institutional, changes and specific changes to be
made. The institutional changes will be more difficult to affect in that they require overcoming current inertia. These changes are discussed
immediately below. Specific changes are discussed
in the “Monitoring More Effectively” section. Both
types of change will help the science of air pollution monitoring encourage sustainability.
Changes in Institutional Practices
Institutional changes that would make air pollution monitoring more relevant to sustainability
include the expansion of the conventional goals
of air pollution monitoring, working across intellectual disciplines, and involving the general public in the monitoring process.
Expansion of Goals Air pollution monitoring
practices are largely determined by the goals
underlying air pollution mitigation strategies.
When assessment of health impacts is the goal,
more monitoring happens in populated urban
areas. The hierarchy of goals in current air pollution mitigation tends to prioritize human health,
then visibility, then ecosystems [55], then possibly the prevention of economic damage from air
pollution, or even climate stability in rare cases.
Often studies are oriented toward only one of
these goals.
Sustainability requires holistic thinking and if
sustainability is the aim, prioritizing based on a
hierarchy of problems alone can reduce the potential benefits. Prioritizing air pollution impacts
immediately affecting humans (e.g., health
effects) over environmental impacts is selfdefeating. In the long term, it is possible that the
loss of ecosystem services arising from these
lower-priority environmental effects may be the
greater consequence to humans [55]. Holistic
thinking would take into account many more
goals in air pollution mitigation than health, visibility, ecosystem damage, economic loss, and climate. A holistic system would involve monitoring
air pollution with goals such as the development
of natural capital, resilience in human and natural
systems, environmental justice, improved urban
form, and accelerated learning and research. Studies with these goals in mind have been performed
infrequently, and they are fertile ground for new
research.
Natural Capital Natural capital is a metaphor
used to describe the natural features of ecosystems
that do work or provide services for humans and
the biosphere. It is useful in that it draws attention
to these features and their indispensable services
such as clean air, potable water, food, and building
materials while drawing comprehensible analogs
to economic concepts. Pollution that makes air a
health risk, destruction of the ozone layer by air
pollutants, acidification of ecosystems via acid
rain, and alteration to the climate by air pollutants
such as black carbon aerosol are all examples of
air pollution destroying natural capital. All of
Guderian’s categories [55] (“Damage to the Biosphere” section) are ways in which air pollution
depletes natural capital. Natural capital is often
extended to include the capacity of systems to
assimilate waste, such as the atmosphere’s capacity to assimilate air pollution, and the life support
functions provided by ecosystem components,
such as the ozone layer’s UV blocking
capabilities [108].
The assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the
US Clean Air Act, as mentioned, gave a mid-value
of the benefits of the Act of $22.2 trillion but
could not include the further benefits of preservation of natural capital [20]. All production and
consumption in the human economy depends on
natural capital [108, 109]. Minimum estimates of
the value of natural capital and ecosystem services
exceed the value of the human economy [110,
111]; yet, the discourse for the quantification of
natural capital has yet to be fully developed. Furthermore, efforts to monitor and quantify pollution’s impact on natural capital are rare [112],
making the inclusion of natural capital loss in
the Clean Air Act’s benefits or in the cost-benefit
analysis of new air quality policy options near
impossible. Data on natural capital are limited
and thus far unsatisfactory, and types of natural
capital, such as types more vulnerable to air
pollution versus types more vulnerable to
other damages, have yet to be disaggregated
408
Air Pollution Monitoring and Sustainability
made. The institutional changes will be more difficult to affect in that they require overcoming current inertia. These changes are discussed
immediately below. Specific changes are discussed
in the “Monitoring More Effectively” section. Both
types of change will help the science of air pollution monitoring encourage sustainability.
Changes in Institutional Practices
Institutional changes that would make air pollution monitoring more relevant to sustainability
include the expansion of the conventional goals
of air pollution monitoring, working across intellectual disciplines, and involving the general public in the monitoring process.
Expansion of Goals Air pollution monitoring
practices are largely determined by the goals
underlying air pollution mitigation strategies.
When assessment of health impacts is the goal,
more monitoring happens in populated urban
areas. The hierarchy of goals in current air pollution mitigation tends to prioritize human health,
then visibility, then ecosystems [55], then possibly the prevention of economic damage from air
pollution, or even climate stability in rare cases.
Often studies are oriented toward only one of
these goals.
Sustainability requires holistic thinking and if
sustainability is the aim, prioritizing based on a
hierarchy of problems alone can reduce the potential benefits. Prioritizing air pollution impacts
immediately affecting humans (e.g., health
effects) over environmental impacts is selfdefeating. In the long term, it is possible that the
loss of ecosystem services arising from these
lower-priority environmental effects may be the
greater consequence to humans [55]. Holistic
thinking would take into account many more
goals in air pollution mitigation than health, visibility, ecosystem damage, economic loss, and climate. A holistic system would involve monitoring
air pollution with goals such as the development
of natural capital, resilience in human and natural
systems, environmental justice, improved urban
form, and accelerated learning and research. Studies with these goals in mind have been performed
infrequently, and they are fertile ground for new
research.
Natural Capital Natural capital is a metaphor
used to describe the natural features of ecosystems
that do work or provide services for humans and
the biosphere. It is useful in that it draws attention
to these features and their indispensable services
such as clean air, potable water, food, and building
materials while drawing comprehensible analogs
to economic concepts. Pollution that makes air a
health risk, destruction of the ozone layer by air
pollutants, acidification of ecosystems via acid
rain, and alteration to the climate by air pollutants
such as black carbon aerosol are all examples of
air pollution destroying natural capital. All of
Guderian’s categories [55] (“Damage to the Biosphere” section) are ways in which air pollution
depletes natural capital. Natural capital is often
extended to include the capacity of systems to
assimilate waste, such as the atmosphere’s capacity to assimilate air pollution, and the life support
functions provided by ecosystem components,
such as the ozone layer’s UV blocking
capabilities [108].
The assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the
US Clean Air Act, as mentioned, gave a mid-value
of the benefits of the Act of $22.2 trillion but
could not include the further benefits of preservation of natural capital [20]. All production and
consumption in the human economy depends on
natural capital [108, 109]. Minimum estimates of
the value of natural capital and ecosystem services
exceed the value of the human economy [110,
111]; yet, the discourse for the quantification of
natural capital has yet to be fully developed. Furthermore, efforts to monitor and quantify pollution’s impact on natural capital are rare [112],
making the inclusion of natural capital loss in
the Clean Air Act’s benefits or in the cost-benefit
analysis of new air quality policy options near
impossible. Data on natural capital are limited
and thus far unsatisfactory, and types of natural
capital, such as types more vulnerable to air
pollution versus types more vulnerable to
other damages, have yet to be disaggregated
408
Air Pollution Monitoring and Sustainability