Environmental indicators and indices are detailed and complex devices that attempt to describe not only ecological status but also the reactions of the biosphere to the demands placed on it by society. Researchers have proposed the use of hundreds of different environmental indicators to evaluate everything from socially responsible investing, to the effects of governmental policies, and even cultural survivability. However, an unqualified environmental or sustainability index cannot be developed given the innate complexity of natural systems in combination with the influence of human activities on those systems. The trend in indicator development is toward the compilation of environmental and sustainability data sets and indices that are more encompassing. Therefore, it becomes essential to identify the fundamental system attributes indicators are measuring and indices are aggregating.This paper provides an overview on the make-up and limitations of environmental and sustainability indicator sets based on the driver, pressure, state, impact, response (DPSIR) framework. It goes on to suggest a technique to categorize environmental and sustainability indicators based on their alignment with DPSIR. Environmental or sustainability indicators and their associated indexes can be arranged into categories that are distinct, well defined and transferrable, regardless of the degree or intensity of aggregation. By so doing, the underlying preferences inherent in the index or data set are revealed and the user/decision maker/policy advocate is able to evaluate the full context of the information being presented.

Most states assume administrative ownership of federal environmental programs and tailor them to match their special jurisdictional needs. However, with primacy comes a performance obligation and, given declining federal EPA budgets and staffing levels, the monitoring and enforcement burdens associated with environmental regulations have shifted to the states. As the most visible regulatory and administrative force responsible for protecting the nation's environment, the ability of state DEPs, DEQs, and DECs to effectively serve its citizens and constructively interact with the regulated community is critically dependent on the resources made available to it. Without adequate funding, the compliance and enforcement components of state environmental agency programs become mere paper tigersthreatening but ineffectual and without real substance. What factors influence the amount of spending states direct towards environmental programs? For the purposes of this paper, non-capital environmental expenditures between 2000 and 2009, adjusted to 2010 dollars, were chosen as the dependent variable for 49 states, exclusive of Hawaii because of its unique ecological and economic setting. Seven data sets were selected as independent variables; those possibly explaining or accounting for a state's environmental spending choices. These include: population, total state expenditures, Gross State Product or GSP, the manufacturing and mining sectors of Gross State Product (M&M GSP), unemployment rates, total amounts (in pounds) of chemica ls regulated by the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for discharges to air (fugitive and point source) and surface water, and health ranking score by state. A Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient was used to compare environmental expenditures for each state with the seven data sets. Population (in 15 states), GSP (in 21

To address and help mitigate potential public health and ecological impacts associated with contaminated soil, most state environmental agencies have promulgated cleanup standards or action level criteria that are based broadly on US Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment methodologies. These standards or criteria often are assembled into easy-to-use look-up tables that allow responsible parties (RPs) to determine quickly the extent of remediation that could be required simply by comparing site investigation data to the listed cleanup goal or standard. This paper compares and contrasts soil remediation standards and criteria for 20 common soil pollutants taken from state environmental agency look-up tables for five Middle Atlantic States: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. We examine the differences between numeric remedial goals for these pollutants and propose a relative rank for each state based on the overall degree of soil cleanup standard or criterion stringency. In order to identify and rank the stringency of the residential cleanup goals or standards published by the six Mid-Atlantic States, a three-step process was used that included compiling in one data set, the numerical (mg/kg), residential or unrestricted use look-up values published by state for each of the 20 contaminants; organizing and grouping those values in numerical sequence into one of three categories ranging from lowest (Most Restrictive) to highest (Least Restrictive); and then ranking each state by the number of first place finishes in each stringency category: Most Restrictive, Moderately Restrictive, and Least Restrictive. The socioeconomic consequences of these ranks were examined relative to their effects on gross state product, unemployment, and health.

State environmental agencies serve as first-responders during and after environmental disasters (man-made or natural), track and identify individuals and businesses that violate anti-pollution statutes, and function as scientific and data-gathering centers for policy makers.

State environmental agencies have developed into one of the primary mechanisms by which public health and quality of life is managed and protected within the United States. This analysis attempts to provide some understanding of what economic and political factors may be influencing funding for state environmental agencies in six New England states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The demographic makeup of New England, an area that is relatively well-off, highly educated, socially liberal, and diverse, make it the ideal place to test the relationships between state environmental agency spending and other key economic and political metrics.Financial data sets evaluated as part of this study include state spending on 11 common programmatic areas. Non-financial data sets in this analysis include the percentage of voters casting ballots by political party for Democratic presidential candidates, U.S. Senators, U.S Representatives, and Governors, as well as the composition by political party of the upper and lower houses of state legislatures. A Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was used to compare each state’s environmental expenditures with the 17 independent variable data sets.Natural Resource spending was positively correlated with Education spending in five states. Total (state) Expenditures also correlate positively with Natural Resource spending. General Revenues, similar to Total Expenditures, positively correlate with Natural Resource spending in five states, suggesting that state environmental agencies are effective bureaucratically in lobbying for and obtaining needed funding. State environmental agencies funding correlated positively with the percent of the electorate voting for the Democratic Presidential candidate in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. This correlation is similar to those noted by other researchers, but the remaining state-level political data sets were less useful in establishing potential relationships.