 facilities were estimated to have mean annual and unit volume benefit of
$5,240,000 per year ($1,022,000 without averted pollutant costs) and $56.5 ($9.5 without averted costs)
3 Values presented were converted from Euros to Dollars (1.00 Euro = $1.35 values based on July, 2014 conversion
rate) and from metric to US standard.
3-14
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
per ft3 of reclaimed water, respectively. The mean overall averted costs (i.e., environmental benefit) came
to $48.4 per ft3.
EclA Case Study 2: Patel (2010) Strengthening the Business Case for Reuse.
Patel, A. (2010). Strengthening the business case for reuse, http://www.lcmp.eng.cam.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/W4-Strengthening-the-business-case-for-reuse.pdf.
Material and Context: Steel reuse (without melting) for low-grade purposes in the United Kingdom.
Methods: LCCA.
Metrics: Direct and indirect costs.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: No description was provided as to
why specific methods and metrics were selected for use, although the title and repeated text centered on
presenting the business case for reuse imply strict economic focus.
Limited direct cost-type parameters (e.g., costs of different life-cycle stages) were described based on a
literature review of non-melting steel reuse. Costs were given as approximate per-tonne values for all of
the following major steps in life cycle and with alternative disposal at landfill: primary production,
fabrication, construction, de-construction, demolition, certification, and landfilling. The review captured
data from four reports, primarily from Geyer and Jackson (2004), which collected "ballpark figures" from
United Kingdom industry leaders and organizations, as well as the International Iron and Steel Institute.
Key Findings and Notes: Profit opportunities from stocking and reselling used steel in the U.K. were
estimated to be $187 per ton to $711 per ton over the period October 2006 to June 2009, with an average
of $3 5 5 per ton4.
3.3.3 SIA Studies
SIA Case Study 1: Preston (2013) Draft Environmental Impact Statement For The Disposal
And Reuse Of The Former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS JRB) Willow
Grove, Horsham, Pennsylvania.
Reference: Preston, G. (2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the disposal and reuse of
the Former Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NAS JRB) Willow Grove, Horsham, Pennsylvania.
http://www.horshamlibrary.org/%5CWillowGroveNASAdminRecord%5CPdfs%5CDRAFT-EIS-
MAIN.pdf.
Material and Context: Land reuse of old naval base in Horsham, Pennsylvania.
Methods: EIS qualitative and quantitative analysis of land reuse alternatives' social (and economic)
impacts.
Metrics: Land use patterns; presence of planning and zoning activity; population change; housing; change
in community infrastructure, recreation, traffic, noise, cultural, historical, and archaeological resources
and Native American tribes & indigenous peoples; employment, income (direct, indirect, short- and long-
term); and other equity for minority groups.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: The specific method selected
follows a relatively recent EIS framework (compared to Rawls, 2001) given its set list of metrics, rigorous
classification, and analysis of alternatives' (in)significant, beneficial or negative, and direct or indirect
4 Values presented were converted from British Pounds to Dollars (1.71 £ = $1.00 values based on July, 2014
conversion rate) and from metric to US standard.
3-15
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
impacts, and listing of mitigation measures as needed. Quantitative estimates were provided of social and
economic impacts related to the following:
• local population increase;
• traffic, in terms of additional seconds of delay at key intersections, level of service (semi-
quantitatively describes roadways' operating conditions based on speed, travel times and
delay on a scale from A, "adequate", to F, "worst"), and number of external daily and peak
AM/PM vehicle trips;
• noise in decibels, from construction (relative to maximum permitted sound pressure level),
aircraft, and traffic (relative to noise abatement threshold permitted increase);
• housing, in terms of addition of new units;
• student enrollment increases (to observe potential to surpass capacity);
• local economic conditions, in terms of total construction expenditures made within the area;
• local jobs, both direct and indirect/induced; and
• tax revenue benefits for the township.
Key Findings and Notes: Alternatives were assessed with relatively in-depth analysis of impacts
compared to other EISs reviewed.
SI A Case Study 2: Misheloff (2011) Integrated Water Resources Management II:
Feasibility of Wastewater Reuse Report No. 14.
Reference: Misheloff, R. (2011). Integrated water resources management H: feasibility of wastewater
reuse report No. 14. http ://www.iwrm2eg.org/report/IWRMII/Report 14Feasibility_of_WW_Reuse .pdf
Material and Context: Wastewater reuse for agriculture in pilot rural Egypt village.
Methods: Qualitative description of social processes and impacts, as assessed by (USAID.
Metrics: Cultural, historical, and archaeological resources; land use patterns; employment, income, and
other equity for minority groups; identification of stakeholders; perceptions of risk; health and safety;
distribution of power and authority; and community cohesion.
How Methods and Metrics were Selected and Used to Make Decisions: No direct explanation was given
for why baseline data collection for the USAID Environmental Impact Assessment framework should
cover social and economic metrics. Rather, the source listed the metrics in 10 bullet points, which makes
this source representative of many of the "most-useful" SIA sources in terms of the presentation and
limited depth of analysis. Additionally, no context was given for their listing of the wastewater pilot
project examples of empowerment of communities and impacts such as improved gender relationships.
Key Findings and Notes: Only qualitative observations of the pilot were noted, such as increased
community cohesiveness and lack of direct economic impact.
3-16
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
4. Discussion
In terms of the prevalence of EcIA and SIA methodologies, the distribution of those
methodologies among the final group of 72 studies (i.e., the studies that gave information related to EcIA
and/or SIA for beneficial reuse) came to 28 EcIA, 33 EcIA/SIA, and 11 SIA studies, (Table 3). The fact
that SIA-focused studies were underrepresented illustrates how most reuse literature reviewed aims to
demonstrate the profitability or other economic benefits of establishing reuse material processing
operations (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities or the associated sale of biosolids for composting or
agricultural amendment). Additionally, the fact that 7 of the 11 SIA studies that focused on reuse
materials (rather than "waste disposal" options) only studied biosolids (4 studies) and wastewater (3
studies) further emphasizes how the field of research for them is much more mature than that for the other
materials, which typically only included SIA or social metrics in passing (or with bulleted or paragraph
description) when describing EcIA. The focus on wastewater and biosolids is likely due to negative public
perceptions and attitudes about wastewater and biosolids reuse. C&D waste (6 studies) and tire (3
studies) reuse represent the next most-studied reuse materials. Their relative importance is also reflected
by their inclusion in 3 of the 12 EcIA and SIA case studies. Due to increasing global awareness and
demand for reduction and reuse of valuable waste products, materials reuse will likely rise as research and
pilot initiatives become more innovative and explore reusing wastes outside of wastewater and biosolids,
as opposed to the common disposal norms for these materials, such as landfilling.
