1

2

3

4Q1

5

67891011121314151617181920

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Q2

EI-01981; No of Pages 12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environment International

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /env int

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ranking environmental aspects in environmental management systems: A newmethod tested on local authorities

Diego Marazza ⁎, Vittoria Bandini, Andrea ContinCIRSA – Inter-departmental Research Centre for Environmental Sciences, Bologna University, via S.Alberto 163, 48100 Ravenna, Italy

F

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: diego.marazza@unibo.it (D. Marazza

0160-4120/$ – see front matter © 2009 Published by Edoi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Rlocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:1

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

P

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Article history:Received 8 May 2009Accepted 28 October 2009Available online xxxx

Keywords:ISO 14001EMASSignificanceLocal authoritiesEnvironmental aspectEnvironmental

^̂management system

ROO

A new method is described to determine and to rank the significance of the environmental aspects of a localauthority, as a basis for the implementation of an environmental management system (EMS). The method isespecially important as for the requirements of the EU “Environmental Management and Audit Scheme”(EMAS), a standard open to all sectors including public authorities.The method has been applied to the Municipalities of Faenza (a large town with 54,000 inhabitants) and ofthe small towns of Riolo Terme, Brisighella, Casola Valsenio (RA, Italy), which obtained or are on the way toget the EMAS certification.

D

).

lsevier Ltd.

anking environmental aspects in environmen0.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

© 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

2930

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74 Q375

76

77

78

79

80

UNCO

RREC

1. Introduction

In 2001, the European Union (EU) extended the Eco-Managementand Audit Scheme (EMAS), which was originally intended forcompanies to evaluate, report and improve their environmentalperformance, to all economic sectors including public and privateservices. In particular, local councils at theMunicipality level can enterthe certification process (Clausen et al., 2002). Since this revision(Regulation EC 761/2001, 2001), nicknamed EMAS-II, many localauthorities in Italy and Europe have started to develop environmentalmanagement systems, as a tool for making the organization moreenvironmentally proactive and efficient (Emilsson and Hjelm, 2002).Today the public administration sector is one of the fastest growingsectors as regards to EMAS implementation (European Commission—

DG Environment website, 2008). A third revision of the EMASregulation has been agreed by the Council and the EuropeanParliament on April 2, 2009 and will probably be adopted by theend of 2009; it won't carry forwards relevant changes in theevaluation of significance, but it will introduce important noveltiesin the use of indicators.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new method forassessing the significance of environmental aspects, based onprinciples of transparency and consistency. The proposed method isclear, well defined and reproducible.

It has been defined so that it takes into account both environ-mental issues and management ones.

TEThis method is particularly recommended for local authoritiesbecause it offers a good assortment of choices in the evaluation of thecontrol exerted on the environmental aspects, often share with otherpublic or private institutions. Moreover, the proposed method isstructured according to the principles of “expert systems”, whichalready include a knowledge-base and can therefore be used bypeople not expert in the specific domain; in this case, the“environmental knowledge” is already embedded in the methoditself and therefore is not required from the users.

Although the method has been defined for and tested with localauthorities, it could be easily applied in other contexts.

81

82

83

84

1.1. Environmental^̂management systems

An environmental management system includes the environmen-tal dimension within the management structure and is aimed atimproving the environmental performance of the organization; it is amethod of incorporating environmental care throughout the corpo-rate structure (Perotto, 2008). In a continuous process, organizationscommit themselves to evaluate their environmental impact and to settargets for improvement.

Various EMS, particularly the EMAS regulation and the ISO14001scheme (International Standard

^Organization, ISO 14001, 1996/2004)

are based on the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) methodology (Ridolfiet al., 2008; Vazzana et al., 2004; Deming, 1986; Marazza, 2007). ThePDCA cycle is known as Deming cycle, from the industry consultantW. Edwards Deming who proposed it for continuous improvement oftotal quality management (UNC-Chapel Hill, 2003). Through therepetition of the cycle, the EMS is to achieve continuous improvement

tal management systems: A new method tested on

C

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130Q4131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167168169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

2 D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

UNCO

RRE

over time, which is a basic concept for all management systems. ThePDCA cycle can be summarized as follows:

– P (PLAN): plan activities according to priorities, define policies,goals, targets, rules;

– D (DO): implement the planning under the chosen rules;– C (CHECK): verify the results;– A (ACT): review priorities, goals, targets and, in case, policies and

rules.

1.2. EMS in^̂local authorities

Local authorities present some unique features that have to beconsidered when structuring an EMS suitable for them (Lozano andVallés, 2007):

– Local authorities have a considerable number of different duties:schools, waste disposal, road maintenance, law enforcement,planning, fire brigade, procurement, leisure and many more. Theindirect aspects often prevail over the direct ones, and theirassessment is a complex and tedious matter, which may call forintense considerations and professional help from consultants anduniversities (Ridolfi et al., 2008; European Commission — DGEnvironment website, 2008; Lozano and Vallés, 2007). It is notalways easy to classify an aspect as direct or indirect, for there aremany cases of shared responsibility.

– Local^authorities act over a whole territory, not only on their own

premises; they have an important institutional role on environ-mental communication, and have the possibility to address thecompanies located in the area towards some sustainabilitycommitment (Casale, 2005).

– The stakeholders are not limited to clients, providers or neigh-bours, but include the whole community living in the territoryadministered by the authority. Moreover, while the clients of acompany can change their providers if they are not satisfied withthe product, the people living in a Municipality can choose, byvoting, the ruling party, but have little other possibilities, apart

^from moving somewhere else, if they are not satisfied with the

^administration.

– While a local authority can attain continuous improvement of itsenvironmental performance just as a private company, there aresome differences as to the obtainable benefits, which usually arelong-term and spread out to the whole community in terms ofeconomical, environmental and social consequences.

– The motivations for developing an EMS in a^̂local administration

often^imply the desire to set an example for other organizations

and to have a positive outcome in the territory (Clausen et al.,2002).

– ConcerningMunicipalities, a largemajority have a small number ofinhabitants (in Italy, 72% have less than 5

^000 inhab. (ISTAT,

2001)). It can be easily inferred that these Municipalities also havea small number of employees (probably under 10 people). Thisvery likely implies a lack in environmental professionals and inscientific skills.

As remarked in the^Introduction, the public administration sector

is one of the fastest growing sectors as regards to EMAS application.The above considerations, together with this growing trend and thehigh number of

^̂local authorities in Europe suggest that a method for

assessing environmental significance specifically tailored on theneeds of Municipalities could be very useful and be broadly diffused.

1.3. Environmental aspects

A very important step in order to implement an EMS is the settingof priorities in order to plan the improvement activities. Therefore, the

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPR

OOF

organization has to identify its environmental aspects and assess theirsignificance through the environmental management system.

Article 3.1 of Annex I-A of the EMAS regulation states that: “Theorganization shall establish, implement and maintain a procedure(s)

a) to identify the environmental aspects of its activities, products andservices within the defined scope of the environmental manage-ment system that it can control and those that it can influencetaking into account planned or new developments, or new ormodified activities, products and services, and

b) todetermine those aspects thathave or canhave significant impact(s)on the environment (i.e. significant environmental aspects).

The organization shall document this information and keep it up todate.”

It is therefore crucial to define criteria, thresholds and categories inorder to provide a reference scale for the significance.

According to the EMAS-II regulation, an environmental aspect is anelement of an organization's activities, products or services that caninteract with the environment. A specific activity ‘a’, managed by theorganization, can generate one or more environmental aspects ‘e’ (e.g.emissions, wastes, energy or matter consumption), generating in turnone or more impacts ‘i’ in the environmental domains (atmosphere,biosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere):

ai→eij→iijk

where the indices refers to the activity (i), the environmental as-pect (j), and the impact (k).

As an example, the heating of the buildings of the organization(activity) generates fuel consumption and emissions into theatmosphere (aspects), which affect public health and the standingstock of natural resources (impacts).

The EMAS-II regulation distinguishes between direct and indirectenvironmental aspects. The former are defined as those over whichthe organization has management control; the latter as aspects overwhich it may not have full management control or that involve otherparties.

