Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
gard, primarily in its application of economic analysis, but the committee notes
three important needs for improvement—the need to better integrate social, eco-
nomic, behavioral, and decision science in decisions; the need for a renewed
research effort to update and enhance health and ecosystem valuation and bene-
fits; and the need for substantially improved staff expertise in this field, espe-
cially in the social, behavioral, and decision sciences (see the discussion on this
topic in the section “Strengthening Science Capacity” in Chapter 5).
Integrating Social, Economic, Behavioral, and Decision Science Skills
Social, economic, behavioral, and decision sciences can serve many func-
tions that are crucial for meeting legislative and executive mandates and for
finding pathways to realize EPA's mission cost-effectively and equitably. But
even if the gaps are addressed, the benefits of using economics, social, behav-
ioral, and decision sciences in EPA cannot be fully realized unless these areas of
expertise are genuinely integrated into EPA decision-making and decision sup-
port. The gaps identified by the committee are compounded further by the need
for tools to address systems-level impacts—which are often highly uncertain in
nature (such as indirect but interconnected impacts of a particular decision or
activity)—and solutions that address root causes of problems.
The process of developing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the
Chesapeake Bay is an example in which EPA conducted high-quality environ-
mental science but did not adequately integrate social, economic, behavioral,
and decision sciences. The TMDL calls for reductions in nitrogen (by 25%),
phosphorus (by 24%), and sediment (by 20%) to restore the bay by 2025 and
allocates load reductions in its major tributaries to the bay (EPA 2010b). The
TMDL can be viewed as a triumph of EPA-led environmental science. The
agency initiated and led research to understand the effects of human activity on
the bay's waters and living resources and to provide a scientific foundation for
measures to restore the bay beginning in the 1970s. That research has been cru-
cial for the development of the science that underpins the TMDL, but the TMDL
was developed without studies of the benefits and costs. EPA's National Center
for Environmental Economics and its Chesapeake Bay program are only now
conducting benefit-cost assessments of the TMDL, which are too late to inform
its specification. Furthermore, and perhaps even more problematic, EPA has
neither conducted nor sponsored substantial social, economic, behavioral, and
decision science research on fundamental policy questions related to inducing
the behavioral changes that are essential for achieving the TMDL.
Updating and Enhancing Estimates of Environmental Benefits
Among the social, economic, behavioral, and decision sciences, only eco-
nomics is generally mandated in EPA. Regulatory impact assessments to deter-
mine the benefits and costs of environmental regulation are mandated by various
Search WWH ::




Custom Search