Scientifically derived environmental indicators are central to environmental decision analysis. This article examines the interface between science (environmental indicators) and policy, and the dilemma of their integration. In the past, science has been shown to dominate many policy debates, usually with unfavorable results. The issue, therefore, is not whether science can determine policy but how science can be part of a more holistic analysis that incorporates other critical perspectives. This article discusses the importance of considering alternative views (as represented by different scientific indicators) within the policy debate. Six example ozone indicators, constructed from the same raw data, are used to illustrate this point. Two represent newly developed indicators that respond to present-day policy questions at theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The article concludes with a brief discussion of how such indicators can be used to better define a policy question, inform the policy debate, and evaluate policy alternatives.
Brunk, C. G., Haworth, L.,& Lee, B. (1991). Value assumptions in risk assessment: A case study of the Alachlor controversy. Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
2.
Diem, J. E.,& Comrie, A. C. (2002). Predictive mapping of air pollution involving sparse spatial observations. Environmental Pollution, 119, 99-117.
3.
Endter-Wada, J., Blahna, D., Krannich, R.,& Brunson, M. (1998). A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 8, 891-904.
4.
Faucheux, S., & Hue, C. (2001). From irreversibility to participation: Towards a participatory foresight for the governance of collective environmental risks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86, 223-243.
5.
Fischbeck, P. S., Farrow, R. S.,& Morgan, M. G. (2001). Introduction: The challenge of improving regulation. In P. S. Fischbeck & R. S. Farro (Eds.), Improving regulation: Cases in environment, health, and safety(pp. 1-13). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
6.
Fischhoff, B. (2001). Defining stigma. In J. Flynn, H. Kunreuther, & P. Slovic (Eds.), Risk, media, and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology(pp. 361-368). London: Earthscan.
7.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). The emergence of postnormal science. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Science, politics and morality: Scientific uncertainty and decision making(pp. 85-123). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
8.
Greenland, D., & Yorty, R. A. (1985). The spatial distribution of particulate concentrations in the Denver metropolitan area. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 75, 69-82.
9.
Haag, D., & Kaupenjohann, M. (2001). Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precautionary principle—A roadmap for modelling for decision-making. Ecological Modelling, 144, 45-60.
10.
Hannigan, J. A. (1995). Environmental sociology: A social constructionist perspective. London: Routledge.
11.
Harwell, M. A., & Harwell, C. A. (1988). Environmental decision making in the presence of uncertainty. In S. A. Levin, M. A. Harwell, J. R. Kelly, & K. D. Kimball (Eds.), Ecotoxicology: Problems and approaches(pp. 517-540). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12.
Hicks, N., & Streeten, P. (1979). Indicators of development: The search for a basic needs yardstick. World Development, 7, 567-580.
13.
Hisschemoller, M., & Hoppe, R. (2001). Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. In M. Hisschemoller, R. Hoppe, W. N. Dunn, & J. R. Ravetz (Eds.), Knowledge, power, and participation in environmental policy analysis(pp. 47-72). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
14.
Ionescu, A., Candau, Y., Mayer, E., & Colda, I. (2000). Analytical determination and classification of pollutant concentration fields using air pollution monitoring network data– Methodology and application in the Paris area, during episodes with peak nitrogen dioxide levels. Environmental Modelling & Software, 15, 565-573.
15.
Jamieson, D. (1996). Scientific uncertainty and the political process. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, 35-43.
16.
Jasanoff, S. (1986). Risk management and political culture. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
Kelly, J. R., & Harwell, M. A. (1988). Indicators of ecosystem response and recovery. In S. A. Levin, M. A. Harwell, J. R. Kelly, & K. D. Kimball (Eds.), Ecotoxicology: Problems and approaches(pp. 9-35). New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
Knudsen, H. P.,& Lefohn, A. S. (1989). The use of geostatistics to characterize regional ozone exposure. In W. W. Heck, O. C. Taylor & D. T. Tingey (Eds.), Assessment of crop loss from air pollution(pp. 91-105). New York: Elsevier Applied Science.
19.
Kovarick, W.,& Hermes, M. E. (2001). Status of MTBE (Methyl t-Butyl Ether) and MMT (methylcyclopenadienyl manganese tricarbonyl). Retrieved from http://chemcases.com/converter/ converter-27.htm
20.
Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1988). Plant closure: The ASARCO Tacoma copper smelter. In S. Krimsky& A. Plough (Eds.), n--vironmental hazards: Communicating risks as a social process(pp. 180-238). Dover, MA: Auburn House.
21.
Lefohn, A. S., Knudsen, H. P., Logan, J. A., Simpson, J., & Bhumralkar, C. M. (1987). An evaluation of the Kriging Method to predict 7-h seasonal mean ozone concentrations for estimating crop loss. Journal of Air Pollution Control Association, 37, 595-602.
22.
Liu, L. J. S.,& Rossini, A. J. (1996). Use of Kriging models to predict 12-hour mean ozone concentrations in metropolitan Toronto—Apilot study. Environment International, 22, 677-692.
23.
Longino, H. E. (1990a). Values and objectivity. In Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry(pp. 62-82). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
Longino, H. E. (1990b). Values and science. In Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry(pp. 83-102). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Niemeijer, D. (2002). Developing indicators for environmental policy: Data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example. Environmental Science & Policy, 5, 91-103.
26.
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration., 1998, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Appendix H: Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone.
27.
Ott, W. R. (1978). Environmental indices: Theory and practice. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science. Phillips, D. L., Lee, E. H., Herstrom, A. A., Hogesett, W. E.
28.
Tingey, D. (1997). Use of auxiliary data for spatial interpolation of ozone exposure in sourtheastern forests. Environmetrics, 8, 43-61.
29.
Pielke, R. A., Jr. (1997). Asking the right questions: Atmospheric sciences research and societal needs. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 255-264.
30.
Prelec, D. (1991). Values and principles: Some limitations on traditional economic analysis. In A. Etzioni & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), Socio-economics: Toward a new synthesis(pp. 131-145). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
31.
Rultenbeek, H. J. (1991). The role of indicators in the decision process. In Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (Ed.), Economic, ecological, and decision theories: Indicators of ecologically sustainable development(pp. 59-90). Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
32.
Stahl, C. H. (2003). Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment(MIRA): A new decision analytic approach to inform environmental policy analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
33.
Stahl, C. H., Cimorelli, A. J., & Chow, A. H. (2002). A new approach to environmental decision analysis: Multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 22, 443-459.
34.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002, July 1). 40 CFR Part 50, national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, Subchapter C—Air programs. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (1998, December). Guideline on data handling conventions for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS(EPA-454/ R-98-017). Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
36.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources. (1999). List of reformulated gasoline programareas. Retrieved November 26, 1999, from www.epa.gov/oms/rfgarea.htm