Both kinds should be evaluated in normal, start-up, shut-downand emergency conditions. The Annex VI of the Regulation lists someexamples of direct and indirect aspects. Direct aspects may includeemissions to air, releases to water, avoidance, recycling, reuse,transportation and disposal of solid and other wastes, particularlyhazardous wastes, use and contamination of land, use of naturalresources and raw materials (including energy), local issues (noise,vibration, odour, dust, visual appearance, etc.), transport issues (bothfor goods and services and for employees), risks of environmentalaccidents and impacts arising, or likely to arise, as consequences ofincidents, accidents and potential emergency situations.

Indirect aspects may include product-related issues (design,development, packaging, transportation, use and waste recovery/disposal), capital investments, granting loans and insurance services,newmarkets, choice and composition of services (e.g. transport or thecatering trade), administrative and planning decisions, product rangecompositions, the environmental performance and practices ofcontractors, subcontractors and suppliers.

If the organization willing to implement an EMS is a publicadministration, the distinction between direct and indirect aspectsmay not be easy to assess (EURO-EMAS, 2001). This problem, and aproposed solution, will be discussed in this paper.

1.4. Significance

Annex VI of the EMAS-II Regulation states that “An^organization

shall consider all environmental aspects of its activities, products andservices and decide, on the basis of criteria taking into account the

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246Q5247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322323324325326327328329330331

332333334

3D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

UNCO

RREC

Community legislation, which of its environmental aspects have asignificant impact, as a basis for setting its environmental objectivesand targets.”

^It is the responsibility of the

^organization to define the

criteria.The Regulation adds some details on how to establish these

criteria: they shall be comprehensive, capable of independentchecking, reproducible and made publicly available; considerationsshould include appraisal of the environmental conditions, existingdata, views of stakeholders, regulations, procurement, products' life

^cycle, environmental costs and benefits.

The EMAS-II regulation gives no further indication on how toperform the significance evaluation of the environmental aspects, evenif it is recognized as anessential point of an environmentalmanagementsystem (Darbra et al., 2005; Gernuks et al., 2007; Ghisellini andThurston, 2005; Johnston et al., 2000; Parker, 1997; Perotto, 2006;Põder, 2007; Zobel et al., 2002; Zobel and Burman, 2004).

Zobel (2008) depicts the situation by saying that the criteria to befulfilled and verified are stated, but the means for satisfying them arenot.

Many authors underline this lack of orientation (Darbra et al., 2005;Ghisellini and Thurston, 2005; Johnston et al., 2000; Perotto, 2006) andrecognize the need for research in this field (Zobel and Burman, 2004)and the importance of achieving transparency, reproducibility and acertaingradeof objectivity (Perotto, 2006; Põder, 2007; Zobel et al., 2002)in an activity believed to be one of the most difficult stages in im-plementing an EMS (Darbra et al., 2005; Hillary, 1998; Lundberg et al.,2007). Objectivity is intended as the ability to get a true representation ofreality, and could bemeasured by the reproducibility of the results of thesignificance evaluation obtained by different people.

Once the significant environmental aspects have been identifiedby the organization, they become part of the environmental im-provement programme: the EMAS Regulation states that the orga-nization shall ensure that the significant environmental aspects aretaken into account in establishing, implementing and maintaining itsenvironmental management system. The non-significance aspectswill be reassessed in a further cycle of the EMS.

1.5. Assessing the significance of environmental aspects

Assessing the significance of environmental aspects usually involvesranking them through the use of categories, values and thresholds.

Commission recommendation 2001/680/EC (2001) suggests that“the criteria selected can be taken as questions to be answered with‘yes

^’ or ‘no

^’, or they can be used in a more differentiated way”.

Due to the lack of guidance in the EMAS Regulation on how toevaluate the significance of environmental aspects, a lot of methodshave been proposed in literature, manuals, handbooks and technicalbooks. For example, the European Union Network for the Implemen-tation and Enforcement

^of Environmental Law (IMPEL) produced a

“Doing the right things II — Step-by-step guidance book for planningof environmental inspection”. The handbook addresses risk assess-ment issues which are similar to the identification and ranking ofenvironmental aspects, and collects a number of good practices. Theauthors state that “to give a limitative list of all the risk criteria that wecan assess is not possible. Every inspecting authority will define itsown risk criteria”. Risk is defined here in a broad sense: it includes anyfactor an authority wants to take into account when assigningpriorities. It may be an environmental risk, a social or economic risk, acompliance risk etc. (IMPEL, 2008).

The use of some form of scale to screen and classify each effect iswidely used (Hillary and Loth, 1998). However, many of the existingmethodologies have flaws due to lack of quantitative evaluations,excessive simplification and subjectivity in the score assignment andchoice of criteria (Perotto, 2006). Some authors have conducted areview of the methods proposed so far (Perotto, 2005; Põder, 2007;Zobel and Burman, 2004; Darbra et al., 2005).

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPR

OOF

Põder (2007) recognizes inconsistencies and limited transparencyand reproducibility as a common shortcoming for many organizationsimplementing EMS. He conducted a study on 22 Estonian companies andclassified their methodologies in twomain categories: those consideringonly the severity and probability criteria, a basic approach in riskassessment, and those taking into account several dimensions, includingsocio-economic variables. The author finds that the first categoryprovides much flexibility of usage, but it can also result in limitedreproducibility; the methodologies which combine more variablesprovide a framework for systematic and orderly thinking, but they canhave shortfalls due to vaguely defined or overlapping criteria, apart fromrequiring considerable effort and know-how (Darbra et al., 2004).

The methods appreciated for their flexibility and simplicity ofusage are also criticized for their limited reproducibility due tosubjectivity and use of personal judgement (Perotto, 2006). Accordingto Põder (2007), it is crucial to include, explicitly or implicitly, all basicdimensions influencing the outcome, for the assessment not to beinconsistent and to avoid overlapping. The author proposes a threetiered decision scheme that could facilitate the evaluation process,taking into account predefined conditions like the violation of legallyestablished conditions, the severity of the aspect, its probability,socio-economic factors and uncertainty.

Zobel and Burman (2004) stress the importance of reproducibility,which is necessary for the credibility of the entire managementsystem. They list some of the most commonly suggested criteria inliterature: the scale of the impact, the severity of the impact, theprobability of occurrence, the permanence of impact, the actual orpotential regulatory/legal exposure, the difficulty of changing theimpact and the concerns of stakeholders. They find a clear distinctionbetween authors that only suggest environmental concerns whenassessing the aspects and those that also suggest business concerns.The authors also conducted a study on 46 Swedish companies andconcluded that it is possible to classify their methods for assessing thesignificance of environmental aspects in some categories, according tothe presence of a specific tool and its reference to traditional riskassessment or Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). They also refer to anotherclassification proposed by Woodside et al. (1998): available assess-ment methods can be divided into three different approaches:consideration of selected documented criteria without any weighingfactors, consideration of selected documented criteria with weighingfactors and judgement by environmental professionals.

Ghisellini and Thurston (2005) carried out a survey on the cog-nitive decision traps into which companies may fall during imple-mentation of EMS, and remark that the methods used in evaluatingthe aspects' significance may be based on an inadequate set of criteriathat do not accurately identify the real significance of the aspects.They also acknowledge the existence of brainstorming procedures forassessing the significance of environmental aspects, which do notimply formal scoring.

Another widely used^criterion is the compliance with the law,

which, according to Dias-Sardinha and Reijners (2001), is the mostcommon environmental strategic objective of organizations.

2.^̂Methods and results

^

In 2002, the Inter^-departmental Centre for Research on Environmental Sciences

(CIRSA) of the University of Bologna was given the responsibility to support thedefinition and implementation of an EMS in the Municipality of Faenza, a medium-sized town (55,000 inhab.) in the Ravenna province, Italy.

Later, the Centre also began supporting the small Municipalities of Brisighella, RioloTerme and Casola Valsenio, all of them located in the Ravenna province, Italy.

