275 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013

USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO

ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO ASSESS REGIONAL
RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn
1
, Alexandru Bnic
2
, Alexandra Sandu
1
1
University Alexandru Ioan Cuza of Iasi, Bdul Carol I, No20 A, Iasi, Romania, iulianab2001@
yahoo.com
2
Iasi Branch of the Romanian Academy, Bdul Carol I, No. 8
Abstract
The paper investigates the capability of adapting the internationally recognized Environmental
Performance Index (EPI), developed by Yale University and Columbia University, to Romanian
realities at two geographic scales to specify spatial discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar or
dissimilar resilience capacity.
Keywords: environmental performance index, resilience capacity, spatial disparities, policy tool.
Introduction
In a globalized world, regions are confronting
multiple, sometimes unexpected stresses and
shocks that shape their social, economic and
environmental features. The regional capacity to
absorb and adapt to these perturbations depends
on their resilience or vulnerability
1
. An eficient
management of environmental issues is an
important component that deines the resilience
capacity of territories. It inluences the regional
capacity to absorb disturbances, to tackle
processes that have a cross-scale development
but also to innovate and to promote sustainable
ways of relating human society to nature.
Environmental performance is a core
component with the social and economic
performance in evaluating overall performance
of an entity
2,3
. There have been several attempts
to evaluation through indicators such as the
Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) (1999-
2005), Pilot Environmental Performance Index
(2002-2006) Environmental Performance Index
(EPI) (2008, 2010, and 2012) etc. starting from a
set of performance indicators developed by some
companies.
From 2006, EPI was developed by Yale Center
for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center
for Earth Information Science Information
Network of Columbia University, ranking most of
the states in the world in terms of the achievement
of environmental policies towards targets set.
EPI considers twenty ive indicators organized
into ten policy categories groups and two core
environmental policy objectives: Environmental
Health and Ecosystem Vitality. The inal scores
are obtained by using arithmetic means of those
being classiied into ive categories ranging
from the strongest to the weakest performance.
For Romania, EPI was: 2006 - 56.9 - 6; 2008 -
71.9 - 83; 2010 - 67.8 - 45, 2012 - 48.34 - 88
being a country with weaker performance
4
. The
paper investigates the capability of adapting the
internationally recognized EPI, to Romanian
realities to specify spatial discontinuities in order
to demonstrate similar or dissimilar resilience
capacity at county and regional level.
Material and Methods
Based on the EPI methodology
5
, the paper aims
to identify key indicators that would characterize
the most appropriate categories of environmental
policy, targets, weighting coeficients, achieving
inally a framework used to calculate the
EPI. Five environmental policy categories
were chosen for which twenty-one indicators
highlighting both strengths and limitations of
276
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
those were selected. For this, time series have
been used from various oficial databases (Table
1). To optimize the results, normalization was
made by using Z scores, then the aggregation was
made after giving certain weights to all indicators
considering importance and accuracy), the inal
score of (modiied) EPI being obtained by
cumulating those ive intermediate scores taking
into account their signiicance (+ or -).
Results and Discussions
Environmental performance index at county
and regional level takes into account ive
weighted categories of indicators concerning
different environmental inputs and outcomes that
shape the countys and regions attitude toward a
sustainable and resilient future.
Analyzing Water, sanitation and
environmental health, the registered high values
are overlapping in counties having powerful well
situated urban poles diffusing innovation and
modernization towards their rural hinterland. It is
the case of counties with a good population access
to facilities (Cluj, Brasov, Mures, Constanta) but
also the capital city. On the other hand, poor
counties are also confronting dificulties in
ensuring access to water, sewage and sanitation
for many of their localities (Vaslui, Botosani,
Teleorman, Olt, Ialomita).Concerning Energy
and climate change category, on one hand there
are areas with important potential in wind and
solar energy that were revaluated by important
investments during the last ive years (Tulcea,
Constanta, Caras-Severin, Vaslui). On the other
hand, small values correspond to the traditional
industrial areas that did not succeed in improving
their technologies (Dolj, Gorj, Hunedoara), but
also to those which did not valuate their green
energy potential. The Urban sustainability is
relevant for all units capacity to overcome issues
emerging from the concentration of people, goods
and activities in such environments. Therefore,
the best urban environmental performance is
thought to overlap areas from the western and
south-western part of Romania with large green
area per inhabitant (Harghita, Dolj) or large
share of population using public transportation
(Cluj, Timis, Bihor, Dolj). Opposite to that, the
lowest performance of urban environment is
shown by counties with crowded and noisy cities
(Bucharest, Brasov) with small green area per
inhabitant (Tulcea, Giurgiu, Ilfov) or without
an intensive use of public transportation (Ilfov,
Giurgiu, Vrancea, Gorj). The sustainability of
county and regional ecosystems can be assessed
when taking into account the share of protected
areas, the correlation between exploitation and
regeneration of forest areas and the eficiency of
agricultural area management, by soil protection
of degraded areas (highest values in Ialomita,
Calarasi or Braila). The worse situation concerning
ecosystems viability is observed in the regions
with large combustion plants, therefore emitting
signiicant quantities of SO
2
and NOx with
major acidiication and eutrophication effects
(Dolj Isalnita, Gorj Rovinari, Mehedinti
Drobeta Turnu Severin or Hunedoara) or other
industrial polluters still not restructured and
modernized (Galati, Vlcea, Prahova). The
actual environmental potential is also shaping
the indicators concerning the environmental
governance. The best positions are held by
counties with important natural and cultural
assets that needed to be protected by accessing
structural funds, by associating different actors
in order to fulill the environmental objectives or
by implementing speciic conservative measure
and actions (Tulcea, Constanta, Harghita, Gorj,
Bihor).
277 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
P
o
l
i
c
y

