Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency (2014)
Chapter: Appendix E--Application of General Evaluation Criteria
Appendix E
Application of General Evaluation Criteria
Table E-1 was developed by the committee to illustrate the presentation of results from a ratings approach that uses a set of general evaluation criteria (see Chapter 3). The rows list the various tools presented in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2013 report Sustainability Analytics: Assessment Tools and Approaches,1 and the columns list seven evaluation criteria. The table’s cells contain color-coded (red, yellow, or green) entries representing members’ opinions about the tools with respect to each criterion. Generally, a red entry in a cell suggests the rating of a tool is “low”, a yellow entry suggests “moderate”, and a green entry suggests “high”.
The ratings should be interpreted carefully. A tool with many red (“low”) entries is not intended to be designated as inappropriate for use in sustainability analyses, nor does it mean that a tool is not important. Instead, these low entries might suggest areas where additional investments would be valuable for further development (such as, to improve data or documentation for use). Ecosystem services valuation, for example, is seen as a critical and emerging tool in support of sustainability considerations, but has had relatively modest work and support to date. Likewise, tools with many green entries are not presumed by the committee to be most appropriate or most important for use in sustainability analyses. These tools, however, in our opinion, may be most ready to be used “off the shelf” in support of analyses.
It is important to note that the table is only an illustration of the kind of ongoing assessment that would be useful in developing and refining a full suite of sustainability assessment tools. The results in the table should not be considered as evaluative findings because they may have been influenced by the extent of the committee’s familiarity with the development and use of some of the tools.
____________________
1EPA 2013. Sustainability Analytics: Assessment Tools and Approaches. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/sustainability/analytics/docs/sustainability-analytics.pdf [accessed April 16, 2014].
TABLE E-1 Illustration of Using a Consistent Set of Evaluation Criteria*,±
| Tool | Documentation | Accepted Use | Maturity | Software | Screening | Data | Extent of Usage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benefit-cost analysis |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Eco-efficiency analysis |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Ecosystem services valuation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Green accounting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Collaborative problem-solving |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Design charrettes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Environmental justice analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Futures Methods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Health impact assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Segmentation analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Social impact assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Social network analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chemical alternatives assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Environmental footprint analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Exposure assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Green chemistry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Green engineering |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Integrated assessment modeling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Life cycle assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Resilience Analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Risk Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sustainability Impact Assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Legend: = low, = medium, = high.
±The results in the table should not be considered as evaluative findings because they may have been influenced by the extent of the committee’s familiarity with the development and use of some of the tools.