A new method to determine and rank the significance of environmental aspectsspecifically intended for local councils was developed and tested in these Municipal-ities, providing four case studies. The methodology consists in two parts, which takeinto account two different dimensions of significance:

– A governance dimension, which investigates the potential managerial improve-ment from the actual situation; this part of the methodology takes into account thecontrol exercised on each environmental aspect and the actual management of the

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

C

OOF

335336337338339340341342343

344345346347348349

350351352353Q6354355356357358359360361

362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378

379

380381382383384385386387

Table 1t1:1

c parameter: level of competence on the aspect.t1:2t1:3 5 Direct aspect completely under the control of the

administrationTotal authority on the aspect. This implies a

^high ability to decide on how to lower the environmental

impact and/or risks.t1:4 Clear legal provisions give the competence on the aspect to the administration.t1:5 The interaction between the activity, product, service, and the environment is not mediated by any

external subject.t1:6 The aspect is to be considered a DIRECT one.t1:7 Example on energy consumption: the intensity and duration of the lighting inside the municipality buildings

is directly controlled by the administration.t1:8 4 Nearly direct aspect, but mediated by a third party Total authority on the aspect, but mediated by a third party, related to the local authority by a formal bond

(contracts, administrative acts, agreements, technical specifications,…).t1:9 Example: heating of school buildingst1:10 3 Binding provisions imposed by a third party authority When the authority's choices depend on the binding dispositions of

^a higher institution. The authority cannot

completely modify an activity or cannot directly fix the technical requirements in a contract,as it is not the only contractor or as the decisions depends on the formal acceptation of another institution.

t1:11 Example: The terms of the contract for public lighting are set by a group of administrations on a sub-regionalscale and then reported in the contract with the supplier.

t1:12 2 To make possible for other subjects to makeenvironmentally sustainable choices

This level means the possibility to create conditions to allow committed private parties (project partners,citizens, clients, …) to develop and implement environmental strategies.

t1:13 Example: benefits in the town plan for ecologic building projects; voluntary agreements with privatecompanies; actions favouring the separate collection of rubbish.

t1:14 1 Benefits or steering initiatives for sustainable behavioursby external parties

This constitutes a weaker control if compared to the previous ones. Its target is to modify the citizens'behaviour by creating a convenience for those willing to adopt virtuous choices.

t1:15 Example: economic benefits for purchasing methane-fuelled vehicles or for using public transport.t1:16 0 To inform and making people aware Promote the improvement of indirect environmental aspects, only through the ability to influence citizens. There

is no control on the interaction.t1:17 Example: environmental information campaign on the correct disposal of waste.

t2:1

t2:2t2:3

t2:4

t2:5

t2:6

t2:7

t2:8

t2:9

t2:10

4 D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

RRE

same aspect; this is evaluated by the index Gij (where i stands for the activity and jfor the environmental aspect).

– An environmental dimension, in which the environmental and social variablesare taken into account and assigned a value that represents the environmental“relevance”. It takes into account the temporal and spatial scales, the strength ofthe generated impact, the presence of worsening factors and the participationand concern of general public and employees; all these are evaluated by theindex Iijk where i stands for the activity, j for the environmental aspect and k forthe environmental impact caused by that aspect.

Each parameter is assigned a value from a tailored predefined scale, in order toavoid subjectivity in the evaluation and to provide aid in systematizing the assessment(Põder, 2007).

A single index of significance, S, for each impact k associated with theenvironmental aspects j and activity i, is produced according to the following formula:

Sijk = Gij × Iijk

The terms G and I are multiplied according to the typical risk assessmentevaluation, as discussed in

^Section 3

^.

The presence of legal requirements is not explicitly included in the selectedparameters. This results from the following considerations. First of all, the compliance tothe relevant legislation is already accounted for in other parts of the EMAS Regulation,namely in the articles “Legal and other requirements” (All.I-A.3.2), “Evaluation ofcompliance” (All I-A.5.2) and “Non-conformity, corrective action and preventive action”(All.I-A.5.3). This means that a complete application of an EMS, coherent with the EMASRegulation, assures the knowledge and proper management of all applicable legalrequirements, and the implementation of actions to avoid non conformities. Moreover,

UNCOTable 2

g parameter: actual management of the aspect.

5 Vast opportunities for improvement No identified strategy. NoIncomplete or no knowled

4 Big opportunities for improvement Incomplete strategy. No imPartial to null monitoring.

3 Opportunities for improvement There is an identified stratSectorial approach. PartialTraining has to be improv

2 Moderate opportunities for improvement A strategy to deal with thedoesn't achieve the desirePartial monitoring. The im

1 Little opportunities for improvement The strategy to deal with tnot yet completely appliedThe strategy is monitored.

0 No opportunities for improvement A strategy is applied, whichas been established by inprocedures and document

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPRthe evaluation of themanagement dimension indirectly includes the assessment of legal

requirements, as it is from these that public administrations derive their competencies.It is also extremely probable that a situation of

^non-compliance to the legislation arises

^from a poor management of an environmental aspect, so that a vast space forimprovement will be measured by index G.

In scientific literature, there is disagreement on whether to include businessconcerns in the significance evaluation or not. Business concerns can includetechnological and financial options, operational and business requirements, technicalor organizational problems. Some authors suggest to take them into consideration(Cagno et al., 1999), while others prefer to exclude all business concerns from theevaluation (Zobel and Burman, 2004). Considerations on the importance of thecredibility of the whole system drove the business parameters out of the proposedmethodology. This is in line with the actual definition of significant environmentalaspect as an “element of an organization's activities or products or services that caninteract with the environment and has or can have a significant environmental impact”(ISO14001/2004), which includes only environmental factors. However, businessrelated factors are included when objectives and targets are established.

2.1. Governance index G

The^governance index G takes into account the authority exertable on an

environmental aspect and the current management of the aspect itself; therefore,governance is here intended as the exercise of political authority and the use ofinstitutional resources to manage society's problems and affairs. The level ofresponsibility on the aspect is measured by the “control” parameter, c, while theactual management is evaluated by the “management” parameter, g.

EMAS Regulation provides for two levels of competence over environmentalaspects: direct or indirect control, which in turn

^entails direct and indirect aspects.

implementation. Sectorial approach. No monitoring.ge of the environmental impact.plementation and/or inefficacious strategy. Sectorial approach.Incomplete knowledge of the environmental impacts.egy to deal with the aspect, it is applied but not effective or not verifiable.to null monitoring. The impacts generated by the aspect are known.ed. There is a need to develop a different strategy.aspect has been identified and applied, but it needs some revision because it

d results or the strategy is effective but not verifiable. Partially sectorial approach.pacts generated by the aspect are known and measured.he aspect has been identified and applied. The procedures are set out but they are(e.g., they have not yet produced results). Synergic approach, wherever necessary.The impacts generated by the aspect are known and measured.h produces measurable results (better environmental performance). The strategyvolving all the administration areas and/or all third parties and is verifiable throughs. All consequences of the aspect in terms of impacts are measured and controlled.

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426

427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448

449

450451452453454455456457458459460

461

Table 3t3:1

The possible values of index G.t3:2t3:3 G

t3:4^̂c^×g≤3 0

t3:5 4 ≤̂̂c^×g≥6 1

t3:6 7 ≤̂̂c^×g≥12 2

t3:7 13 ≤̂̂c^×g≥25 3

Table 4 t4:1

fe —^frequency and

^extension parameter.

t4:2t4:3Spatial extension

t4:4Frequency Very localized Small areas Relevant areas Whole territory

t4:5Daily 3 4 4 5t4:6Weekly 2 3 4 4t4:7Monthly 1 2 3 3t4:8Annual 1 1 2 3

5D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

C

Anyway, Commission Recommendation 2001/680/EC indicates that the importantissue is not to categorise an issue as direct or indirect but to make sure that all aspectsare identified.

Actually, there is often no sharp transition between “controllability” and“uncontrollability” (Põder, 2007; EURO-EMAS, 2001). Aspects, which may appearindirect (e.g., urban planning, traffic management, etc.), often represent the mostimportant ones in the case of a local authority, as they imply possible impacts on thewhole territory. If there is no other party influencing decisions, these aspects may beclassified as direct. In any case, a local authority shall consider how much influence itcan have over such aspects and what measures could be taken.

