Post-Decision Assessment

  • Gilbert Bergquist
  • Constance Bergquist
  • Katharine Jacobs

Abstract

Federal, state, and local governments spend billions of dollars annually in attempts to implement public policies, and private businesses and citizens spend billions more complying with the programs and regulations spawned by those policies. Almost as staggering as the amount of money that is spent is how little effort is made to find out what and how much is being achieved. This chapter will focus on a series of tools that should be useful to environmental decision makers in determining the character and level of impact that their policies, programs, and activities are having on the environment.

Keywords

Dioxide Ozone Shrinkage Explosive Dehydration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agency of Natural Resources. 1996. Environment 1996: An Assessment of the Quality of Vermont’s Environment. Waterbury, VT: The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  2. Askew, R.O’D. 1978. The Florida State Comprehensive Plan. Tallahassee, FL: Office of the Governor.Google Scholar
  3. Braat, L. 1991. The predictive meaning of sustainability indicators. In: Onno Kuik and Harmen Verbruggen, In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
  4. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1995. The State of the Chesapeake Bay, 1995. Washington, D.C.: USGPO.Google Scholar
  5. City and Borough of Sitka. 1996. Sitka Coastal Indicators Project. Sitka, AK: City and Borough of Sitka.Google Scholar
  6. Critical Trends Assessment Project. 1994. The Changing Illinois Environment: Critical Trends. Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources and The Nature of Illinois Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Environmental Quality Council. 1996. Our Montana Environment: Where Do We Stand? Helena, MT: Environmental Quality Council.Google Scholar
  8. Florida Center for Public Management. 1995. Apalachicola River and Bay Ecosystem Management Plan: Environmental Indicator System. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida State University. Also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fsu.edu/cpm/APALACH/index.html, visited Nov. 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. Florida Center for Public Management. 1996a. Hillsborough River and Bay Ecosystem Management Plan: Environmental Indicator System. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida State University. Also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fsu.edu/-cpm/HILLS/index.html, visited Nov. 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. Florida Center for Public Management. 1996b. Strategic Indicators of Success: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research and Florida State University. Also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fsu.edu/-cpm/FIPR/index.html, visited Nov. 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Florida Center for Public Management. 1996c. An Ecosystem Planning Model. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  12. Florida Center for Public Management. 1997a. Environmental Indicator Technical Assistance Series, Vol. 4, Directory of Environmental Indicator Practitioners. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  13. Florida Center for Public Management. 1997b. Final Review Draft, National Air and Radiation Indicator Manual. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  14. Florida Commission on Government Accountability to the People. 1996. Florida Benchmarks Report. Tallahassee, FL: Executive Office of the Governor.Google Scholar
  15. Florida Department of Education. 1995. A Resource Manual for the Development and Evaluation of Special Programs for Exceptional Students. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.Google Scholar
  16. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Strategic Assessment of Florida’s Environment (SAFE). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.fsu.edu/cpm/safe/safe.html, visited Nov. 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. Group on the State of the Environment. 1993. OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews OECD/GD (93) 179. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. October 15, 1993, p. 6.Google Scholar
  18. Hammond, A.L. 1995. Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission (KEQC). 1992. State of Kentucky’s Environment: A Report of Progress and Problems. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission.Google Scholar
  20. National Academy of Public Administration. 1995. Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction for EPA. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  21. National Academy of Public Administration. 1997. Resolving the Paradox of Environmental Protection: An Agenda for Congress, EPA, and the States. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration.Google Scholar
  22. Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment. 1993. National Planning for Sustainable Development: The Netherlands Experience. The Hague: The Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and the Environment.Google Scholar
  23. Office of Strategic and Long-Range Planning. 1991. Minnesota Milestones. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Planning.Google Scholar
  24. Office of Water. 1997. Environmental Indicators for Water Quality in the United States EPA-841-R-96–002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  25. Oregon Progress Board. 1994. Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress and Institutional Performance. Salem, OR: Oregon Progress Board.Google Scholar
  26. PDK National Study Committee on Evaluation. 1971. Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.Google Scholar
  27. Ragsdale, D.P. 1995. Washington’s Environmental Health 1995. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. Also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.wa.gov/ecology/weh95.html, visited Nov. 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  28. Scriven, M.S. 1967. The methodology of evaluation. In: R.W. Tyler, R.M. Gagne, and M. Scriven, Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 39–83.Google Scholar
  29. State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics. 1995. North Carolina Environmental Indicators. Raleigh, NC: Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. Environmental Goals for America with Milestones for 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilbert Bergquist
  • Constance Bergquist
  • Katharine Jacobs

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations