Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YEŞİL MÜHENDİSLİK Sustainability Science and
YEŞİL MÜHENDİSLİK Sustainability Science and
5315
5317
Sustainability Indicators
Another important need is the definition of sustainability
indicators that encompass key issues and are quantifiable
(10, 36, 37, 42). Unfortunately, less work has been performed
on sustainability indicators than other indicators (36). Figure
8 illustrates that the selection of sustainability indicators
should include considerations related to economics, society,
and the environment. For example, the following indicators
could be used: (i) the economic value of the goods and
services produced; (ii) wastes that are generated, including
solid waste, ozone-depleting chemicals, and chemicals that
contribute to acid deposition and global warming; (iii)
changes in terrestrial habitat that impact carbon sequestration and biodiversity; and (iv) social conditions such as
environmental justice and equity, educational level, and
wealth distribution. However, the process of selecting an
appropriate set of indicators and the indicators themselves
is ultimately dependent on whether the organization that
develops the indicators are international or local, corporate,
and government or nongovernmental.
Two very different cases (Great Lakes Basin and a village
setting in northern Cambodia) can be used to demonstrate
the current use of indicators for sustainability. The Great
Lakes Basin has been called the ultimate test of the North
American Regions capacity to adhere to the tenants of
sustainable development (43). The challenges the basin faces
are not only the large concentration of population and
industrial activity in the area but also its large physical
footprint (300 000 mi2 of surface area) that holds one-quarter
of the worlds supply of freshwater. The development of a
firm set of sustainability indicators that would allow policymakers to track changes over time as well as define research
needs has been difficult and is controlled by what information
is readily measurable. For example, the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) has spent close to 10 yr
defining indicators and has now developed 80 Great Lakes
ecosystem health indices (44). The Lake Superior Binational
Forum recently determined a smaller subset of socioeconomic sustainability indicators (less than 20) that were broken
down into five areas: (i) reinvestment of natural capital (e.g.,
5318
FIGURE 9. Connections between demographic and natural resource issues in the developing world.
5319
FIGURE 10. Example showing molecular modification and associated changes in aquatic and human toxicity.
IFT
IING
IINH
ICING
IOD
IGW
ISF
IAR
benzene
10-6
6.83
3.32 10-3
4.57 10-2
1.43 10-4
1.43 10-4
0.00
2.04 10-1
2.51 10-5
0.00
n-butane
3.03 10-6
3.11 10-3
3.78 10-2
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20 10-1
4.37 10-6
0.00
a Risk indices are further defined in ref 59, and all units are in kg/mol
of MA. IFT, fish toxicity index (ecotoxicity indicator); IING, human ingestion
noncarcinogenic index; IINH, human inhalation noncarcinogenic index;
ICING, human ingestion carcinogenic index; IOD, stratospheric ozone
depletion index; IGW, global warming index; ISF, smog formation index;
IAR, acidification indicator.
1 (first
five directions)
2 (bold
directions only)
3 (all
directions)
4 (entire
label)
A
B
C
D
E
F
1860
710
1860
1600
1860
1600
1600
1600
1860
1600
1600
1600
1600
1400
1860
1600
1860
1600
270
710
1860
710
710
1600
TABLE 3. Resources Utilized and Wastes Produced for Manufacture of 1 Million Dollars Worth of Automobiles Using an Economic
Input-Output Life Cycle Analysisa
item
overall economic activity ($million)
electricity (kW-h)
fuels (TJ)
ores-at least (t)
water (million gal)
conventional pollutants (t)
SO2
CO
NO2
VOC
lead
PM10
hazardous waste (t)
toxics release and transfer (t)
overall
activity
motor vehicles
and passenger
car bodies
motor vehicle
parts and
accessories
wholesale
trade
automotive
stampings
automotive
repair shops
and services
2.81
738,490
11.81
326.11
6.31
1.01
113,877
3.49
137.59
3.48
0.31
100,280
1.71
96.01
1.18
0.17
71,900
0.98
32.49
0.28
0.09
57,785
0.61
25.28
0.22
0.07
29,762
0.55
20.88
0.17
3.21
4.82
2.57
1.18
3.05 10-3
0.35
47.44
2.02
1.85
1.31
0.84
0.32
2.54 10-3
0.099
27.30
0.33
0.31
0.84
0.36
0.16
1.94 10-4
0.045
5.58
0.29
0.18
0.58
0.26
0.06
7.9 10-5
0.038
2.33
0.25
0.15
0.48
0.18
0.06
5.6 10-5
0.021
2.10
0.24
0.08
0.29
0.12
0.06
4.5 10-5
0.016
2.09
0.11
a The results that are shown are from the overall economic activity of 485 sectors associated with the manufacture of automobiles (referred
to as overall activity) and the top five sectors based on economic activity (65).