Acknowledging this situation, this paper proposes a “control” parameter c whosevalue ranges from 5 to 0, where the two extremes mean complete and no control,respectively. This helps overcome the direct/indirect duality, which is often too rigid forlocal authorities. This parameter can be considered as an independent variable, as theorganization can rarely change this condition. The value of c is determined by thepresence of environmental legislation and/or voluntary agreements concerning theaspect, or by the environmental policy. Table 1 lists the possible values of c, togetherwith a description of the situation and an example, in order to make the assignment ofthe value to each environmental aspect easier for the operator. Table 1 and thefollowing represent possible classification schemes, which have to be adapted to eachdifferent application (

^̂local authorities,

^̂private companies, etc.). These examples

concern local authorities in Italy, and therefore may need some revision before beingapplied to other countries or other types of organization.

To evaluate the actual management, a “management” parameter g is introduced,which measures the degree to which the potential influence is being exerted (Marazza,2003). This parameter, too, allows 6 possible values (0 to 5), where 0 indicates athorough and sound management and 5 means there is no applied environmentalstrategy. The parameter g depends on the level of real management exerted by theMunicipality to prevent or mitigate the impacts generated by an environmental aspect,and on the level of knowledge of the aspect itself. This can also be expressed as thepresence (or absence) of an environmental strategy.

While the control parameter c is usually independent from the administration'scommitment, g is a dependent variable, as the organization can work on it and lower itsvalue by developing and improving an environmental strategy on the aspect.

In other words, g is an indicator of the degree of application of the environmentalpolicy of the organization.

It is important to stress that strategy here only refers to the environmentalcomponent of the activity, and not to the whole activity. That is, the absence of anenvironmental strategy does not mean that the aspect is left unattended by the

UNCO

RRE 462

463

Fig. 1. Elaboration from Euro LA EMAS (2001), showing the possible combinations of cand g and the corresponding values of G.

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPR

OOF

administration, but only that the administration has not taken environmental concernsinto account when establishing how to deal with the aspect. Environmental strategiescan greatly vary according to the different kinds of activities; some examples are greenprovisions, environmental impact assessment procedures, green procurement, partic-ipation processes, considerations on the use of energy and materials, voluntaryagreements, environmental monitoring, environmental education, training, installationof new technologies, etc. (International Standard

^Organization, ISO 14004, 2004).

The possible management conditions, together with some examples, are describedin Table 2. The balance between the c and g parameters gives a measure of the influenceof a local authority on the environmental aspect (EURO-EMAS, 2001), which in thispaper is called “

^governance” and is represented by the index G.

The index G is structured so that if an aspect is important but the Municipality hasno competence to influence it, then the potential improvement is low and the aspect istherefore assigned a low value of G. If, on the contrary, the Municipality hascompetence on an aspect, but does not exert it, there is a management problem, thepossible improvement is relevant, and therefore the value of G is high.

The resulting value of G for a specific environmental aspect i is given by a functionof the product ci×gi, and may range from 0 to 3, as described in Table 3 and Fig. 1.

The index G takes the highest value (G=3)when theMunicipality has total controlon an aspect but no strategy to manage it, indicating a high potential for improvement.On the contrary, G is the lowest (G=0) when the Municipality has no authority on theaspect, or when it has already applied all management strategies deemed necessary.

2.2. Relevance index I

The proposed “relevance” index I is intended to evaluate the possible impacts of anenvironmental aspect. To do this, many criteria have been used and described inliterature. Põder (2007) refers of various parameters, including the amount of theimpact, the probability and frequency, the magnitude, the severity and danger, thedetectability, the spatial extent, the temporal scale, the stakeholders, the economics,and the influence on other activities. The proposed index can be compared to theconcept of “severity” of environmental impacts implied by the environmental aspectsof the organization. Anyway, the concept of “severity” is not clearly defined in manyenvironmental management systems, as noted by Põder (2007).

The “relevance” index I introduced in this paper includes 5 parameters, defined asfollows:

– Frequency and^extension, fe, which measures the spatial extent and the temporal

scale of the environmental aspect;– Magnitude, m, which measures the severity of the environmental impacts;

Fig. 2. The relation between environmental pressures, components and whole systems(adapted and integrated from Malcevschi, 1991).

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

ROOF

464465466467

468

469470471472473

474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505

506507508509510511512513514515516517

Table 5t5:1

The matrix which relates environmental pressures to environmental components.t5:2t5:3 Pressures → Greenhouse

gasesemissions

Troposphereozoneprecursorsemissions

CFC and ozonedepletingsubstancesemissions

Gaseous acidifying/eutrophicatingcompoundsemissions

Total suspendedparticulateand PM10emissions

Carbonmonoxideemissions

Benzeneemissions

Smellysubstancesemissions

Industrialemissions

Solid/liquidhazardouscompoundsemissions

Nutrientsandsludgespreading

t5:4 Environmentalcomponents ↓

t5:5 Climate andstratosphericozone

Ig Mg Lg Ig Mg

t5:6 Air quality Br Br Br Bl Ml Bl Mlt5:7 Hydro-geological

structuret5:8 Non-renewable

resourcest5:9 Soil quality Mr Lr Ll Mlt5:10 Waste Lrt5:11 Underground

watersLl Ml

t5:12 Surface waters Mr Mlt5:13 Ecosystems —

biodiversityMr Br Ll Mr Lr Ml

t5:14 Renewableresources

Lr

t5:15 Health Lr Ll Ll Ll Il In Llt5:16 City-life quality Bl Bl Lrt5:17 Historical and

culturalheritage

Il Bl

t5:18 Landscapet5:19 Land uses Bl Bl Ll

6 D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

– Increased sensitivity factor, i, which takes into account potential cumulative effector the presence of sensitive affected objects, or else negative trends in the aspect;

– Participation and public feelings, p, which assesses the attention and concern of thelocal community for the aspect or for the related environmental theme.

Each parameter will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.2.1. Frequency and extension feThis parameter fe evaluates both the spatial and temporal dimensions of the

occurrence of an environmental aspect. The value of fe is independent from the impactand only depends on the environmental aspect (i.e. feijk= feij, for each k).

The possible values of fe are listed in Table 4.

C 518519520521522523524525526527528529

530531532533534535

536537538539540

541542543544545546

547548

UNCO

RRE2.2.2. Magnitude m

The assessment of the importance of an environmental aspect often appears a verycomplex task.

Many matrixes have been proposed in literature to facilitate the evaluation andmake sense of a very complex set of environmental concepts and interactions (Zobeland Burman, 2004). The use of matrixes can prevent the excessive influence of pre-established ideas and reduce the possibility of the organization being unaware ofimportant aspects, both of which are frequent traps to the correct progress of theenvironmental management system (Darbra et al., 2005). Moreover, matrixes can helpreduce the dependency of the outcome of the evaluation on the people conducting theassessment (Zobel and Burman, 2004).

Thus, the subjectivity in the evaluation process can be reduced by using matrixesand scales with pre

^defined values. However, another threat to the positive outcome of

the evaluation process is the frequent lack of scientific knowledge in local authorities,which hampers the estimate of the possible impacts of an environmental aspect.

To overcome these threats, a pre-compiled matrix is proposed, which requires littleor no environmental knowledge from the operator.

The matrix is inspired by the Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology, andin particular by Malcevschi (1991), whose book on impact assessment suggests todefine an impact as a correlation between environmental factors (events that causeinterference with the environment, i.e. emissions, resource depletion, waste produc-tion) and environmental components (constitutive elements of the environment, i.e.atmosphere, geosphere etc.) (Fig. 2).

The matrix proposed in this paper (Table 5) consists in a list of environmentalcomponents displayed in the rows, while a list of possible pressures affecting theenvironment are listed in the columns. Items in the vertical list are related to those inthe horizontal one, to ascertain which compartments are likely to be affected by eachpressure.