C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

W
e
i
g
h
t


I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
P
e
r
i
o
d

S
o
u
r
c
e
T
a
r
g
e
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
t
h
o
d
S
i
g
n
i
i
c
a
n
c
e
Water quality,
sanitation and
environmental
health
0.25 The number
of inhabitants
with access to
a local water
system
2008-
2011
NIS 100% 0.05 The number of
inhabitants with
access to a local
water system / total
population-weighted
with recent connection
to a local water system
coeficient
+
The number
of inhabitants
with access
to a local
sewage
network
2006-
2011
NIS 100% 0.075 The number of
inhabitants with
access to a local
sewage network / total
population-weighted
with recent connection
to a local sewage
network coeficient
+
The number
of inhabitants
with access
to sanitation
services
2009-
2011
LEAP, REAP,
RDP, CWMP,
NEPA
100% 0.075 The number of
inhabitants with access
to sanitation services/
the total number of
the population of the
county
+
Municipal
waste
generation
2006-
2011
LEAP, REAP,
RDP, CWMP,
NEPA
0.3 waste in
inhabitant/
year cf. EEA
0.025 Municipal waste
generated/ the total
number of population
-
Child
mortality
2000-
2011
NIS 4.59 / 1000
births - in
UE
0.025 The number of deaths
of infants under one
year old in a given
year per 1000 live
births in the same year
-
Energy and
Climate
Changes
0.155 Weight of
renewable
energy
2008-
2012
TRANSELE-
CTRICA
40%
Renewable
Energy to
the total
energy
produced
0.075 The total capacity of
renewable energy*the
diversity of renewable
energy coeficient/
the total number of
population
+
Annual
emission of
greenhouse
gases (GHG)
2007-
2011
LEAP, REAP,
NEPA
20 %
reduction
of GHG
compared
to the year
1990
0.08 CO
2
equivalent/GDP -
Table 1. Proposed framework for Romanian EPI at regional level
278
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
Urban
sustainability
0.115 The degree
of public
transport
utilization
2000-
2011
NIS - 0.015 The number of public
transport users /
the total number of
population (average
value)
+
The
accessibility
to green urban
areas
1991-
2011
NIS 26 sqm/
inhabitant
0.05 [The surface of
green urban areas/
the number of
population]* % from
the target
+
Urban noise 2006-
2011
LEAP, REAP,
NEPA
0 %
overlow of
the limit of
urban noise
accepted
0.05 The county total
vehicles * urban
population /the city
area (weighted with
the urban noise at
regional level)
-
Ecosystem
viability
0.21 The weight of
works done
for the soil
protection
2000-
2011
NIS 100% 0.025 The average surface of
the land with works
for soil protection / the
total surface affected
by the soil degradation
+
The index
of forest
regeneration
2009-
2011
NIS - 0.03 The surface with forest
regeneration /the total
forest area
+
The index
of forest
exploitation
2009-
2011
NIS - 0.025 The total volume of the
wood cut + the total
volume exploited / the
total forest area
-
The weight
of natural
protected
areas
2012 MECC - 0.02 The weight from the
total area of the county
of the natural protected
areas of national
interest
+
Annual
emission of
SO2
2007-
2011
LEAP, REAP,
NEPA
82%
reduction
of the
emissions
compared
to the year
2000
0.05 Average emission
between 2007-2011/
GDP
-
Annual
emission of
NOx
2007-
2011
LEAP, REAP,
NEPA
60%
reduction
of the
emissions
compared
to the year
2000
0.06 Average emission
between 2007-2011/
GDP
-
279 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
Environmental
governance
0.27 The
associative
capacity
for the
environmental
protection
2012 http://
database.ngo.
ro/
- 0.035 The number of NGOs
for the environment
protection/100000
urban habitants
+
Access to
structural
funds for
environmental
protection
2008-
2013
htttp:SOP
ENV
100%
absorption
of the SOP_
Env funds
0.085 Number of projects
* the value of the
projects coeficient/
total number of
projects
+
The degree of
achievement
of the action
concerning the
environmental
protection
2006-
2011
NEAP 100% 0.075 The number of actions
done in advance +
the number of actions
done / the total number
of actions
+
The average
number of
accidental
pollutions
2000-
2011
NEPA 0 0.05 The annual average
number of accidental
pollution
-
The number
of localities
which
implemented
Agenda 21
2000-
2012
NIS - 0.025 Localities with Agenda
21/total number of
the A21 localities at
national level
+
280
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
Fig.1 Distribution of (modiied) Environmental Performance Index and intermediates Z score
The non-associative agricultural low income counties were less effective in attracting funds for
