Farmacia Brasil Política SUS

Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US EPA fund, Air, Water, and cross-program endeavors like the Community Action for a Renewed Environment program. Ecological Risk Assessment (pp. 85-86) An ecological risk assessment (EPA 1998) ] is the process for evaluating how likely it is that the en- vironment may be impacted as a result of exposure to one or more environmental stressors such as chemi- cals, land change, disease, invasive species and climate change. Ecological risk assessments can be used to predict the likelihood of future effects (prospective) or evaluate the likelihood that effects are caused by past exposure to stressors (retrospective). Information from ecological risk assessment is then used by risk managers for follow-up such as communicating to interested parties and the general public, limiting activ- ities related to the ecological stressor, limiting use of a given chemical, or developing a monitoring plan to determine if risks have been reduced or whether an ecosystem is recovering. Segmentation Analysis (pp. 47-48) Segmentation analysis (also known as market segmentation or audience segmentation) is a process of dividing a larger population into smaller subpopulations or segments in order to identify psychological and socio-demographic correlates of target behaviors or values. Members of subpopulations are statisti- cally more similar to one another than they are to members of other subpopulations (Grunig 1989). Com- mon segment factors include demographic, psychological, and behavioral variables, such as income, age, attitude, race, sexual orientation, education, consumption, and leisure pursuits. Segmentation analysis combines these data into bundles of closely correlated attributes in order to define specific segments of the population. Social Impact Assessment (p. 49) Social impact assessment (IA) is a tool used to assess the social impacts—both positive and nega- tive--resulting from planned interventions (such as policies, programs, projects or actions), as well as any social change invoked by those interventions. The goal of social IA is to help decision-makers produce more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable results. Social IA draws on knowledge gained through collaborative, community-based tools, and is therefore complementary to many other sus- tainability tools discussed in this document (ICGPSIA 1994; Vanclay 2003). Social Network Analysis (p. 52) Social Network Analysis (SNA) refers to a systematic process of analyzing groups (nodes) and rela- tionships among groups (Wellman 1988). The groups and ties comprising the social network can be visu- ally mapped as a scatter plot: interpretation of the social network draws on scientific disciplines focused on understanding interpersonal relations and social structures (e.g., anthropology, psychology, and soci- ology) (Borgatti et al. 2009). One of the most important uses for SNA is in mapping communications and knowledge flows among groups (Reagans and McEvily 2003). Understanding such knowledge flows has many benefits, including identifying new opportunities for strategic collaboration, identifying communi- cation bottlenecks, streamlining the flow of information across departmental or organizational boundaries, identifying trusted sources of knowledge within the network, and targeting specific stakeholders where key messages will have the greatest impact. Understanding such dynamic network interactions is possible through SNA because the emphasis is not on the attributes of individual groups, but on how the structure of relationships among groups affects how individual groups behave when they are plugged into the net- work. Thus, the overall shape and connectedness of the social network is an important determinant of what the groups within it do and how effectively the network operates to transmit information or ideas (Granovetter 1973). 132 Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency Appendix D Sustainability Impact Assessment (pp. 89-90) Sustainability impact assessment (IA) is a combination of procedures, methods, and tools by which a policy, program, or project may be judged as to its potential impacts on the sustainability of a system and the distribution of those impacts within and among the economic, social, and environmental dimen- sions. Sustainability impact assessments are most commonly applied through a multi-criteria decision ana- lytic approach, which helps stakeholders investigate the combined economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed policies. This approach can be used to guide stakeholder and decision-maker en- gagement and collaboration throughout the entire planning process (OECD 2010). The purpose for con- ducting a sustainability impact assessment is twofold: inform policy development by explicitly consider- ing impacts within and among the economic, social, and environmental systems; and, assess potential economic, social, and environmental impacts resulting from a proposed policy (OECD 2010). Explicit in a sustainability impact assessment is the integration of all three sustainability pillars; consideration of both spatial and temporal impacts; stakeholder involvement; transparency; accountability; and, match be- tween the level of detail in the assessment and the impacts (OECD 2010). REFERENCES Bahr, N.J. 1997. System Safety Engineering and Risk Assessment: A Practical Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis. Bare, J.C., P. Hofstetter, D.W. Pennington, and H.A. Udo de Haes. 2000. Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5(6):319-326. BASF. 2011. Eco-Efficiency Analysis: Quantifying Sustainability. BASF Chemical Company [online]. Available: http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/sustainability/eco-efficiency-analysis/index BASF. 2012. Eco-Efficiency Analysis. BASF Chemical Company [online]. Available: http://www.basf.com/group/ corporate/en/sustainability/eco-efficiency-analysis/eco-efficiency-analysis Bohne, R.A., H. Brattebø, and H. Bergsdal, 2008. Dynamic eco-efficiency projections for construction and demoli- tion waste recycling strategies at the city level. J. Ind. Ecol. 12(1):52-68. Borgatti, S.P., A. Mehra, D.J. Brass, and G. Labianca. 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323(5916):892-895. Brattebø, H. 2005. Toward a methods framework for eco-efficiency analysis? J. Ind. Ecol. 9(4):9-11. Brulle, R.J., and D.N. Pellow. 2006. Environmental justice: Human health and environmental inequalities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 27:103-124. Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J.M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4(8):765-781. Clinton, W.J. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Popu- lations (Presidential Memorandum Accompanying Executive Order 1289). Office of the President, Washington, DC. Cole, L.W., and S.R. Foster. 2001. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: New York University Press. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. National Center for En- vironmental Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Beyond the Horizon: Using Foresight to Protect the Environ- mental Future. EPA-SAB-EC-95-007. Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R- 95/00F. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- cy, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. EPA/630/P- 02/001F. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice. EPA/6000/R- 06/060. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 133 Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US EPA EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Shaping our Environmental Future: Foresight in the Office of Research and Development. Office of Research and Development, Office of Science Policy, U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008a. Integrated Modeling for Integrated Environmental Decision Making: White Paper. EPA 100/R-08/010. Office of the Science Advisor, Office of Research and Develop- ment and Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008b. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report). EPA/600/R-06/096F. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-09-012. Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. National Cen- ter for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. The Charrette: Redevelopment by Design: An Introduction to Reuse Planning Workshops for Superfund Sites. Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center, U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010c. EPA’s Action Development Process: Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action. OPEI Regulatory Development Se- ries. Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011a. What is Green Engineering [online]. Available: http://www. epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/pubs/whats_ge.html EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011b. Green Chemistry Program at EPA [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenchemistry/pubs/epa_gc.html EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Sustainability Analytics: Assessment Tools and Approaches. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/sustainabili ty/analytics/docs/sustainability-analytics.pdf [accessed April 16, 2014]. Fiksel, J. 2003. Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37(23):5330-5339. Fiksel, J. 2006. Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. SSPP 2(2):14-21. Glenn, J.C., and T.J. Gordon. 2009. Futures Research Methodology Version 3.0. The Millennium Project. Granovetter, M.S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6):1360-1380. Grunig, J.E. 1989. Publics, audiences and market segments: Segmentation principles for campaigns. Pp. 199-228 in Information Campaigns: Balancing Social Values and Social Change, C.T. Salmon, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Gunderson, L.H., and C.S. Holling, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hecht, J.E. 1999. Environmental accounting: Where we are now, where we are heading. Resources. Spring (135):14-17. Hiles, A., ed. 2011. The Definitive Handbook of Business Continuity Management, 3rd Ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. ICGPSIA (Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment). 1994. Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment [online]. Available: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/ social_impact_guide.htm IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2009. Introduction to Health Impact Assessment. Washington, DC: Inter- national Finance Corporation. IPCS (International Programme on Chemical Safety). 2000. Human Exposure Assessment. Environmental Health Criteria 214. Geneva: World Health Organization. Landoll, D.J. 2006. The Security Risk Assessment Handbook: A Complete Guide for Performing Security Risk As- sessment. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publication. Lavoie, E.T., L.G. Heine, H. Holder, M.S. Rossi, R.E. Lee, E.A. Connor, M.A. Vrabel, D.M. DiFiore, and C.L. Da- vies. 2010. Chemical alternatives assessment: Enabling substitution to safer chemicals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(24):9244-9249. Lehni, M., and J. Pepper. 2000. Eco-efficiency: Creating More Value with Less Impact. North Yorkshire, UK: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Lennertz, B., A. Lutzenhiser, and T. Failor. 2008. An introduction to charrettes. National Charrette Institute Plan- ning Commissioners Journal 71(Summer):1-3. 134 Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency Appendix D MBDC (McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry). 2010. Sustainable Business: Minimization vs. Optimization. Charlottesville, VA: MBDC. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Moller, A., and S. Schaltegger. 2005. The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analy- sis. J. Ind. Ecol. 9(4):73-83. NACFAM (National Council for Advanced Manufacturing). 2010. The NACFAM Sustainability Framework Model. Washington, DC: NACFAM. NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. Washington, DC: The National Acade- mies Press. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2010. Guidance on Sustainability Impact As- sessment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Quigley, R., L. den Broeder, P. Furu, A. Bond, B. Cave, and R. Bos. 2006. Health Impact Assessment: International Best Practice Principles. Special Publication Series No. 5. International Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo, ND. Reagans, R., and B. McEvily. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240-267. Ringquist, E.J. 2005. Assessing evidence of environmental inequalities: A meta-analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 24(2):223-247. Schoemaker, P.J.H. 1995. Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 36(2):25-40. Stewart, M.G., and R.E. Melchers. 1997. Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineering Systems. London: Chapman & Hall. Swart, R.J., P. Raskin, and J. Robinson. 2004. The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analy- sis. Global Environ. Chang. 14(2):137-146. UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific). 2010. Eco-Efficiency Indica- tors: Measuring Resource-use Efficiency and the Impact of Economic Activities on the Environment. Bang- kok, Thailand: United Nations. Vanclay, F. 2003. International principles for social impact assessment: Their evolution. IAPA 21(1):5-11. Vincent, J.R. 2000. Green accounting: From theory to practice. Environ. Dev. Econ. 5(1):13-24. Vugrin, E.D., R.C. Camphouse, P.S. Downes, M.A. Ehlen, and D.E. Warren. 2009. Measurement of system resili- ence: Application to chemical supply chains. Pp. 1-9 in Proceedings of the SIAM Conference on “Mathemat- ics for Industry”: The Art of “Mathematics for Industry.” San Francisco, CA: Society for Industrial and Ap- plied Mathematics. Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Wash- ington, DC: Island Press. Wellman, B. 1988. Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. Pp. 19-61 in Social Structures: A Network Approach, B. Wellman, and S.D. Berkowitz, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WHO (World Health Organization). 1999. Gothenburg Consensus Statement [online]. Available: http://www.euro. who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/health-impact-assessment Zartarian, V., T. Bahadori, and T. McKone. 2005. Adoption of an official ISEA glossary. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 15(1):1-5. 135 Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency Appendix E Application of General Evaluation Criteria Table E-1 was developed by the committee to illustrate the presentation of results from a ratings ap- proach that uses a set of general evaluation criteria (see Chapter 3). The rows list the various tools pre- sented in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2013 report Sustainability Analytics: Assess- ment 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 sug- gests “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 im- portant. 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 [ac- cessed April 16, 2014]. 136 Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TABLE E-1 Illustration of Using a Consistent Set of Evaluation Criteria*,± Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the US Environmental Protection Agency 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       Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 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. 137 ±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.