In this way all likely interactions between the pressures and the environmentalcomponents are highlighted. Each relation is simply quantified using a spatial-temporalscale: a score is assigned to each relation by evaluating the spatial extension and thetime scale of the impact.

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPThe scores, which depend on the combination of the spatial and of the temporal

scale are listed in Table 6.On the basis of the matrix, a series of general categories of impact have been

proposed (Table 7), keeping in mind the typical sectors of activity of a localadministration and the competencies in releasing authorisations. These categorieswere evaluated for the average conditions occurring in small to medium towns. The listhas broad categories on top and more specific ones at the bottom. Categories are to bechosen so that they satisfactorily describe the impact, and do not overestimate it byincluding more environmental pressures than those really possible for each consideredaspect. For each category, a list of the pressures they could provoke has been compiled,and the scores in the corresponding columns of the matrix have been summed.

A worst case hypothesis has been taken whenever a category includes more thanone pressure impacting the same environmental components. In these cases, the mostharmful pressure has been considered to act on the environmental component, thusonly the highest score has been summed.

This process produces one score for each proposed category, which enters theformulas as m. The value of m is independent from the aspect and depends only on therelated impact (i.e. mijk=mk, for each i and j).

The m scores for aspects belonging to the “safety” and “public health” categoriesare given according to an evaluation of the potential harm of the event, for whichTable 8 provides some predetermined values.

The local authority official, or team of officials, have only to identify the category ofthe environmental aspect which is assessed, and need no further consideration on theenvironmental implications which would require some technical knowledge.

2.2.3. Increased sensitivity factor iThe i parameter takes into account the cumulative effects of the impact and the

sensitivity of the environment to it. The value of i is independent from the aspect (i.e.iijk= ik, for each i and j). The value of i arises from the number of positive responsesgiven to a list of 7 questions. These can be modified and adapted to the particularsituation of the municipality, but it is suggested that they stress on:

– cumulative effects;– presence of sensitive areas;– contribution to global impact;– effects on ecological webs; and– worsening of the effect if compared to previous years.

2.2.4. Participation and^public feelings p

The p parameter evaluates the participation of both employees and citizens to theenvironmental issues. The value of p ranges from 0 to 5, where 0 is equal to no interestand participation, while 5 indicates a strong participation in the subject. The value of pis generally dependent only on the aspect (i.e. pijk=pj, for each i and k) Possible criteriato evaluate the score of p are:

– number of articles (newspapers, websites) on the subject;– seminars, school programs, meetings on the subject;

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

ROOF

549550

551552553

554555556

557

558

559560

561562563564565566567568569570571572

573574575576577578579580581582583584585

586

587588589590591592

593594595596

597598599600601602

t5:1

t5:2Physicalagents

Vibrations Soilmovements

Soilimpermeabilization

Lightpollution

Eutrophicatingdischarges

Liquidindustrialdischarges

Erosion Groundoccupation

Mining Use ofrenewableresources

Waterwithdrawal

Non-renewableresourcesdepletion

Wasteproduction

Bl

Bl Ir Lr Il Ml

Ig

Bl Ll MlIg

Il Ll Ig Ml

Bl Ml BrBl Bl Il Bl Bl Mr Bl Il Ml Br

Bg Br

BlMl Ml

Ll

Bl Il Bl Ll Il IlMl Bl Ml Lr Ll Ml

t6:1

t6:2t6:3

t6:4

t6:5

t6:6

t6:7

t6:8

7D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

CORR

EC– subject included in the local Agenda 21 process; and– hints given by the employees.

2.2.5. Relevance index IThe relevance index I quantifies the “importance” of the environmental impact k

generated by the aspect j as a combination of the five parameters:

Iijk = feij × ðmk + ik + pjÞ:

The higher the value of I, the more important the environmental aspect.

2.3. Significance index S

The overall value of the significance index is given by the product of G and I:

S = G × I

or

Sij = ½f ðci × giÞ� × ½feij × ðmk + ik + pjÞ�

The value of S is an integer number greater or equal to 0.Qualitatively, if the value of G is high, the potential extent of improvement is high.

On the contrary, a low or null G indicates scarce or null possibility of improvement. If Iis high, this indicates a considerable environmental problem; on the contrary, a low Iindicates negligible environmental implications.

A considerable environmental problem coupled with a high potential ofimprovement yields a high significance. On the contrary, a trivial environmentalproblem coupled with scarce extent of improvement returns a low or null significance.

According to both ISO 14001 and EMAS regulation, an organization has to adoptenvironmental objectives and targets to improve its significant aspects.

UN 603

604605606607608609610611612613614615

Table 6The scoring of the environmental impact on each environmental component, accordingto the temporal and spatial dimension of the impact.

Temporal scale

Spatial dimension B— short M — medium L — long I — irreversible

l — local 1 2 3 4r — regional 1 2 3 4n — national 2 3 4 5g — global 3 4 5 5

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPThus there has to be a way to decide which are the significant aspects, once they

have been ranked according to the described methodology. Zobel and Burman (2004)report that the most frequent way to decide how many aspects are to be consideredsignificant is to set a quantified limit, above which an aspect is significant; to state thatwhenever an aspect is associated with regulatory specifications it has to be consideredsignificant; to set a given number of environmental aspects to be considered significanteach year, chosen among the highest ranking ones. In this paper we propose both apreset limit, which is a score of S=250 (it can be lowered in the subsequentapplications of the

^̂environmental

^management system), and a pre

^set maximum

number of significant aspects, to be chosen among those exceeding the limit.The study of all the conditions, which maximize or minimize the significance,

provides the key for a correct interpretation of the significance concept. This isevaluated in the next

^section.

2.4. Statistical analysis

The stability of the results obtained by the application of the method described inSection 2

^has been evaluated on the basis of some statistical features.

An analysis was done to evaluate the score variation if one or more of theparameters composing the index is changed by one unit, i.e. assuming differentsubjective evaluations.

A scatter plot has been generated in the following way:

(i) a given combination (c, g, fe, m, i, and p) of parameters is selected and thesignificance S is computed; and

(ii) each parameter is changed by plus or minus one unit (if possible) and for eachcombination a new value of the significance, ‘Smodified’, is computed.

Points (i) and (ii) are repeated for all possible values of the parameters (c, g, fe, m, i,and p). In thisway, each value of S generates approximately 500 combinations ofmodifiedvalues, ‘Smodified’. The range of values can be very wide, with the highest modified scoregiven by a +1 variation of all the parameters at the same time and the lowest modifiedscore given by a −1 variation of all the parameters at the same time. The majority ofmodified values, however, are located near the original S value,with a normal distributionwith a standard deviation of about 30%. The plot of Smodified versus S is shown in Fig. 3.

The frequency distribution of all the possible scores of the index S, computed usingall possible values of the set of parameters (c, g, fe, m, i, and p) is shown in Fig. 4.

The results show a decreasing exponential trend, which appears linear in logarithmicscale. Lower values of S are most frequent, while 13

^.6% of all possible combinations score

over 250, which is the value proposed as a threshold between non significant andsignificant aspects. The meaning is that if the aspects of a local authority would scoreaccording to a random distribution, then 13

^.6% of them would be significant.

The frequency distribution of the scores of a municipality in the Province of Ravenna,used as a case study, is plotted in Fig. 5, together with the trend derived from Fig. 4.

The distribution curve of the case study is steeper than the one including all possibleconfigurations, showing that in a real case there are more environmental aspects withlow significance than randomly expected. This can be explained by the presence of some

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

RECT

EDPR

OOF

616617618

619

620621622623624625626627628629630631632633

634635

636637638639

Table 7t7:1

The general and specific categories of environmental aspects and the relative m score.t7:2t7:3 Category Description Implied Environmental Pressures m

t7:4 Energy When the aspect implies electricity consumption Greenhouse gases emission. Non-renewable resources depletion 10t7:5 Materials When the aspect implies generic material consumption Use of renewable resources. Non-renewable resources depletion 8t7:6 Water When the aspect implies water consumption Water withdrawal 7t7:7 Hazardous

compoundsWhen the aspect implies warehousing. leaking risks, spreading risks, lossdangerous materials (pesticide, asbestos paints) or dangerous waste

Release of solid/liquid hazardous compounds 20

t7:8 Soil When the aspect implies the occupation of land with buildingsor infrastructures, whose impacts imply waterproofing of soil,land occupation, soil movement

Soil movement. Soil impermeabilization. Light pollution.Soil occupation.

