The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Deborah A. Edwards - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda D Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation; providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of three 'pillars' of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other two pillars are economic viability and social equity). It included an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores—because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction—compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this CERCLA-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits/impacts associated with remedial alternatives. These tools should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
Joseph S Shapiro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the low but uncertain measured benefits of us water quality policy
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019Co-Authors: Joseph S ShapiroAbstract:U.S. investment to decrease pollution in rivers, lakes, and other surface waters has exceeded $1.9 trillion since 1960, and has also exceeded the cost of most other U.S. environmental initiatives. These investments come both from the 1972 Clean Water Act and the largely voluntary efforts to control pollution from agriculture and urban runoff. This paper reviews the methods and conclusions of about 20 recent evaluations of these policies. Surprisingly, most analyses estimate that these policies’ benefits are much smaller than their costs; the benefit/cost ratio from the median study is 0.37. Yet existing evidence is limited and undercounts many types of benefits. We conclude that it is unclear whether many of these regulations truly fail a benefit/cost test or whether existing evidence understates their net benefits; we also describe specific questions that when answered would help eliminate this uncertainty.
-
the low but uncertain measured benefits of us water quality policy
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019Co-Authors: David A Keiser, Joseph S Shapiro, Catherine L KlingAbstract:US investment to decrease pollution in rivers, lakes, and other surface waters has exceeded $1.9 trillion since 1960, and has also exceeded the cost of most other US environmental initiatives. These investments come both from the 1972 Clean Water Act and the largely voluntary efforts to control pollution from agriculture and urban runoff. This paper reviews the methods and conclusions of about 20 recent evaluations of these policies. Surprisingly, most analyses estimate that these policies’ benefits are much smaller than their costs; the benefit–cost ratio from the median study is 0.37. However, existing evidence is limited and undercounts many types of benefits. We conclude that it is unclear whether many of these regulations truly fail a benefit–cost test or whether existing evidence understates their net benefits; we also describe specific questions that when answered would help eliminate this uncertainty.
Matthew Salmon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda D Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation; providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of three 'pillars' of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other two pillars are economic viability and social equity). It included an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores—because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction—compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this CERCLA-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits/impacts associated with remedial alternatives. These tools should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
Sera Mirchandani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda D Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation; providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of three 'pillars' of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other two pillars are economic viability and social equity). It included an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores—because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction—compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this CERCLA-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits/impacts associated with remedial alternatives. These tools should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
Anne G Fitzpatrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda D Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation; providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of three 'pillars' of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other two pillars are economic viability and social equity). It included an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores—because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction—compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this CERCLA-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits/impacts associated with remedial alternatives. These tools should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
-
cercla linked environmental impact and benefit analysis evaluating remedial alternatives for the portland harbor superfund site portland oregon usa
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2018Co-Authors: Amanda Mcnally, Anne G Fitzpatrick, Sera Mirchandani, Matthew Salmon, Deborah A. EdwardsAbstract:: This analysis focused on evaluating the environmental consequences of remediation, providing indicators for the environmental quality pillar of 3 "pillars" of the Portland Harbor Sustainability Project (PHSP) framework (the other 2 pillars are economic viability and social equity). The project an environmental impact and benefit analysis (EIBA) and an EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis. Metrics developed in the EIBA were used to quantify and compare remedial alternatives' environmental benefits and impacts in the human and ecological domains, as a result of remedial actions (relative to no action). The Cost-Benefit results were used to evaluate whether remediation costs were proportionate or disproportionate to the environmental benefits. Alternatives B and D had the highest overall benefit scores, and Alternative F was disproportionately costly relative to its achieved benefits when compared to the other remedial alternatives. Indeed, the costlier alternatives with larger remedial footprints had lower overall EIBA benefit scores-because of substantially more air emissions, noise, and light impacts, and more disturbance to business, recreational access, and habitat during construction-compared to the less costly and smaller alternatives. Put another way, the adverse effects during construction tended to outweigh the long-term benefits, and the net environmental impacts of the larger remedial alternatives far outweighed their small incremental improvements in risk reduction. Results of this Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)-linked environmental analysis were integrated with indicators of economic and social impacts of remediation in a stakeholder values-based sustainability framework. These tools (EIBA, EIBA-based Cost-Benefit analysis, economic impact assessment, and the stakeholder values-based integration) provide transparent and quantitative evaluations of the benefits and impacts associated with remedial alternatives, and should be applied to complex remediation projects to aid environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:22-31. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