4.1 Key Economic Methods, Metrics, Data and Examples
Most studies used basic or advanced CBA, while many supplemented that with a LCCA
approach, generally looking at operation and maintenance costs. In addition to looking at costs and
benefits, usually in the form of facility- or project-specific direct costs and revenues, a majority of studies
also used "study-specific economic methods" to address indirect and external costs and economic
impacts. These study-specific methods often entailed listing indirect and external costs (such as "impacts
on local industries" or "effects on worker skills") and/or describing them qualitatively.
Table 5 shows that direct costs (e.g., revenue, facility costs) and direct employment (often
classified as jobs) were the most-cited metrics (within 51 and 22 studies, respectively). Other aspects of
employment (indirect, short-term, long-term, and local), effects on local industries, and effects on worker
skills were cited in 18, 17, and 6 sources, respectively. This emphasizes the focus on costs and
development of jobs and local economies, implying that the major purpose of many of the studies was to
demonstrate the overall economic appeal of the reuse projects, as policy-makers, the general public, and
other stakeholders frequently consider only those impacts.
This implication is further highlighted in many of the key statements of the EcIA and SIA case
studies shown in Section 3. 3, which present a wide range of materials, logical or modeling frameworks,
and levels of analysis of social impacts. Examples of the major points from the abstract, summary, or
conclusion sections from four case-study sources include the following:
• "The net benefit of reusing and recycling of [C&D] waste materials is estimated at 2.5% of
the total project budget [at the Malaysian site]" (Begum et al., 2006)
• "The life-cycle cost analysis completed...determined that RCA [recycled concrete aggregate]
was both economically sustainable and feasible for application as a base material in highway
construction [compared to virgin limestone aggregate]" (Donalson et al., 2010)
• "If the external benefit [shadow pollutant costs] of these projects is also incorporated, the
economic feasibility analysis provided positive results for all water-reuse projects in the
current study" (Molinos-Senante et al., 2011)
• "The [European Union Water Framework Directive] policy is to achieve Full Cost Recovery
accounting for] the environmental and resource costs associated with damage or negative
4-1
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
impact on the aquatic environment" (Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working Group,
2007).
The finding that the case studies strive to emphasize the cost-effectiveness (often with
quantifying environmental externalities) of reuse is further bolstered by considering the
representativeness of the studies. Given their wide range of materials—C&D waste in general, C&D
waste as concrete, steel, and wastewater—and their geographic scope, it is clear that this desire to
demonstrate cost-effectiveness is consistent throughout the literature. This representativeness is further
illustrated by the case studies' range of logical and modeling frameworks, which include simplified CBA,
LCCA (with and without valuation of indirect costs and/or external economic impacts), a literature review
listing of key costs, and MCE with CBA and hedonic valuation.
Deeper analysis of the case studies revealed several potential trends that could inform policy-
making for supporting beneficial reuse. Begum et al. (2006), Donalson et al. (2010), and the
Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working Group (2007) all discussed the usage of, or directly use
standard CBA and/or LCCA for either one specific site or an entire region without specifics. Also, the
studies focused primarily on quantifying economic impacts, while only limited attempts to quantify or
qualify social impacts were made, as seen in the following:
• Begum et al. (2006) mentioned but did not attempt to quantify the social (or environmental)
benefits
• Donalson et al. (2010) only referred to social impacts as those related to the public health
risks from road base leaching
• The Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working Group (2007) provided only qualitative
descriptions for social impacts.
These and other authors should be encouraged to go beyond using "a conservative [economic
analysis-only] method of estimation... [even if it is just] an initial study" (Begum et al., 2006) and take
the next step towards more comprehensive methodologies, such as the following:
• Molinos-Senante et al. (2011), which used hedonic valuation to quantify averted pollution
costs
• Sa-nguanduan and Nititvattanan (2011) which used the social impacts-inclusive
methodology, whose economic-focused MCDA-type modeling also included semi-
quantitative measures of public acceptance, as well as environmental externalities.
Additionally, using a literature review approach to inform potential economic and social impacts
appears to be limited in value, as most studies rely on simplified CBA or LCCA (e.g., Patel, 2010).
Relying instead on proactive survey methodology of all stakeholder groups and clear modeling logic, as
laid out in Sa-nguanduan and Nititvattanan (2011), researchers will be better equipped in the future to
develop more holistic analyses and better estimates of the benefits of waste material reuse, as well as
present them to a wide audience.
4.2 Key Social Methods, Metrics, and Data and Examples
A high majority of SIA-focused sources utilized study-specific social methods, usually entailing a
listing or qualitative description of social metrics. Many sources also incorporated stakeholder surveys to
some extent, and a few used interactive community forum or social LCA methods. Table 6 shows that the
distribution of social metrics cited was more even than that of economic metrics. The breakdown of the
most-cited metrics—attitudes towards policy/project (18 studies), perceptions of risk, health, and safety
(16 studies), odor (15 studies), noise (14 studies), employment/income/other equity for minorities (11
studies), land use patterns and traffic (10 studies each)—illustrates the focus on overall "public
4-2
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
acceptance" and community resources concerns, such as citizens' adverse reactions to the physical stimuli
arising from many human waste-reuse projects (e.g., the odor, noise and traffic associated with
wastewater or biosolids treatment facility operations and transportation of products). These metrics are
grouped and defined in this report as "acceptance and nuisance metrics."
In contrast, less focus was put on "other social metrics" (the grouping definition for the non-
acceptance and nuisance measures) related to community/institutional structures or family/community
networks, as well as "social well-being" and other more emotion-related impacts. The limited focus on
other social metrics could be explained by how they are difficult to quantify, both in terms of quantitative
format and methodology. Understanding how community structures and networks, as well as "social well-
being," are impacted by beneficial reuse is crucial, but difficult and time- and resource-intensive to
research in terms of survey development and execution or other methods. This complexity and required
level of effort may explain why most of the SIA studies chose instead to assess the general "social
acceptance" of a project and the common ElS-framework odor/noise/traffic/scenery impacts, which can
often be quantified in terms of decibels or number of trips, or qualified in terms of significance as per EIS
methodology.
Regarding common ElS-assessed impacts, the Preston (2013) EIS case study of land reuse
suggested potential strategies for evaluating the hypothetical social impacts of alternative scenarios. It
quantified impacts related to population increase, traffic trips (in kilometers traveled), and noise (in
decibels), as well as analyzed a whole host of other social metrics that were mostly ignored through the
remaining literature, such as impacts on Native American tribes and indigenous peoples and on cultural,
historical, and archaeological resources. It also included estimates of economic, employment, and tax
revenue benefits. The Preston study example highlights the current desire to move beyond the traditional
EIS method to a more holistic and comprehensive approach, where a broader range of economic and
social impacts are incorporated into environmental decision-making.