5321
FIGURE 13. (a) Percent of total toxic releases (does not include
transfer of toxics) for the top 10 industrial sectors associated with
manufacturing automobiles (letters A-J). The letter K corresponds
to other sectors in the supply chain that includes the remaining
475 industrial sectors. (b) Percentage risk for human inhalation and
fish toxicity for the top 10 industrial sectors associated with
manufacturing of automobiles. Letters A-J correspond to the sectors
listed in panel a.
of the risk for human inhalation associated with these 10
sectors and the fraction of the risk for aquatic toxicity
associated with these releases for the various sectors after
the integrative approach mentioned earlier was performed.
Note that the sector of primary nonferrous metal accounts
for over half of the human inhalation risk (67%) and risk to
fish (53%) while the motor vehicle parts and accessory sector
has a much larger impact on the total risk to fish (18%) than
that to humans (2%). The results that are shown in Figure
13b are deceptively simple in appearance but are the result
of considering the fate, transport, and exposure of 300
chemicals using a comprehensive multimedia model (64,
65). Of course, a full evaluation of environmental effects from
the automobile must consider subsequent use and recycle/
disposal impacts (66). Nonetheless, this study demonstrates
how the areas of industrial ecology, chemical fate, environmental assessment modeling, and risk assessment can be
integrated in order to provide insights on issues related to
sustainability.
There are numerous research and educational challenges/
opportunities in the new metadiscipline of sustainable
science and engineering. Many of these research opportunities are discussed elsewhere (e.g., ref 10). It is clear that
pollution prevention and industrial ecology alone are not
sufficient to achieve sustainability, because even systems
with efficient material and energy use can overwhelm the
carrying capacity of a region or lead to other socially
unacceptable outcomes.
5322
Perhaps the most critical endeavors that must be undertaken in ensuring the viability of the sustainability
metadiscipline are in the area of education and human
resource development. Educational activities must occur on
two levels. On the first level, the technological and environmental awareness of the entire citizenry must be elevated.
On the second level, we must begin attracting a sufficient
and diverse pool of human talent to solve the problems in
sustainability. Early intervention will be a key at both levels.
In 1996, through a project sponsored in part by NSF and
NASA, the International Technology Education Association
(ITEA) published its report Technology for All Americans: A
Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology (67). This
report set a goal of technological literacy for all citizens
defined as the ability to use, manage, and understand
technology (68). A citizenry that adequately understands
technology will make better decisions about technological
devices and information systems. In a democracy, where
citizens routinely make decisions related to sustainability, it
is important that all citizens be technologically literate to
some degree.