23

t7:9 Construction site Whole construction site life cycle, whose impacts include noise,dust, energy and matter consumption

Total Suspended Particulate and PM10. Physical agents. Vibrations.Soil movement. Use of renewable resources. Non-renewable resourcesdepletion. Waste production.

28

t7:10 Discharges When the activity implies the production of liquid dischargesand the operation of sewers and wastewater treatment facilities

Greenhouse gases emission. Smells. Eutrophicating discharges.Use of renewable resources. Waste production.

19

t7:11 Waste Urban-like waste production and impacts related to their disposal Greenhouse gases emission. Tropospheric ozone precursors emission.Waste production.

14

t7:12 Transport Impacts generated by traffic: fuel consumption, emissions to theair, noise, and vibrations

Greenhouse gases emission. Tropospheric ozone precursors emission,gaseous acidifying/eutrophicating compounds. Total SuspendedParticulate and PM10. Carbon monoxide. Benzene. Smells.Physical agents. Vibrations. Non-renewable resources depletion.

29

t7:13 Heating Heating of buildings and relative impact Greenhouse gases emission tropospheric ozone precursors emissiongaseous acidifying/eutrophicating compounds. Non-renewableresources depletion

23

t7:14 Factories Activities of factories and crafts and relative impact Smells. Industrial emissions (DPR 203/88). Release of solid/liquidhazardous compounds. Liquid industrial discharges. Use of renewableresources. Water withdrawal. Non-renewable resources depletion.Waste production.

44

t7:15 Agriculture Agricultural activity and relative impacts, including those dueto sludge spreading, toxic treatments, water consumption,ploughing,

Greenhouse gases emission. Gaseous acidifying/eutrophicatingcompounds. Release of solid/liquid hazardous compounds. Nutrientemission and sludge spreading. Eutrophicating discharges. Erosion.Soil occupation. Water withdrawal.

39

t7:16 Air When the activity only provokes changes in air quality Tropospheric ozone precursors emission gaseous acidifying/eutrophicatingcompounds. Total Suspended Particulate and PM10. Carbon Monoxide.Benzene. Smells.

22

t7:17 Electrosmog Electromagnetic pollution Physical agents 6t7:18 Erosion Soil erosion Soil movement. Erosion. 12t7:19 Mines Mining activity Physical agents. Vibrations. Soil occupation. Mining. Waste production. 31t7:20 Renewable

resourcesRenewable resources consumption Use of renewable resources 3

t7:21 CO2 emission Generic CO2 emission Greenhouse gases emission 5t7:22 Sludge Sludge spreading on agricultural land Nutrient emission and sludge spreading. Eutrophicating discharges. 12t7:23 Light pollution Any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare,

light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night,and energy waste

Light pollution 2

t7:24 Noise Unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by humanactivities, including noise emitted by means of transport,road traffic, air traffic, air traffic, and from sites of industrialactivity.

Physical agents 6

t7:25 Safety When the activity implies some kind of risk, specificallydescribed in the legislation.

t7:26 Public health When the activity implies an environmental risk which canaffect public health.

Table 8 t8:1

The values of m for public health and safety categories.t8:2t8:3Potential harm of the event m

t8:4Negligible negative effects 5t8:5Very limited effect. Localized impact. Low toxicity of involved chemicalst8:6Limited impact 15t8:7Low damage potential. The event can cause disturbance or transitorial

localized harm.t8:8Moderate impact 45t8:9Potential environmental damage. Possible chronic effects.t8:10Significant impact 135t8:11Both chronic and acute damage to species and habitats.t8:12Severe impact 405t8:13Both to the environment and to human beings. Species extinction,

loss of habitats.

8 D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

UNCO

Rdegree of environmental management in the administration before the implementationof a standardized EMS, which makes sense in a social setting where normative,economic and social driving forces anyway require environmental considerations.

2.5. First results from the testing of the method

The proposed method was developed and tested in four municipalities, effectivelyproviding four case studies for the research presented in this paper.

While developing the methodology, there was a^continuous cooperation for the

improvement of the definition of c and g parameters, and in particular on thecompilation of Tables 1 and 2, where examples are given to guide the choice of themunicipality officers. These two tables were modified several times in order to makethem representative of real-case situations and easy to use.

The municipalities also underlined the need for an organized informationmanagement system. This brought to the definition of a web-based environmentalinformation system, which both provides a way to store, consult and order all therelevant data and information, and supports the evaluation of the significance througha step-by-step procedure.

A first evaluation of the environmental aspects in the four municipalities gave thefollowing results (fixing a value of S equal to 250 as the limit for significance):

- Comune di Brisighella (ISO 14001 Reg.nr: 6853-E): 88 environmental aspects, outof which 3 significant ones;

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

- Comune di Riolo Terme (EMAS Reg.nr: IT-001003): 92 e.a., 5 significant ones;- Comune di Casola Valsenio (EMAS Reg.nr: IT-001123): 95 e.a., 4 significant ones;

and- Comune di Faenza (ISO registration on the way): 128 e.a., 12 significant ones.

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

OOF

640641642643644645646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657658659

660

661

662

663

664

665

Fig. 3. Distribution of all possible scores obtainable by a given S value, when one ormore of the parameters is modified by plus or minus one unit.

Fig. 5. The dots represent the frequency distribution obtained in a case studymunicipality in the Province of Ravenna. Each dot represents a mean score S for aninterval dS and the respective mean dN in normalized frequency. Due to the unevendistribution of values from the case study, for the higher values of S a wider dS has beenused, resulting in a bigger horizontal error bar. The full line represents the trend of data.The dashed line indicates the trend of randomly generated S values (from Fig. 4).

9D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

CThe list, the typology and the significance score of the environmental aspects were

approved by a specific decree in each municipality. The methodology was approved asan operational procedure in the EMSs of the town councils and has been accepted bythe third part verification bodies.

The results of the following years of implementation of the method in themunicipalities, together with the detailed description of the environmental informa-tion system, will be the issue of a forthcoming paper.

3.^̂Discussion

3.1. Similarities with other methods and quantitative measures of quality

3.1.1. The relevance index IRisk assessment is the methodological basis underpinning the

form of the I index proposed in this paper. Risk assessment is thedetermination of quantitative or qualitative value of risks related toconcrete situations and recognized threats (or hazards). Quantitativerisk assessment requires the calculation of the two components of a

UNCO

RRE 666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688Fig. 4. Frequency distribution of all possible values of S.

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPRrisk: the magnitude of the potential loss, L, and the probability p that

the loss L will occur. In a mathematical form:

Total risk = ∑iRi = ∑

iLipðLiÞ

where the total expected risk is the sum of all potential risks i.Financial decisions, such as fixing an insurance premium, consider

loss in currency terms. When risk assessment is used for public healthor environmental decisions, losses can be quantified in a commonmetric, such as a country's currency, or in some numerical measure ofa location's quality of life, or even in a simple verbal description of theoutcome, such as increased cancer incidence or incidence of birthdefects (Ricci, 2006; Lerche and Glaesser, 2006).

The same concepts have been applied in building up the I index,where the parameter fe (frequency

^–extension) represents the proba-

bility value and (m+ i+p) represents the loss term. In particular, mcould be read as the potential loss expressed in an adimensional unit,which considers the reversibility of the effect, its spatial extent andthe number of environmental dimensions affected by it, i the increasein the potential loss due to added impacts and p the loss in publicsupport due to the impact.