Quantified community-level impacts, and the ways through which they were quantified, present
insight into the methods used for analyzing beneficial reuse decisions. Other modeling and decision
analysis frameworks, such as the MCE-based analysis (of C&D waste reuse) executed in Craighill and
Powell (2000)) gave quantitative assessment, but generally through subjective judgment of social-type
data for the purposes of incorporating it into their LCAs. Using "low-medium-high" ranking (in Craighill
and Powell, 2000) helped the authors derive interesting conclusions (e.g., pure landfilling, or reuse, of
C&D waste was better than a mix of end-of-life processing in reducing many negative social impacts.
Using LCA data within MCE driven by subjective weighting of social impacts (Craighill and Powell,
2000) and borrowing social indicators from the UNEP (2009) framework suggests a useful strategy for
semi-quantitative SIA that are potentially adaptable for assessing other beneficial-reuse scenarios.
The utility of canvassing stakeholders was also displayed in Youngqist & Goldberger (2013).
While they did not execute as much extensive stakeholder data collection as done with Padilla et al.
(2013), their large survey represents a promising and standardized methodology for best gauging impacts
related to public acceptance and the nature of related community impacts outside of the major nuisance
social impacts.
However, as their case questions were not specifically directed towards the "other social metrics"
assessed in this report, there is limited direct applicability of their methods and metrics. This is also true
to some extent for Goldstein and Beecher's (2007) review of the social and other impacts of biosolids
reuse and Misheloff s (2011) SIA of wastewater reuse. In using the most common methods within "study-
specific social methods," which are qualitative listing and/or description of social metrics, both sources
did not present frameworks or concrete information useful for decision-making. While the four social
theme-focused paragraphs with 1-3 sentences each in Goldstein and Beecher (2007) and the 10 bullet
points in Misheloff s overview of US AID SIA of wastewater reuse projects gave background of metrics
4-3
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
that should be considered, stronger frameworks with semi- or fully-quantitative metrics are needed to give
policy-makers the evidence needed to better promote beneficial reuse.
The rationale for selecting and using specific method(s) is not explicitly described in the most of
the literature, but is likely based on the goals of the project, cost of implementing the methods,
availability of data, and other factors (e.g., familiarity of researchers with different methods or tools).
Regardless of the exact methods and metrics used across the studies, they all provide the value of making
the broader range of economic and social impacts more visible to decision-makers and key stakeholders
and more integral to the decision-making process.
4.3 Data Gaps and Research Needs
Of the identified sources that provided more targeted information related to EcIA and/or SIA for
material reuse, mostly for reuse of wastewater, biosolids and C&D waste, SIA-focused studies were
relatively few in number compared to EcIA- and joint ECIA SIA-focused studies. While most EcIA
sources used basic or advanced CBA (often with a LCCA approach) to analyze direct costs and overall
employment impacts, most SIA sources utilized qualitative listing or short description of social metrics to
overview general or hypothesized public attitudes towards policy/project, perceptions of risk, health, and
safety, and type and impact of potential nuisances (e.g., odor, noise and traffic).
Key data gaps found, and potential research needs, are as follows:
1. Metrics and data for EcIA and SIA were usually presented in the context of impacts that can
be directly attributed to a specific facility or project, rather than more comprehensive EcIA
and SIA, which takes a broader view of internal and external impacts. This may be related to
the primary need (and subsequent focus) for demonstrating the economic feasibility for
material reuse, with secondary consideration given to externality costs and social impacts.
Data were found to be generally lacking for characterizing non-market economic impacts and
social impacts outside of public acceptance and nuisance metrics, which are difficult to
quantify and thus appear infrequently in the literature. Research to fill these gaps, by
developing adapted standardized methodologies for semi- or fully-quantitative assessment of
non-market economic and social impacts, could involve exploring how the EIS framework
can be modified and how MCE modeling and various software and approaches used in the
literature can be tailored for specific reuse scenarios.
2. Another key gap is that while the beneficial reuse-related EcIA literature gave many
examples of useful data for evaluating the benefits of reuse, most of it was facility and
financial data rather than information on other economic impacts, such as jobs created (both
spatially and temporally), tax revenue, and property value changes. Moving away from the
facility-only mindset and utilizing methods that look at those more holistic economic impacts
will help fill these data gaps and give policymakers more relevant information for advocating
for beneficial reuse to local politicians, communities, and other stakeholders besides facilities
managers.
3. Gaps in data for all of the SIA categories and metrics included in this report (and largely
taken from NOAA) exist and are particularly acute for the non-acceptance and nuisance
metrics. While some data for impacts not within that category, such as for number of traffic
trips or miles driven and malodorous air and noise produced, have been quantified in EIS or
MCDA literature, it was insufficient for the purposes of meta-analysis and discerning
correlations among reuse scenarios and impact levels.
4. There is a general lack of approaches for identifying potential economic and social impacts
up-front in an analysis. In general, studies and sources reviewed simply start with a list of
impacts that are perceived to be important, or are important to stakeholders, and then try to
4-4
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
characterize those impacts. Studies that relied on the use of interactive community forum and
EIS were the exception.
This lack of quantitative SIA-related data, as well as the scarcity of EcIA data beyond direct
internal costs and revenue, could be remedied by adapting the quantification methodologies within the
case studies highlighted above that attempted to quantify such data (e.g., the Preston [2013] EIS or
Craighill and Powell [2000] LCA). Additionally, at a higher level, research needs to be conducted to
adapt the rigorous EIS assessment protocol, as well as the MCDA-related modeling executed in Craighill
and Powell (2000) and Sa-nguanduan and Nititvattanan (2011), both of which developed inventory
scoring for social impacts and incorporated economic data besides direct costs. These two sources in
particular could be studied in greater depth to discern how to utilize their software and/or modeling
processes and decisions to best create platforms for assessing other reuse scenarios for which other
metrics may be more relevant.
4-5
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
5. References
Albrecht, P., Brodersen, J., Horst, D.W. and Scherf, M. (2011). Reuse and recycling systems for selected
beverage packaging from a sustainability perspective.
http://www.duh.de/fileadmin/user_upload/download/Projektinformation/Kreislaufwirtschaft/PwC
-Study reading version.pdf. Accessed 12 December 2013.
Asano, T. (1998). Wastewater reclamation and reuse: Water Quality Management Library, Volume 10.
CRC Press.