In todays society, technological literacy is confined mostly
to those people who are directly working in technological
fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science, or
mathematics. Environmental literacy is often defined to those
in biological, chemical, social, or environmental science and
engineering. The vast majority of U.S. citizens have little or
no comprehension of basic concepts upon which technology
is based nor do they fully understand the environmental
issues that are a part of the daily news (69). Although students
take courses in math, science, social science, and English,
they rarely, if ever, take courses where they integrate these
topics and skills, are exposed to the design process, make
ethical choices in the use and development of technology,
or learn about how engineers and technologists use mathematical and scientific principles in the solution of societys
problems (70, 71). A lack of instruction and understanding
of technological and environmental issues will seriously
hamper the ability of future citizens to keep pace with the
ever-expanding role of technology in all facets of their lives
(72). Many believe that the study of problems with an
environmental focus could help attract students to scientific
and technological careers in general and that when the
environment is used as an integrating concept in K-12
education, improvements in student interest, attitude,
achievement, and attendance are realized (73).
In an effort to combat technological illiteracy, the ITEA,
along with other organizations, recently published Standards
for Technology Education for the K-12 curriculum (April
2000). Of the 20 standards for technological literacy, nearly
one-third are devoted to issues closely related to the
sustainability metadiscipline. Specifically, these related
standards are as follows:
Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among technologies and the connections between
technology and other fields of study.
Students will develop an understanding of the cultural,
social, economic, and political effects of technology.
Students will develop an understanding of the effects of
technology on the environment.
Students will develop an understanding of the role of
society in the development and use of technology.
Students will develop an understanding of the influence
of technology on history.
Students will develop the abilities to assess the impact of
products and systems.
It is clear that K-12 sustainbility education endeavors
could play a key role in improving technological literacy for
all students through the implementation of these standards.
Acknowledgments
This research is based upon work supported by the Sustainable Futures Institute and National Center for Clean Industrial
and Treatment Technologies (CenCITT) at Michigan Technological University, the Green Design Institute and the Heinz
Endowments at Carnegie Mellon University, the Nelson
Mandela School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at
Southern University and A&M College, and the Center for
Global and Regional Environmental Research at the University of Iowa. CenCITT is partially supported by a grant
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed
in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the view of the supporting organizations. We gratefully
acknowledge Dr. Kathleen Carley for her contribution to
Figure 6.
Literature Cited
(1) Watkins, K. J. Chem. Eng. News 2002, 80 (16), 15-22.
(2) Meadows, D. H.; Meadows, D. L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W. H.,
III. The Limits to Growth; Universe Books: New York. 1972.
(3) Spangenberg, J. H. Sustainable Development: From Catchwords
to Benchmarks and Operational Concepts. In Sustainable
Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future;
Charter, M., Tischner, U., Eds.; Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield,
UK, 2001; pp 24-47.
(4) World Commission on Environment and Development. Our
Common Future; Oxford University Press: New York, 1987.
(5) Mebratu, D. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1998, 18, 493-520.
(6) Kates, R. W.; Clark, W. C.; Corell, R.; Hall, J. M.; Jaeger, C. C.;
Lowe, I.; McCarthy, J. J.; Schellnhuber, H. J.; Bolin, B.; Dickson,
N. M.; Faucheux, S.; Gallopin, G. C.; Gru
bler, A.; Huntley, B.;
Jager, J.; Jodha, N. S.; Kasperson, R. E.; Mabogunje, A.; Matson,
P.; Mooney, H.; Moore, B., III; ORiordan, T.; Svedin, U. Science
2001, 292, 641-642.
(7) Clark, W. C. Research Systems for a Transition Toward Sustainability. Challenges of a Changing Earth; Steffen, W., Jager,
J., Carson, D. J., Bradshaw, C., Eds.; Proceedings of the Global
Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, July 10-13, 2001;
Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2003.
(8) Sutherland, J. W.; Kumar, V.; Crittenden, J. C.; Durfee, M. H.;
Gershenson, J. K.; Gorman, H.; Hokanson, D. R.; Hutzler, N. J.;
Michalek, D. J.; Mihelcic, J. R.; Shonnard, D. R.; Solomon, B. D.;
Sorby, S. An Education Program in Support of a Sustainable
Future, Proceedings of ASME-IMECE; ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Expo, November 16-21,
2003.