3.1.2. The governance index GThe governance index, G, indicates the capability of the organiza-

tion to improve its management procedures. This term is defined inthe EURO-EMASwork (EURO-EMAS, 2001) as: “a balance between theinfluence which an

^organization potentially could exert to control an

effect, against the degree to which this influence is being exerted.Thus, if an effect is important, but an authority has little influence, allof which is being exerted, then no matter how many resources areinvested, the potential to change and the marginal return will alwaysbe low. In contrast, if an authority has the major influence over animportant effect but is failing to exert this, then an effect could beconsidered to be significant”.

Thus, resources invested in the management of aspects in whichthe organization has control will result in environmental improve-ments and have higher return on investment.

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

C

689

690

691

692693694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

10 D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

UNCO

RRE

This is clearly a ROI (return on investment) problem, or better aresource allocation priorities issue, and the general form of theequation, as borrowed from economics, is:

Si = ∑isijwj

where Si equals the total score of the ith investment, sij equals thescore of the ith investment on the jth criterion and w is the weight ofthe jth criterion.

In our application, G is measured as a function of the product of cwith g, where c is the weighting factor of g, which in turn is a measureof the gap from the optimal management (i.e., a measure of therequired investment).

In this way relevant investments are rewarded only by high c andg scores.

Finally, I (a measure of the environmental hazard) and G (ameasure of potential improvement) are coupled together with thesame logic. As a result, higher values of I are strengthen by highervalues of G.

It is also worth of notice that in the normative field (ISO, ECRegulations) there is now a tendency to measure suitable andunsuitable actions with reference to an EMS or a health and safetymanagement system (see prEN 16001, 2008; BS OHSAS 18001:2007).The standard prEN 16001 aims to implement an energy managementsystem: “The organization shall maintain a register of opportunitiesfor saving energy or reducing costs or carbon emissions”. Theseopportunities, together with other issues, form the basis for settingtargets and energy management programs. The system will naturallydrive the management toward a ROI logic, as each item is weighted infinancial or carbon emission terms.

In this view, the G parameter represents a generic register ofopportunities against which the environmental performance is tested.

3.1.3. Known issuesThe method described in this paper is rule-based and prescriptive

and, as such, it cannot be validated in absolute terms. The results ofthe proposed method are not comparable with those of othermethods mentioned in literature, because of the differences in thescope, in the logic and in the composition of the terms. Consideringthe number of factors and the algebraic operations involving multi-plications, it is possible to state that this method tends to emphasizethe distances in the ranking, with respect to addictive methods as inPõder (2007), Zobel and Burman (2004).

Some others known issues and limitations are reported.The significance score does not reflect the specific compliance to

environmental laws: compliance is considered in another section ofthe EMS.

Major attention has to be given to the identification and the listingof the environmental aspects. As an example, one can consider theactivity of the “municipal premises management” and particularly,the heating of the school buildings and identify a single environmen-tal aspect, named “the heating of the schools”, or create an aspect foreach school run by the Municipality.

In the first case, it is more likely that the aspect will reach thesignificance level, while in the second case it is possible that none ofthe aspects will; in this second case, the sum of the significance scoresof all the environmental aspects generated by the heating activity willbe equal to or greater than the significance of just one environmentalaspect.

It is important to apply the same level of aggregation to all theactivities of the Municipality, in order to assure an equal treatment toall the related environmental aspects; otherwise, the more an activityis disaggregated at a very detailed level, the more probable it is thatthe small environmental aspects that will result will acquire lowscores of significance, even if their sum would have been significant.

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPR

OOF

In the light of that, ideally, the^shorter the

^activity list, the better,

because splitting the activities can result in an underestimation of thesignificance score if the same splitting pattern has not been applied tothe whole activity list. As a consequence, it may be better to aggregatethe

^activities in large and homogeneous activity centers. An activity

center includes the control and management of the premises, devices,infrastructure and includes those underlying environmental aspectswhose control and management

^are uniform (e.g. network manage-

ment for a supply network, technological innovation in a facility,application of best practices in a project, etc.) and which are allclassifiable in the same category of environmental aspect, according tothe classification proposed in Table 7.

Even if any term in the significance formula can be criticized, aparticular attention has to be paid to m and g:

– m derives from an impact matrix (Table 5) which is site-specific:municipalities, airports, linear systems (water/light supply, wastecollection, etc.), natural parks, mines, etc., entail different pressuresand different components. Therefore, if this method is to beapplied to organizations other than public authorities or to publicauthorities with very different features

^than those considered in

this work, it may be necessary to revise and adapt the contents ofthe impact matrix; and

– g should be defined in such a way as to ease the measurement ofthe distance from an hypothetical optimal environmentalmanagement.

Experience taught that several users are able to judge a conditionconcerning the parameters c, fe, m and p in the same way; moremisinterpretations arise concerning parameters g and i. In particular,it is important that the case definition of Table 2

^is clear to the

environmental management organization board.In order to contain subjective misinterpretation, it is important

that the evaluation be conducted by a group of persons and not justone; moreover, in the 4 Municipalities where the proposed methodhas been tested, it has been applied through an internet-based guidedprocedure, with a step-by-step assistance to the users which allowedfor very little individual error.

Finally, significance as defined in this paper does not assess the realcost of the investment: two environmental aspects at the same level ofrisk (I) and with the same potential improvement (G) could have verydifferent implementation costs and time scales.

3.1.4. Use of the significance as a performance indicatorThe measurability of EMS results has been widely discussed in

literature, and authors agree on the importance of measurability inorder to manage the environmental aspects (Ammenberg and Hjelm,2002; Dias-Sardinha and Reijners, 2001; Perotto et al., 2008).

EC Recommendation 2003/532/EC specially deals with themeasurement of the efficiency of an EMS, and proposes the use ofOperational Performance Indicators (OPIs), Management Perfor-mance Indicators (MPIs) and Environmental Condition Indicators(ECIs). MPIs include system indicators, which evaluate how theorganization is taking appropriate measures to ensure the manage-ment of environmental aspects associated with the environmentalimpacts. Examples of MPIs can be the number of reached targets orthe number of hours of training.

The continuous environmental improvement, which is the maintarget of an EMS, can be observed in Fig. 5 as a steeping of thedistribution curve, as higher significance aspects are dealt with by theorganization, thus lowering their score. The steepness of the slope canthen be used as one of the MPIs chosen to monitor the EMS of anorganization.

However, it is important to stress the fact that only a set ofindicators, belonging to all three cited categories, can give an orga-nization a proper measurement of the performance of its EMS.

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849Q7

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857858859860861862863864865866867868869870871872873874875

876877878879880881882883884885886887888889890891892893894895896897898899900901902903904905906907908909910911912913914915916917918919920921922923924925926927928929930931932933934935936937938939940941942943944945946947948949950951952953954955956957958959960961

11D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

UNCO

RREC

4.^̂Conclusions

The measurement of the environmental significance in a EMSentails a review of the environmental problems connected to themanagement conditions.

The application of the proposed method results in an ordered listof environmental priorities, which is obtained considering both themanagement and the environmental importance of the aspects. Ahigh significance resulting from this analysis does not express anegative evaluation; on the contrary, it indicates an aspect whichcould be greatly improved by a change in the environmental policy ofthe organization.

The assessment of the significance of an aspect could be summedup by a

^Boolean expression: a full competency AND a totally unfitting

strategy AND a serious environmental problem give the maximum ofsignificance; a null competency OR a total fitting strategy gives a nullsignificance.

The efficacy of an EMS implemented by a local authority should beevaluated by the decrease in the number of high significanceenvironmental aspects. This can be proposed as one indicator of theefficacy of the EMS, and according to Commission recommendation2003/532/EC (2003) it can be classified as a “Management Perfor-mance Indicator — MPI”.

In particular, the EMS should be implemented keeping a “zero Gprinciple” in mind: a high number of “zero G” cases

^indicate an

effective internal organizational structure capable of planning,executing, checking and reviewing a defined environmental strategy.It also indicates

^high knowledge content in the organization and

trained personnel.In one sense, the “zero G principle” is the driving force towards

continuous improvement of the administration in the EMAS scheme.This paper refers in particular to local authorities, the government

level closest to the citizen, whose participation in EMS implementa-tion throughout Europe has a positive influence on the environmentalhabits of the general public and can contribute to the implementationof the principles of sustainable development at local level.