Becker, D., Harris, C.C., McLaughlin, W.J., and Nielsen, E.A. (2003). A participatory approach to social
impact assessment: The interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review
23(3):367-382.
Beecher, N. (2004). Public Perception ofbiosolids recycling: developing public participation and
earning trust. Water Education and Research Foundation, Water Intelligence Online.
Begum, R.A., Sewar, C., Pereira, J.J., and Jaafar, A.H. (2006). A benefit-cost analysis on the economic
feasibility of construction waste minimisation: The case of Malaysia. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 48(1): 86-98.
Burdge, R. (2004). The Concepts, Process andMethods ofSIA. The Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI
Catalyze (2014). HFVTEW software website: http://www.catalyze.co.uk/index.php/software/hiview3/
Accessed June 2014.
City of San Diego Development Services (2011). California Environmental Quality Act significance
determination thresholds, http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/pdf/news/sdtceqa.pdf.
Accessed 12 December 2013.
Craighill, A., and Powell, C. (2000/ A life cycle assessment and evaluation of construction and
demolition waste. http://www.cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wm_1999_03.pdf. Accessed 10
December 2013.
Dehghanian, F., and Mansour, S. (2009). Designing sustainable recovery network of end-of-life products
using genetic algorithm. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(10): 559-570.
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The
Tailored Design Method (3rd Edition). New York: Wiley.
Donalson, J., Curtis, R. andNajafi, F. (2010). Sustainable assessment of recycled concrete aggregate
(RCA) used in highway construction. http://docs.trb.Org/prp/l l-0492.pdf. Accessed 12 December
2013.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., and Weber, W. (2006). Shadow prices and pollution costs in U.S. agriculture.
Ecological Economics 56(1): 89-103.
Geyer, R., and Jackson, T. (2004). Supply loops and their constraints: the industrial ecology of recycling
and reuse, http://sat.xlri.ac.in/sat ais/resource/resdb/RL12/RL12-3/PRLRL12-3/R%20-
%206%20%2012391592%20supplv%201oops%20constrn%20rev%201og.pdf. Accessed 12
December 2013.
5-1
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Goldstein, N., and Beecher, N. (2007). Invest in the social aspects of biosolids management. Water
Practice & Technology 2(4): 1-8.
Gomez, A. A., Donovan, J.D. and Bedggood, R. E. (2013). Developing a 'bestpractice ' SIA process:
Exploring the integration of technical and participatory approaches. IAIA13 Conference
Proceedings.
http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaial3/proceedings/Final%20papers%20review%20process%201
3/Developing%20a%20%E2%80%98best%20practice%E2%80%99%20SIA%20process%20-
%20Exploring%20the%20integration%20of%20technical%20and%20participatorv%20approach
es.pdf. Accessed December 2013.
Hernandez, F., Urkiaga, A., De las Fuentes, L., Bis, B., Chiru, E., Balazs, B. and Wintgens, T. (2006).
Feasibility studies for water reuse projects: an economical approach. Desalination 757(1-3): 253-
261.
Industrial Economics, Incorporated (2008). Waste and materials-flow benchmark sector report: beneficial
use of secondary materials - coal combustion products. Report Prepared for U.S. EPA
Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division.
James, K. (2011). A methodology for quantifying the environmental and economic impacts of reuse.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Final%20Reuse%20Method.pdf. Accessed 9 December
2013.
John Ward, Inc. (2010). The value of coal combustion products: an economic assessment ofCCP
utilization for the U.S. economy. American Coal Association
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.americancoalcouncil.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/ACC_2010_CCP_
ECON ASSESSMENT.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2013
Kruglak, E. (2013). Recycling FGD gypsum for agricultural use.
http://www.kdheks.gov/waste/workshops/worksl3/presentations/ChamberlainSpoerriRecyclingF
GDGypsum.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2013.
Ladwig, K. (2010J. Quantifying the benefits of using coal combustion products in sustainable
construction. Electric Power Research Institute.
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001020552&M
ode=download . Accessed 12 December 2013.
Listowski, A., Ngo, H.H., and Guo, W.S. (2013). Establishment of an economic evaluation model for
urban recycled water. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 72: 67-75.
Mediterranean Wastewater Reuse Working Group (2007). Mediterranean wastewater reuse report.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/pdf/final report.pdf. Accessed 12
December 2013.
Misheloff, R. (2011). Integrated water resources management ii: feasibility of wastewater reuse report
No. 14. http://www.iwrm2eg.org/report/IWRMII/Report 14Feasibilitv of WW Reuse .pdf.
Accessed 11 December 2013.
Molinos-Senante, M., Hernandez-Sancho, F., and Sala-Garrido, R. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis of water-
reuse projects for environmental purposes: A case study for Spanish wastewater treatment plants.
Journal of'EnvironmentalManagement 92(12): 3091-3097.
5-2
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
NEWMOA (2012). NEWMOA Beneficial Use Database.
http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/members/buds/. Accessed 4 November 2012.
NOAA (1994). Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Report prepared by the
Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/social_impact_guide.htm. Accessed 13 November 2013.
Padilla, A., Giiereca, L.P., Morgan, J.M., and Noyola, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment: A
comparison ofwastewater treatment facilities in Mexico.
http://www.ciraig.org/pdf/event/ACVs2013/session%202/Mav6_14h25_AJ_Padilla.pdf.
Accessed 11 December 2013.
Patel, A. (2010). Strengthening the business case for reuse, http://www.lcmp.eng.cam.ac.uk/wp-
content/uploads/W4-Strengthening-the-business-case-for-reuse.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2013.
Poulter, S. (2007). Draft north Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/documentShow.cfm?Doc_ID=2615 . Accessed 11 December 2013.
Preston, G. (2013). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the disposal and reuse of the Former
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base (NASJRB) Willow Grove, Horsham, Pennsylvania.
http://www.horshamlibrary.org/%5CWillowGroveNASAdminRecord%5CPdfs%5CDRAFT-EIS-
MAIN.pdf. Accessed 12 December 2013.
Rawls, B. (2001). Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Spokane County wastewater facilities plan.
http://www.spokanecounty.org/utilities/wwrp/NovO 1 Rpt/DraftEIS.htm . Accessed 10 December
2013.
Recycled Materials Resource Center (2012). Cost issues, http://rmrc.wisc.edu/ug-cost-issues/. Accessed
11 December 2013.
Sa-nguanduan, N. and Nititvattananon, V. (2011). Strategic decision making for urban water reuse
application: A case from Thailand. Desalination 268(1-3): 141-149.
Simoes, C.L., Xara, S.M., and Bernardo, C.A. (2010). Life cycle assessment of a road safety product
made with virgin and recycled HOPE. Waste Management Research 29: 414-422.