(9) Crittenden, J. C. J. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2002, 4 (1),
6-7.
(10) National Research Council. Our Common Journey. A Transition
Towards Sustainability; National Academic Press: Washington,
DC, 1999.
(11) Allen, D. T.; Rosselot, K. S. Pollution Prevention for Chemical
Processes; John Wiley: New York, 1997.
(12) Allen, D. T.; Shonnard, D. R. Green Engineering: Environmentally
Conscious Design of Chemical Processes; Prentice Hall: Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
(13) Graedel, T. E.; Allenby, B. R. Industrial Ecology; Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
(14) Allenby, B. R. Industrial Ecology: Policy Framework and Implementation; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1999.
(15) Ayres, R. U.; Ayres, L. W. A Handbook of Industrial Ecology;
Edward Elgar Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2002.
(16) Hutter, C. The Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from
Industrial Economies; World Resources Institute: Washington,
DC, 2000.
(17) Diwekar U.; Small, M. J. Process Analysis Approach to Industrial
Ecology. A Handbook of Industrial Ecology; Ayres, R. U., Ayres,
L. W., Eds., Edward Elgar Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2002; pp 114137.
(18) Vanderburg, W. H. J. Eng. Educ. 1999, 88 (2), 231-235.
(19) Cooper, J. S.; Fava, J. J. Ind. Ecol. 2000, 4 (4), 3-6.
(20) Duchin, F. Structural Economics: Measuring Change in Technology, Lifestyles, and the Environment; Island Press: Washington, DC, 1998.
(21) Hendrickson, C.; Horvath, A.; Joshi, S.; Lave, L. B. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 1998, 32 (7), 184A-191A.
(22) Matthews, H. S.; Small, M. J. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 4 (3), 7-10.
(23) Fischhoff, B.; Small, M. J. J. Ind. Ecol. 2000, 3 (2&3), 4-7.
(24) Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Ruttan, V. W., Socolow, R. H., Sweeney,
J. L., Eds. Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research
Directions Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global
Change; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1997.
(25) Hakim, D. Auto sales fell to lowest rate in 4.5 years. New York
Times, March 3, 2003.
(26) Ball, J. Detroit fears some consumers may be souring on big
SUVs. The Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2003.
(27) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Environment Canada.
Draft Report on Hexachlorobenzene (HCB): Sources and
Regulations. November 1999; http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/
bns/baphcb/stephcb.html.
(28) Kasperson, R.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H.; Emel, J.; Goble,
R.; Kasperson, J.; Ratick, S. Risk Anal. 1988, 8, 177-187.
(29) Carley, K.; Wendt, K. Knowledge: Creation, Diffus., Utilization
1991, 12 (4), 406-440.
(30) Madsen, P. V.; Friedkin, N. E. Sociol. Methods Res. 1993, 22,
127-151.
(31) Lopes, P., Durfee, M., Eds. The Social Diffusion of Ideas and
Things. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Social Sci. 1999, 566, 37-54.
(32) Topper C. M.; Carley, K. J. Math. Sociol. 1999, 24 (1), 67-96.
(33) Axtell, R. L.; Andrews, C. J.; Small, M. J. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 5 (4),
10-13.
(34) Sexton, K.; Marcus, A. A.; Easter, K. W.; Burkhardt, T. D. Better
Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses,
and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, 1999.
(35) Westerhoff, G. The Evolving Water Utility: Pathways to Higher
Performance; AWWA Research Foundation: Denver, CO, 2003.
(36) Farrell, A.; Hart, M. Environment 1998, 40 (9), 4-9, 26-31.
(37) U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development
Indicators, SDI Group. Sustainable Development in the United
VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
5323
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)
(50)
(51)
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)
5324
Received for review June 13, 2003. Revised manuscript received September 4, 2003. Accepted September 22, 2003.
ES034605H