environmental protection (Ialomita, Olt), confronted numerous accidents that implied pollution and
degradation of natural and artiicial ecosystems (Braila, Arges) or have dificulties in fulilling their
environmental obligations (Ialomita, Olt, Arges, Bistrita).
Fig.2 Modiied EPI at regional and county level
281 REPORTING FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2013
USING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDEX TO
ASSESS REGIONAL RESILIENCE IN ROMANIA
Iuliana Gabriela Breabn, Alexandru
Bnic, Alexandra Sandu
The overall aggregated EPI shows a highly
mixed territorial composition (ig.2). Best
situated are the counties with an important
natural potential or including important urban
poles with a signiicant development trend. The
irst ranked is a contrasting county - Tulcea, a
unit that addresses climate challenges very well
(low GHG emissions, investments in renewable
energy) and involves a good governance capacity
(NGOs, fund accessing etc.), without a sound
basis of social-economic development (low
access to water and sanitation, high infant death
rate, deicient urban transportation). By contrast,
the second, Cluj, shows good management
trends in all analyzed sectors of environmental
performance. The counties situated in the last
place have missed the opportunities to restructure
and properly address the environmental
challenges. Gorj is a county that has the worst
positions in almost all analyzed indicators: high
pollution, decreasing ecosystem vitality, lack
of proper endowments and services etc. On the
other hand, the rural and peripheral county of
Botosani also lacks the needed infrastructure
that could sustain both a clean environment and
a good quality of life, but it does sustain harmful
industrial activities and lately shows signs of
modernization (for e.g. investments in utilities
and in renewable energy facilities).
Conclusion
The present work investigates the capability
of adapting the internationally recognized
EPI, to Romanian realities to specify spatial
discontinuities in order to demonstrate similar
or dissimilar resilience capacity at county
and regional level. Resilience was a useful
framework in order to demonstrate the Romanian
territorial disparities born from the success or
failure in restructuring the communist approach
regarding production and environment. The
result put into evidence two forms of regional
resilience: some units are blocked in an
inadequate infrastructural and technological
background while others succeeded in reforming
and restructuring towards the new model induced
by the European Union. Therefore, they raised
their resilience capacity in front of all kinds of
challenges that may affect the social-economic
and environmental systems. The ive identiied
categories of indicators and the modiied EPI
obtained by their aggregation demonstrates that
the best environmental performance is obtained
when the natural potential is sustainably valuated
or/and when the general development includes
effective environmental performance. On the
other hand, the counties hosting large energy-
consuming industry or the peripheral poor rural
regions are the most vulnerable to environmental
degradation and lack a proper management.
The present attempt of imagining a complex
index based on the available statistical data aims
to provide a tool for local authorities to asses
and compare the environmental performance
at different scales. Obviously, there are certain
limitations of the present model: the indicators
are insuficient and some lack reliability. The
approach can be improved by including new
indicators and a more thorough statistical analysis
using longer time series.
References
1. Y. Maru, Resilient regions: clarity in concepts and challenges to systemic measurement, Socio-
economics and the Environment in discussion, CSIRO Working papers Series, (2010) 04
2. E. Reynaud, Dveloppement durable et entreprise: vers une relation symbiotique, Journe AIMS,
Atelier dveloppement durable ESSCA, (2003), Angers, p.1-15.
3. R. Mocanu Perdichi, Sustainable development index in Romania at county and regional level,
Revista Inovatia Social nr. 1/2009 pp. 1-19 in Romanian
4. J.W., Emerson, A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh, 2012
Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New
Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, (2012), p10
5. *** Towards a China Environmental Performance Index Final Report, New Haven: Yale Center
for Environmental Law and Policy (2010), p 14