Simoes, C.L., Costa Pinto, L.M., and Bernardo, C.A. (2012). Environmental and economic assessment of
a road safety product made with virgin and recycled HOPE: a comparative study. Journal of
Environmental Management 75(114): 209-15.
Soh, I., and Lang, G. (2011) Decision making for biosolids management.
http://www.ewmce.com/Resources/Documents/Ida_Soh_and_Graham_Lang_-
Decision Making for Biosolids Management.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2013.
Turnley, J.G. (2002). Social, Cultural and Economic Impact Assessments - A Literature Review. Report
Prepared for U.S. EPA, The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/pdfs/SILitRevFinal.pdf. Accessed December 2013.
5-3
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
UNEP (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products.
http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIxll64xPA-guidelines sLCA.pdf. Accessed 11
November 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003). Guide for industrial waste management.
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm. Accessed 10 December 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). The use of the soil amendments for remediation,
revitalization, and reuse, http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/epa-542-r-07-013.pdf.
Accessed 11 December 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Handbook on the benefits, costs and impacts of land
cleanup and reuse. http://vosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0569-02.pdf/Sfile/EE-
0569-02.pdf .Accessed 10 December 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012a). Guide for industrial waste management.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm. Accessed 10 December 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012b). Beneficial use of waste materials: state of the practice
2012. Report prepared by Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC under subcontract to RTI
International.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012c). A framework for sustainability indicators at EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/docs/framework-for-sustainability-indicators-at-epa.pdf.
Accessed 10 December 2013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Hazardous waste recycling.
http://www.epa.gov/solidwaste/hazard/recycling/index.htmtfmuch . Accessed 10 December 2013.
U.S. Department of Energy (2010). Energy conservation program: energy conservation standards for
small electric motors final rule.
http ://www 1 .eere .energy. gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/sem_finalrule_appe
ndixl5a.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2013.
Vanclay, F. (2003). International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal 27(1):5-11.
Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) (2014). Environmental and economic benefits of re-use.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/environmental-and-economic-benefits-re-use . Accessed 9
December 2013.
Watkins, P. and Holland, M. (2000). Benefits table database: estimates of the marginal external costs of
air pollution in Europe. BeTa Version El .02a.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/air/pdf/betaec02a.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2013.
Winpenny, J., Heinz, I., Koo-Oshima, S., Salgot, M., Collado, J., Hernandez, F., and Torricelli, R. (2010).
The wealth of waste: the economics ofwastewater use in agriculture.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i 1629e/i 1629e.pdf. Accessed 9 December 2013.
5-4
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Wong, B. (2013). Social Impact Assessment: The Principles of the U.S. and International Version,
Criticisms and the Social Impact Variables.
http://www.worldresearchconference.com/gbsr2013/eproceeding/YG%20DAH%20PDFkan/036.
pdf. Accessed December 2013.
Youngqist, C.P., and Goldberger, J.R. (2013). A summary report: a survey ofSkagit Ccounty residents:
opinions about local reuse and recycling ofbiosolids compost.
http://www.laconner.net/uploads/Skagit%20Biosolids%20Survev%20Summarv%20Report%20b
v%20Caitlin%20Price 1 .pdf Accessed 9 December 2013.
5-5
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Appendix A:
Selected Case Study Examples of Economic and Social Impact
Assessment of Beneficial Reuse
Tables A-l and A-2 list and summarize case studies covering EcIA and SIA (respectively)
methods and metrics found in the literature that were specific to beneficial reuse topics. The studies
discussed in the body of the report were selected as those that best illustrate the use of the economic and
social methods most commonly used.
A-l
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data
Author, Year,
Material
Waste Resources
Action
Programme
(WRAP), 2011,
miscellaneous
(various
consumer goods)
Begum et al.,
2006,
Construction and
Demolition (C&D)
waste
Methods and
Context
Life cycle cost-
benefit analysis of
various materials'
reuse in the United
Kingdom
Cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) for
reuse and
recycling at one
project site in
Malaysia; surveys
of industry leaders
for basic cost data
Metrics
Direct costs;
employment;
impacts on local
industries
Direct and indirect
costs; (SOCIAL)
noise; odor; worker
safety
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
LCA scope, functional unit,
and other features described
in supplementary document,
but no explanation for why
LCA was selected; Excel
tool takes user input for
material, average lifetime of
2nd use, disposal route,
product displacement type,
and other information, and
gives environmental, job
creation and cost-benefit
outputs to stakeholders
Chose CBA as "standard
measure of profitability;" did
not attempt to quantify
"intangible" benefits vs.
costs (public image,
environmental concern, etc.
versus workers' health risk,
noise and odor); used "a
conservative method of
estimation as it is an initial
study"
Data
Total net costs and
benefits to: local
authorities, reuse
organizations, and
participating
households and
businesses
Benefits included
purchasing cost
savings, re-sale
revenue, waste
collection cost
savings, and landfill
charge savings; costs
included those for
collection and
separation,
equipment purchase,
storage and
transportation
Other Notes
Annual monetary
benefits and full-time
jobs created were
calculated for various
clothing, furniture,
and electronic goods
C&D reuse and
recycling found to be
profitable, with net
benefits equivalent to
2. 5% of the total
project budget
(continued)
A-2
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Donalson et al.,
2010, C&D
(concrete)
John Ward, Inc.,
2010, coal
combustion
products (CCP)
Methods and
Context
LCCA of aggregate
options for
roadbase in Winter
Haven, Florida
Selective benefit
analysis of
potential CCP use
in US
Metrics
Direct costs
Direct and indirect
costs
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
No description of why they
were selected; cost analysis
method taken from Recycled
Materials Resource Center,
analyzing basic (delivery),
installation and maintenance
costs; literature review used
to compile impacts (social
ones interpreted as just
related to leaching)
Selected due to basis in
literature review rather than
novel research; used 2005
American Coal Council
(ACC) Economic
Assessment framework to
estimate sales revenue;
avoided disposal costs
calculated with approach
given in Electric Power
Research Institute (Ladwig,
2010) report; building
materials savings figures
also attributed to EPRI
report, which used Social
Carbon Cost (US
Department of Energy,
2010)
Data
Material acquisition
versus installation
costs
Ranges of benefits
for CCP sales (to
utilities, marketers
and transporters),
avoided on-site or
landfill costs, and
building material
savings
Other Notes
Recycled concrete
aggregate found to
be more cost-
effective than virgin
limestone aggregate
ACC consultant
report estimates
annual benefits to be
$6.4-1 1.4 billion
USD, mostly as
savings from use as
sustainable buildings
materials
(continued)
A-3
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Methods and
Context
Metrics
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
Other Notes
Kruglak, 2013,
Flue Gas
Desulfurization
Gypsum
Patel, 2010, steel
Simoes et al.,
2012, high-
density
polyethylene
(HOPE) plastic
Selective benefit
analysis based on
Indiana farming
data
LCCA based on
United Kingdom
literature
LCCA; hedonic
valuation
Direct and indirect
costs; employment
Direct and indirect
costs
Direct and indirect
costs
No description of why they
were selected; industry-led
research comparing
financial data from one case
study with that of typical
farming program
No description of why they
were selected; literature
review of non-melting steel
reuse captured data from 4
reports, primarily from one
at right, which was sourced
from United Kingdom
industry/other leaders
Likely selected because
they were used in Simoes
2010; internal (direct) cost
data for both AGL and virgin
HOPE (production,
distribution and end of life
treatment) taken from
Simoes 201 0's life-cycle
inventory (LCI); external
Carbon price from European
Union Emissions Trading
Scheme; external pollutant
(damage) costs taken from
Watkins and Holland (2000)
Estimates of value of
improved crop yield
and fertilizer savings
Approximate cost per
ton values for all
major steps
Costs for typical LCA
stages along with
CO2e, SC-2, NOx and
PM25 emissions
Improved crop yield
by $162/acre, and
saved $51 /acre of
input fertilizer costs
"Ballpark figures"
pulled from Geyer
and Jackson, 2004
Reuse of HOPE in
Anti-Glare Lamellae
(AGL) road safety
product
(continued)
A-4
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Albrecht et al.,
201 1 , beverage
containers
Methods and
Context
PriceWaterHouseC
oopers-led industry
surveys and review
of open literature
for analysis of
deposit systems in
Germany
Metrics
Direct costs;
employment; effects
on local industries;
cost-sharing; start-
up difficulties,
industry and
government
resistance or
bureaucracy
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
"An assessment was made
as to which costs arise from
participation in the system
for the individual
stakeholders, in particular
beverage producers and
retailers, and the revenues
that can be generated," in
order to determine
quantitative metrics; "in
addition, [qualitative] impact
categories [metrics] were
identified that describe the
effects of beverage
packaging collection and
recycling systems on the
market situation and market
dynamics"
Data
Five-tier ranking
system for ecological,
social, and economic
factors, based on
quantitative and
qualitative
assessment
Other Notes
Assessed processing
of plastic beverage
containers for
refillable deposit,
one-way deposit, and
dual systems; the
refillable deposit
system ranked best
for all parameters,
except for revenue
(continued)
A-5
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Molinos-Senante
etal.,2011,
wastewater
Listowski et al.,
2013, wastewater
Methods and
Context
Life-cycle cost-
benefit analysis of
1 3 wastewater
reuse projects in
Spain; hedonic
valuation
Life-cycle CBA for
wastewater reuse
treatment facility in
Australia
Metrics
Direct costs; costs
of pollution
treatment
Direct costs
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
Selected cost metrics due to
stated need to use
conventional methodology,
e.g., CBA; usage of hedonic
valuation of pollutants
justified as "the
quantification of shadow
prices... provides an
alternative method for the
valuation of externalities;"
While shadow prices for
suspended solids, Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and chemical
oxygen demand (COD)
pollution were taken from
Fare (2006), no reasoning
was given for selection of
that source or pollutants
Cost metrics profiled in
Economic Productivity
model, CBA model with
discounted cash flow
analysis (chosen because it
is "the primary tool for
economic efficiency"), with
focus on Avoided Costs
equation and Reliability
index
Data
Basic facility and
financial costs
combined with
averted pollution
costs
Basic facility and
financial costs and
revenue
Other Notes
The facilities had
mean annual and unit
volume benefit of 3.9
million Euros per
year (760,000 without
averted pollutant
costs) and 1 .2 Euros
(0.2) per m3,
respectively
Profit of $0.05 Aust.
Dollars per m3
(continued)
A-6
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Hernandez, 2006,
wastewater
Mediterranean
Wastewater
Reuse Working
Group, 2007,
wastewater
Methods and
Context
Life-cycle CBA,
and qualitative
description of
externalities, for
generic treatment
facility
LCCA of
wastewater reuse
in Mediterranean
context
Metrics
Direct costs;
property value; cost
of pollution
treatment;
(SOCIAL) noise;
odor; interested and
affected publics
Direct costs;
employment;
(SOCIAL)
identification of
stakeholders;
concerns about
social well-being;
recreation; attitudes
towards
policy/project
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
"When calculating the total
benefit, it is worth including
internal benefit, benefits
from externalities and
opportunity cost," where net
benefits for each one are
revenue minus cost, detailed
mostly for internal benefit;
social and other externalities
were not qualified or
quantified
Method chosen because it
"is a useful way to evaluate
the conditions under which
treated wastewater reuse
can be cost-effective and in
comparing cost
performances;" social and
health risks and benefits
described without context in
7 bullet points
Data
Basic and facility
component costs
given as a function of
capacity
Basic costs given as
a function of capacity
and end-use
quality/other
requirements
Other Notes
Equations for water
unit cost for 8
treatment types
based on capacity
Advanced treatment
for agriculture,
livestock, industry
and landscaping use
gives full annual
costs of 0.1 6 to 0.59
Euros per m3 (for
40,000 to 4,000m3
per day flow,
respectively) (Asano,
1998); European and
