Development and Application
of a Community Sustainability
Visualization Tool
Marc Russell, U.S. EPA Gulf
Ecology Division
Maintaining a harmonious balance between economic, social, and
environmental well-being is paramount to community sustainability.
Communities need a way to holistically assess their sustainability.
We are developing tools to help communicate the importance of
ecosystem services and how they relate to human well-being in the
context of Gulf Coast sustainable communities.
EPA’s Sustainable and healthy
communities research program
Multiple components are being brought together to develop a functional
community sustainability visualization and assessment tool.
1) US Human Well-being Index
Overarching measure to focus on for sustainability
2) National Ecosystem Services Classification System
Indicators of final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS)
3) Ecosystem Services Production Function Library
Examples linking management to ecosystem production functions
4) Geospatial datasets from National Atlas and community-scale mapping
5) National Community Typology
Surface of Community
Sustainability
How do we measure this?
A community’s state of well-being is quantified by an eight
domain scoring system and combined into an index
1) Connection to Nature
2) Cultural Fulfillment
3) Education
4) Health
5) Leisure Time
6) Living Standards
7) Safety and Security
8) Social Cohesion
Each domain above is estimated using 27 scores
8 Economic, 7 Environmental, and 12 Social
Answer = Very carefully
Economic-Capital Investment
Economic-Consumption
Economic-Employment
Economic-Finance
Economic-Income
Economic-Innovation
Economic-Production
Economic-Re-distribution
Ecosystem-Air Quality Regulation
Ecosystem-Atmospheric Regulation
Ecosystem-Food and Fiber
Ecosystem-Greenspace
Ecosystem-Natural Hazard Protection
Ecosystem-Water Quality Regulation
Ecosystem-Water Quantity Regulation
Societal-Activism
Societal-Claimed Civil Liberties
Societal-Communication
Societal-Community and Faith Based
Initiatives
Societal-Education
Societal-Emergency Preparedness
Societal-Family Services
Societal-Health Care
Societal-Justice
Societal-Labor
Societal-Public Health
Societal-Public Works
Service Service Score (0-100) Relative Importance to Human Well-being (0-20%, average=3.7%) Economic-Capital Investment 47 3.1 Economic-Consumption 59 4.4 Economic-Employment 39 6.3 Economic-Finance 31 3.3 Economic-Income 60 5.4 Economic-Innovation 47 3.1 Economic-Production 50 4.9 Economic-Re-distribution 46 2.9
Ecosystem-Air Quality Regulation 83 5.4
Ecosystem-Atmospheric Regulation 29 3.7
Ecosystem-Food and Fiber 48 5.4
Ecosystem-Greenspace 61 4.8
Ecosystem-Natural Hazard Protection 75 3.8
Ecosystem-Water Quality Regulation 45 4.9
Ecosystem-Water Quantity Regulation 49 5.2
Societal-Activism 23 2.4
Societal-Claimed Civil Liberties 96 2.1
Societal-Communication 56 2.7
Societal-Community and Faith Based
Initiatives 49 2.4 Societal-Education 32 3.1 Societal-Emergency Preparedness 76 1.8 Societal-Family Services 52 2.7 Societal-Health Care 62 3.6 Societal-Justice 52 2.7 Societal-Labor 26 2 Societal-Public Health 65 3.9 Societal-Public Works 58 4 Domain Scores Connection to Nature Cultural
Fulfillment Education Health
Leisure Time Living Standards Safety and Security Social Cohesion HWBI Score Score 67 37 65 61 57 71 62 45 57.8
Value hierarchies are adjustable to refine
score weighting based on decision science
workshops for different community types
identified in our typology
Contribution of domains to the three elements of well-being
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Economic Well-being
Environmental Well-being
Societal Well-being
Connection to Nature
Education
Health
Leisure Time
Living Standards
Safety and Security
Social Cohesion
Spiritual and Cultural
Fulfillment
Ecological Production Function Library
Linking Humans to Ecosystem Services
Our National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) uses a
Binomial Approach developed with social and natural scientists:
Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) - biophysical features, quantities
and qualities requiring little further translation to make clear their relevance
to human well-being
Discussion.
•
What is the estimated range in U.S. community well-being during the past
decade?
•
What scale of community is the tool currently calibrated/targeted for?
•
The indicators used by each community to calculate scores may be the
same or different depending on the situation. How are you addressing
which indicators are universally relevant and which ones are community
type specific?
•
How does the tool deal with communities that do not want to sustain an
equal balance between the three pillars but would rather sustain a state
shifted towards one?
•
Should communities be able to define what they want to sustain or should
49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
H
W
BI
Year
Overall Human Wellbeing
(2000-2010)
US
SOUTH ATLANTIC FLORIDA
TAMPA BAY AREA HILLSBOROUGH LAKE
MANATEE PASCO PINELLAS
Table 1. Definitions of EPF Variable Types used for classifying EPF input and output variables. Variable Type Description
0 Changes in Policy, Use or Management of Ecosystem Resources
Policy changes, human actions, management scenarios or future scenarios that are either direct inputs to the EPF or are used in the EPF to determine input variables
1 Land Surface (or Water Body Bed) Cover, Substrate or Use
Land cover (e.g., vegetation type, water body type), other basic features of the landscape (soils, topography, bathymetry), and or use (e.g., zoning). With some exceptions (e.g., elevations, distances to other features, demographics), Type 1 variables are usually categorical variables
2 Stressor (or Enhancer)
Influences or agents, typically human produced, that may affect the potential for ecosystem structures or processes to produce services -- negatively, in the case of stressors, positively for enhancers
3 Ecosystem Structure or Process (including Intermediate Ecosystem Services)
Attributes of ecological structure or process that influence the quantity and/or quality of ecosystem services but do not themselves qualify as Final Ecosystem Goods or Services (because they are not directly enjoyed, consumed or used)
4 Final Ecosystem Good or Service
Components of nature of a type that can be directly enjoyed, consumed or used to yield human well-being (whether or not they occur in a location, or to a degree, where such use is likely). This category is intended to align with "Final Ecosystem Goods and Services" as will be defined by the National EGS Classification System.
5 Final Ecosystem Good or Service Likely to be Used
Final ecosystem services further evaluated for consideration of complementary, non-ecological factors such as access or proximity to potential users
6 Social Benefit Indicator (Including Health)
Variables related to human well-being, including health, financial or socio-cultural outcomes (whether expressed in biophysical or monetary units) that are NOT measures of economic welfare change
7 Monetary Value of Social Benefits (Including Health)
Economic value (normally, consumer surplus) associated with changes in human well-being including health, financial or socio-cultural outcomes
Beneficiary
Sub-Classes
KEY