5. Uncited reference

European Community, 196/2006

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Patrizia Giacomin, Federica Focaccia,Arianna Cecchi and the Municipalities of Brisighella, Casola Valsenio,Faenza and Riolo Terme for their contribution to the implementationand improvement of the methodology.

References

Ammenberg J, Hjelm O. The connection between environmental management systemand continual environmental performance improvements. Corp Environ Strategy2002;9(2):183–92.

BS OHSAS 18001 Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements;2007.

Cagno E, Di Giulio A, Trucco P. Amethodological framework for the Initial EnvironmentalReview (IER) in EMS implementation. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 1999;1(4):505–32.

Casale LM. Gli strumenti volontari per la governance di un territorio. Regioni&AmbienteannoVI n.10:72–75; 2005.

Clausen J, Keil M, Jungwirth M. The State of EMAS in the EU Eco-Management as a Toolfor Sustainable Development. Literature Study. European Conference “The EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme — Benefits and Challenges of EMAS II”. Brussels;2002. 26/27 June.

Darbra RM, Ronza A, Casal J, Stojanovic TA, Wooldridge C. Review: the self diagnosismethod: a new methodology to assess environmental management in sea ports.Mar Pollut Bull 2004;48:420–8.

Darbra RM, Ronza A, Stojanovic TA, Wooldridge C, Casal J. A procedure for identifyingsignificant environmental aspects in sea ports. Mar Pollut Bull 2005;50:866–74.

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

TEDPR

OOF

DemingWE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Centerfor Advanced Engineering Study; 1986.

Dias-Sardinha I, Reijners L. Environmental performance evaluation and sustainabilityperformance evaluation of organizations: an evolutionary framework. Eco ManagAudit 2001;8:71–9.

Emilsson S, Hjelm O. Implementation of standardised environmental managementsystems in Swedish local authorities: reasons, expectations and some outcomes.Environ Sci Policy 2002;5:443–8.

EURO-EMAS — Pan European Local Authority Eco-Management and Audit Scheme(LIFE98 ENV/UK/000605), 2001. Environmental Effects Evaluation (EEE): at theHeart of the Eco- Management and Audit Scheme for Local Government (Euro LA-EMAS). Downloaded from http://euronet.uwe.ac.uk/emas/library/eee.htm on 18september 2007.

European Commission — DG Environment EMAS web site http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/local/indexen.htm) visited on 13 september 2008.

European Community. Commission recommendation 2001/680/EC of 7 September2001 on guidance for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council allowing voluntary participation byorganisations in a community ecomanagement and audit scheme (EMAS).European Community; 2001 [OJEC, 17-09-2001, L 247/1].

European Community. Commission recommendation 2003/532/EC of 10 July 2003 onguidance for the implementation of regulation (EC) No. 761/2001 of the EuropeanParliament and of the council allowing voluntary participation by organisations in acommunity eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) concerning the selectionand use of environmental performance indicators. European Community; 2003[OJEC, 23-07-2003, L 184/19].

European Community. Commission Regulation (EC) No 196/2006 of 3 February 2006amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament andof the Council to take account of the European Standard EN ISO 14001:2004, andrepealing Decision 97/265/EC.

European Community. Regulation No 2001/761 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in aCommunity eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). Off J 2001;L 114:1 (24 April).

Gernuks M, Buchgeister J, Schebek L. Assessment of environmental aspects anddetermination of environmental targets within environmental management systems(EMS)— development of a procedure for Volkswagen. J Clean Prod 2007;15:1063–75.

Ghisellini A, Thurston D. Decision traps in ISO 14001 implementation process: casestudy results from Illinois certified companies. J Clean Prod 2005;13:763–77.

Hillary R. Pan-European assessment of EMAS implementation. Eur Environ1998;8:184–92.

Hillary R, Loth K. Environmental revies of general practice: implications for newprimary health care groups. Eco Manag Audit 1998;5:95-100.

IMPEL — European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement OfEnvironmental Law. Doing the right things II — step-by-step guidance book forplanning of environmental inspections; 2008.

International Standard Organisation. ISO 14004. Environmental management systemsand general guidelines on principles, systems and support techniques. Interna-tional Standard Organisation; 2004.

International Standard Organization. ISO 14001: environmental management sys-tems — specification with guidance for use. International Standard Organisation;1996.

Johnston A, Hutchison J, Smith A. Significant environmental impact evaluation: aproposed methodology. Eco Manag Audit 2000;7:186–95.

Lerche I, Glaesser W. Environmental risk assessment — quantitative measure,anthropogenic influences, human impact. Springer; 2006.

LozanoM, Vallés J. An analysis of the implementation of an environmental managementsystem in a local public administration. J Environ Manag 2007;82:495–511.

Lundberg K, Balfors B, Folkeson L. Identification of environmental aspects in an EMScontext: a methodological framework for the Swedish National Rail Administra-tion. J Clean Prod 2007;15:385–94.

Malcevschi S. Qualità ed impatto ambientale: teoria e strumenti della valutazione diimpatto. ETASLIBRI; 1991.

Marazza D. Applicazione del Sistema di Gestione Ambientale EMAS II alla città diFaenza: Analisi Ambientale e Comunicazione. Thesis; 2003.

Marazza D. Applicazione di sistemi di gestione ambientale alla scala locale. PhD Thesis;Università degli Studi di Bologna; 2007.

Parker T. How to measure significance — setting the parameters for environmentalperformance in an EMS. IIIEE; 1997. June.

Perotto E. Metodologie e tecniche per i Sistemi di Gestione Ambientale (Methodologiesand techniques for Environmental Management Systems). Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnicodi Milano; 2005 [in Italian].

Perotto E. Una proposta metodologica per l'identificazione e la valutazione degli aspettiambientali in ambito SGA. In: CIPA, editor IA Ingegneria Ambientale no. 5:245–255;2006.

Perotto E, Canziani R, Marchesi R, Butelli P. Environmental performance, indicators andmeasurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study. J Clean Prod 2008;16:517–30.

Põder T. Evaluation of environmental aspects significance in ISO 14001. Environ Manag2007;37(5):732–43.

PrEN 16001. Draft EN 16001 energy management systems — requirements withguidance for use. February; 2008.

Ricci FP. Environmental and human health risk assessment andmanagement. Principlesand Practices. Springer; 2006.

Ridolfi R, Andreis D, Panzieri M, Ceccherini F. The application of environmentalcertification to the Province of Siena. J Environ Manag 2008;86:390–5.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Environmental Management Systems: DoThey Improve Performance? — Project Final Report: Executive Summary —

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on

962963964965966967968969

970971972973974975976977

978

12 D. Marazza et al. / Environment International xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

National Database on Environmental Management Systems; 2003. Available athttp://ndems.cas.unc.edu/.

Vazzana C, Colom MR, Lazzerini G, Pacini C, Rovai M. WORK PACKAGE 3: Impostazionedi una metodologia di audit aziendale allo scopo di valutare la condizionalitàambientale delle aziende. Downloaded from http://www.unifi.it/sicpa/documenti/WP3-rapporto finale 2004.pdf on 10 september 2007.

Woodside G, Aurrichio P, Yturri J. ISO 14001 implementation manual. New York:McGraw-Hill; 1998.

UNCO

RREC

Please cite this article as: Marazza D, et al, Ranking environmental aspeclocal authorities, Environ Int (2009), doi:10.1016/j.envint.2009.10.011

Zobel T. Characterisation of environmental policy implementation in an EMS context: amultiple case study in Sweden. J Clean Prod 2008;16:37–50.

Zobel T, Burman J-O. Factors of importance in identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects in an EMS context: experiences in Swedish organizations.J Clean Prod 2004;12:13–27.

Zobel T, Almroth C, Bresky J, Burman J-O. Identification and assessment ofenvironmental aspects in an EMS context: an approach to a new reproduciblemethod based on LCA methodology. J Clean Prod 2002;10:381–96.

TEDPR

OOF

ts in environmental management systems: A new method tested on