US case studies
given
(continued)
A-7
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-1. Beneficial Reuse-Specific EclA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Sanguanduan and
Nititvattanan,
201 1 , wastewater
Winpenny, 2010,
wastewater
Methods and
Context
Contingent
valuation; surveys
of 33 utility staff
and 200
households; multi-
criteria evaluation;
for 6 reuse
alternatives in
Thailand city
CBA and cost-
effective analysis
(CEA) of 2 Spanish
planned reuse
schemes
Metrics
Direct costs;
willingness-to-pay;
(SOCIAL) attitudes
towards
policy/project and
perceptions of risk,
health and safety
Direct and indirect
costs; effects on
local industries;
(SOCIAL)
identification of
stakeholders and
attitudes towards
policy/project
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
"Specific data included
importance order of criteria
(5-rating scale), driving
factors (rank), participation
level (dichotomous), public
acceptance (5-rating scale),
and environmental
economic values of reuse
(dichotomous)" in order to
"create a decision making
system (DMS) incorporating
multiple criteria, available
alternatives, and
environmental externalities
focused on reuse"
"Most kinds of economic
appraisal use a cost-benefit
framework;" the typical
"data... should be [analyzed]
in the following sequence,
depending on whether CBA
or CEA is chosen" and
justifying the project by
showing positive NPV or
BCR or choosing the one
with the lowest total
discounted cost,
respectively; the authors
also define when "CEA is
appropriate"
Data
Total utility, based on
surveyed values
(usually -1 to 1) and
assigned criteria
weights (within 4
models), of
alternative scored
from 0-100
Basic facility and
conveyance costs;
new net benefits to
agriculture (increased
sales and savings)
and value of water
exchanged for city
use (based on tariffs)
Other Notes
Users had
willingness to pay of
31% of tap water
price; industrial reuse
surprisingly rated
higher than
landscaping reuse
NPV-based Benefit to
Cost Ratios as high
as 2.85-5.35; highly
sensitive to
conservative
valuation of urban
water benefits; useful
baseline information
template given on
page 93
A-8
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-2. Beneficial Reuse-Specific SIA Methods, Metrics and Data
Author, Year,
Material
Youngqist &
Goldberger, 2013,
biosolids
Soh & Lang,
2011, biosolids
Methods and Other Notes on Methods
Context | Metrics | and Metrics
Mail survey of 1,374
households in
Skagit County, WA
Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) and
Simple Multi-
Attribute Rating
Technique methods
within
decision-tree
weighting-based
software model
Odor; attitudes
towards
policy/project;
concerns about
social well-being;
perceptions of risk,
health, and safety;
(ECONOMIC)
effects on local
industries
Odor; scenery;
traffic; noise;
perceptions of
health, risk and
safety
Survey questions (related to
metrics) were chosen to
better understand "residents'
attitudes, opinions, and
knowledge about the use of
"Class A" biosolids. ..and to
explore potential correlations
between attitudes about
biosolids and the
demographics and lifestyle
choices of respondents"
Methods and metrics chosen
due to "the need to adopt a
structured approach... and
use [the] decision software
tool Criterium®
DecisionPlus®,
(lnfoHarvest)...to perform a
Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
assessment of options;"
metric selection explained as
"a typical TBL analysis for
biosolids management may
include the [below]
subcriteria (metrics)"
Data
Mean scoring of pre-
listed concerns,
scaled 1-5
Percent alternative is
likely to be best
option; contribution
of criteria to final
score
Other Notes
Residents were more
concerned about
public and
environmental health
than loss of property
value and odor
Triple-bottom line
analysis calculating
"which option best
meets the criteria,
and how likely that
alternative is to be
truly the best choice"
(continued)
A-9
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-2. Beneficial Reuse-Specific SIA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Goldstein and
Beecher, 2007,
biosolids
Rawls, 2001 ,
biosolids
Methods and
Context
Summary of factors
classified as" risk
perceptions,
outrage factors, risk
communication and
public participation,
and earning [public]
trust"
Environmental
Impact Statement
(EIS) qualitative
analysis for
Spokane, WA
wastewater
treatment facility
project
Metrics
Perceptions of
health, risk and
safety; odor; traffic;
trust in political and
social institutions;
identification of
stakeholders;
interested and
affected publics;
attitudes towards
policy/project
Land use patterns;
odor; attitudes
towards
policy/project;
noise; traffic
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
No description of why they
were selected; qualitative
description in paragraphs of
those metric-inclusive
themes (arising from
Beecher, 2004), of 1-3
sentences each
Follows relatively old EIS
framework with set list of
metrics and rigorous analysis
of overall laws and
guidelines, impacts of
alternatives during
construction and operation,
and mitigation measures
Data
None
None
Other Notes
Qualitative
description only of
biosolids
management
concerns
Analysis of 6 types of
biosolids
management
strategies
A-10
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-2. Beneficial Reuse-Specific SIA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Craighill & Powell,
2000, C&D waste
Methods and
Context
Life-Cycle Full Cost
Accounting and Life
Cycle Impact
Assessment of
landfilling and/or
reuse and/or
recycling scenarios
in the United
Kingdom;
contingent and
other valuation of
externalities; multi-
criteria evaluation
sensitivity modeling
Metrics
Perceptions of
health, risk and
safety; land use
patterns; scenery;
noise; traffic; odor;
(ECONOMIC)
direct and indirect
costs; employment
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
For developing LCI,
externality-type impacts
"were measured on a
qualitative scale [of low,
medium or high], based on
the researchers' subjective
judgment;" literature review
and expert/industry
consultation were used for
valuing externalities and
financial costs (especially for
quantified typical financial
costs); this was combined
with subjective weighting of
social impacts (e.g., jobs,
noise and traffic, scenery,
and odor, listed in order of
descending weight) within
the sensitivity-analysis
performed with HI VIEW
software
Data
Per tonne of C&D
waste, quantitative
life-cycle impact
analysis (LCIA)
results given for
traffic (in km),
malodorous air (in
m3), jobs (person-
days), and land use,
scenery (visual), and
noise impacts, all of
which scored
between 8-14
Other Notes
Landfilling or reuse
generally rated better
in land use, visual
and noise impacts
than combination of
options; reuse rated
best for odor,
minimized external
cost, and every
component of triple
bottom line, but
worst for job creation
(continued)
A-ll
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-2. Beneficial Reuse-Specific SIA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Preston, 2013,
land reuse
Methods and
Context
EIS qualitative and
quantitative analysis
of land reuse
alternatives' social
(and economic)
impacts for old
naval base in
Horsham, PA
Metrics
Land use patterns;
presence of
planning & zoning
activity; population
change; housing;
change in
community
infrastructure;
recreation; traffic;
noise; cultural,
historical, and
archaeological
resources; Native
American tribes &
indigenous
peoples;
(ECONOMIC)
employment;
income (direct,
indirect, short- and
long-term); other
equity for minority
groups
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
Follows relatively new EIS
framework with set list of
metrics, rigorous
classification and analysis of
alternatives' (in)significant,
beneficial or negative, and
direct or indirect impacts,
and listing of mitigation
measures as needed
Data
Quantified impacts
related to population
increase, traffic trips,
and noise (in
decibels), as well as
economic, jobs and
tax revenue benefits
Other Notes
Assessed
alternatives with
relatively in-depth
analysis of impacts
compared to typical
EIS
(continued)
A-12
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-2. Beneficial Reuse-Specific SIA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Dehghanian &
Mansour, 2009,
tires
Poulter, 2007,
wastewater
Methods and
Context
AHP modeling of
Iran tire reuse end-
of-life options
(mechanical and
cryogenic
pulverization, and
incineration in
cement kiln)
ElS-type qualitative
determination of
"Impact Category"
(severity) of
wastewater reuse-
for-agriculture
alternatives for
Sonoma County,
CA
Metrics
Worker safety;
perceptions of risk,
health, and safety;
(ECONOMIC)
direct costs;
employment;
effects on local
industries
Scenery; cultural,
historical, and
archaeological
resources;
employment,
income, and other
equity for minority
groups; presence of
planning and zoning
activity; perceptions
of risk, health, and
safety; residential
stability; noise;
displacement and
relocation concerns;
change in access to
water infrastructure;
odor; worker safety;
recreation; traffic
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
AHP modeling chosen in
order to present optimization
tool for balancing out triple
bottom line components;
consulting industry experts
helped select "employment,"
"local development,"
"damage to worker" and
"product [perceived] risk" as
social criteria, in descending
order of weight (relative
importance); AHP software
Expert Choice 2000 used,
among others
Slightly different organization
of metrics and classification
of impacts and mitigation
measures than that in EIS by
Preston (2013), due to how
this is an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR); less
focus on land-type issues
(e.g., ignores "indigenous
peoples" metric) and more
focus on odor and other
concerns relevant to
wastewater reuse
Data
Weights on social
categories used in
software to calculate
Social Indicator
score (0-300)
"Impact Category"
ratings (e.g.,
"Significant but
Mitigable") are
related to "Threshold
of Significance" for
each parameter,
which provides
useful context in EIR
for evaluating social
impacts (City of San
Diego Development
Services, 2011)
Other Notes
Due to high
employment
weighting for Social
Indicator, "social
objective is almost
aligned with profit"
Analysis of potential
for alternatives to
"physically divide a
Community" and "to
conflict with goals,
objectives, and
policies identified in
Sonoma County
General Plan" covers
multiple social
metrics
(continued)
A-13
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Table A-2. Beneficial Reuse-Specific SIA Methods, Metrics and Data (continued)
Author, Year,
Material
Misheloff, 201 1 ,
wastewater
Padilla etal.,
2013, wastewater
Methods and
Context
Qualitative
description of
"social processes
and impacts"
assessed by United
States Agency for
International
Development
(USAID) in
wastewater reuse
for agriculture in
Egypt
Social LCA (UNEP)
for Mexico
wastewater reuse
for agriculture, with
LC Inventory data
coming from
literature review and
expert and
household surveys
Metrics
Cultural, historical,
and archaeological
resources; land
use patterns;
employment,
income, and other
equity for minority
groups;
identification of
stakeholders;
perceptions of risk,
health, and safety;
distribution of
power and
authority;
community
cohesion
Worker satisfaction
and safety; odor;
attitudes towards
policy/project;
distribution of
power and
authority;
(ECONOMIC)
employment/incom
e characteristics
Other Notes on Methods
and Metrics
Doesn't explain why
"baseline data collection [for
the USAID EIA framework]
should cover the following
[social and economic
metrics]," but rather just lists
them in 10 bullet points; the
same is true for their listing
of the wastewater pilot
project "examples of social
processes [e.g.,
empowerment of
communities] and impacts
[e.g. improved gender
relationships]"
Based on selecting 23/31
wastewater reuse-relevant
subcategories (metrics) from
UNEP framework
stakeholder groups; used
subjective "intuitive rating
scale, based on a four level
scale for each subcategory"
Data
Only qualitative
observations noted,
such as "group
[community]
cohesiveness" and
"no direct positive
[economic] impact"
1-4 rating of metrics
Other Notes
Framework for
"USAID Social
Impact Assessment
of Using Treated
Wastewater in
Irrigation" applied for
initial stages of
Egyptian village pilot
Rural wastewater
reuse facility scored
lower than urban one
in terms of social
benefits; equivalent
worker advantages
ratings
A-14
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
Appendix B:
Database Description
Section 2 of the report describes the process to identify documents with information on methods,
metrics and data used to evaluate the social and economic impacts of BU scenarios. Consistent with this
process, RTI also developed a database to house the document specific information and the initial results
of the documents' review. The database contains information on all the documents, including those that
were deemed "Not Useful" according to Section 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria Used to Select Useful
Sources. The documents can be sorted according to the review tier, Tier 1 (screening review using the
documents' abstract or executive summary) and Tier 2 (final review of the full text for Tier 1 "Useful"
and "Potentially Useful" documents). The following sections present more detailed description of the
database.
B. 1 Structure of Tables and Forms
All the information collected on the documents identified is stored in "tbl_data".
The "Data Entry" form links to "tbl_data" and it shows when you open the database. This form is
being used to facilitate data entry.
The "Data Entry" form is divided into three sections:
1. Basic information about the documents identified. This information is obtained in a tabular
format when documents are identified using bibliographic databases. Otherwise, the
information was manually populated, with the exception of the "ID" field, which is
automatically generated by the DB (please note that there are instances where the "ID" is not
sequential because this field does not get updated every time that a record is deleted).
2. Tier 1 Review are fields that were populated during the "Tier 1 Review" (see Section 2.2.1)
3. Tier 2 Review are fields that were populated during the "Tier 2 Review" (see Section 2.2.1).
These fields were chosen to enable us answering questions such as, e.g., what type of
information is presented in the studies (social and/or economic methods, metrics and/or
data?), what type of material is being analyzed, is it a beneficial reuse material?
4. Number entries are provided for the "Methods" and "Metrics" fields for consistency on how
the information is being recorded. Please note the meaning of the numbers can be found
under the tables "ItJVIethods" and "ItJVIetrics".
5. Information on methods and metrics was only recorded for documents that made it to the
"Tier 2 review" process (i.e., documents found to be "Useful" or "Potentially Useful" during
the Tier 1 Review).
6. The QA/QC section is for RTI internal use, which is why most of the information in this
section was removed from the final version of the database.
B.2 Navigations Functionalities
Searching within the "Data Entry" form can be performed using the following navigation tools:
• The universal search button shown below, which works the same as "ctrl+F" in Excel. The
user has to click on a particular field first if s/he wants to "Look In: Current Field". "Match:
Any Part of Field" has to be selected, otherwise will be looking for an exact match of the
entire content of the field.
Click here to search the database by typing a name or keyword
B-l
-------
Identifying and Quantifying ESIA with Beneficial Reuse Decisions: A Review of the Literature
The dropdown menu shown below. The information in the dropdown menu corresponds to
the citation and it is not populated for documents where it would require manual entry.
Find Article C1
The buttons at the bottom of the "Data Entry" form (see below).
Previous Record
Next Record
Add Record
Close Form
The default search functions shown below.
i i
Record, H 1 of 337 > M >• "fc Unfiltered Search
B-2
------- |