Environmental Engineering For The 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges

Environmental Engineering for the 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges
Environmental
Engineering for the
21st Century: Addressing
Grand Challenges
COMMITTEE ON THE GRAND CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Division on Earth and Life Studies

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology
Board on Earth Sciences and Resources
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (DEPS)
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Board on Life Sciences
NAE Office of Programs
Ocean Studies Board
Water Science and Technology Board
A Consensus Study Report of
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
This activity and material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. 10002678, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and
Environmental Research, under Award No. DE-SC0016218, and the California Delta
Stewardship Council under California State Award No. 1725. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the
views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47652-2

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47652-6
https://doi.org/10.17226/25121
Cover photo credit: Prashanth Vishwanathan/IMWI
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313;
http://www.nap.edu/.
Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.

Environmental Engineering for the 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25121.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was established in 1863 by an Act of

Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to
advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected
by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is
president.
The National Academy of Engineering (NAE)was established in 1964 under the

charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering
to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary
contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) formerly the Institute of Medicine)

was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences
to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their
peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is
president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice
to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform
public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and
research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s
statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include
findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by
the committee and committee deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a
rigorous and independent peer review process and it represents the position of the
National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium,
or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions
contained in proceedings are those of the participants and not endorsed by other
participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies,
please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.


Environmental
Engineering for the
Grand Challenges
COMMITTEE ON GRAND CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
Domenico Grasso, Chair, University of Michigan, Dearborn

Craig H. Benson (NAE), University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Amanda Carrico, University of Colorado, Boulder
Kartik Chandran, Columbia University, New York City
G. Wayne Clough (NAE), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
John C. Crittenden (NAE), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Daniel S. Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA
Steven P. Hamburg, Environmental Defense Fund, Belmont, MA
Thomas C. Harmon, University of California, Merced
James M. Hughes (NAM), Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Kimberly L. Jones, Howard University, Washington DC
Linsey C. Marr, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
Robert Perciasepe, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Arlington, VA
Stephen Polasky (NAS), University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Maxine L. Savitz (NAE), Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, CA
Norman R. Scott (NAE), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
R. Rhodes Trussell (NAE), Trussell Technologies, Inc., Pasadena, CA
Julie B. Zimmerman, Yale University, New Haven, CT
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE STAFF
Stephanie E. Johnson, Study Director, Water Science and Technology Board
Nancy Huddleston, Communications Director, Division on Earth and Life Studies
Kara Laney, Senior Program Officer, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources
Anne Johnson, Consultant Science Writer
Brendan R. McGovern, Research Assistant, Water Science and Technology Board
v


Environmental
Engineering for the
Grand Challenges
PREFACE
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a

committee of prominent environmental engineers, scientists, and policy experts to
identify grand challenges and opportunities in environmental engineering for the
next several decades. The committee was also asked to describe how the field of
environmental engineering and its aligned sciences might evolve to better address
these needs. The study was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the
Department of Energy, and the Delta Stewardship Council (see Appendix A for the
full statement of task).
Rather than focusing on specific environmental engineering challenges, the

committee chose to identify the most pressing challenges of the 21st century
for which the expertise of environmental engineering will be needed to help
resolve or manage. The committee sought input from the scientific community,
nongovernmental organizations, and the broader public and benefited from ideas
produced from four prior Association of Environmental Engineering & Science
Professors workshops on Grand Challenges.1 In total, over 450 ideas for grand
challenges were submitted. This report identifies five broad and interconnected
challenges that need to be addressed to ensure that people and ecosystems
thrive. For each challenge, the committee discussed areas where knowledge and
technological advances are needed and provided examples of potential roles for
environmental engineers.
The study is modeled on the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering, a 2008 study
from the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) that identified 14 engineering
challenges that, if achieved, have the potential to radically improve life on the
planet. The NAE Grand Challenges cover health, sustainability, security, and joy
of living, and several overlap with the challenges discussed here, including to
provide access to clean water, develop carbon sequestration methods, make solar
energy affordable, manage the nitrogen cycle, and restore and improve urban
infrastructure. The NAE study and subsequent outreach efforts have inspired
numerous educational initiatives, including the undergraduate NAE Grand
Challenges Scholars Program aimed at creating engineers specially equipped to
address 21st century challenges. The committee hopes that this study will help
vii

produce substantive progress toward meeting the critical challenges of the 21st
century through advances in environmental engineering education, research, and
practice.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published
report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for
quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review
comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this
report: Robert F. Breiman, NAM, Emory University; Paul R. Brown, Paul Redvers
Brown Inc; Virginia Burkett, U.S. Geological Survey; Greg Characklis, University of
North Carolina; Paul Ferrão, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; Peter Gleick,
NAS, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security;
Patricia Holden, University of California, Santa Barbara; James H. Johnson Jr.,
Howard University; Michael C. Kavanaugh, NAE, Geosyntec Consultants; Daniele
Lantagne, Tufts University; David Lobell, Stanford University, Al McGartland, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; James R. Mihelcic, University of South Florida;
Patrick M. Reed, Cornell University; Jerry L. Schnoor, NAE, University of Iowa;
Peter Schultz, ICF International; John Volckens, Colorado State University; Robyn S.
Wilson, Ohio State University; and Yannis C. Yortsos, NAE, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and
suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations
of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this
report was overseen by Chris Hendrickson, Carnegie Mellon University, and Jared
Cohon, Carnegie Mellon University. They were responsible for making certain that
an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the
standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully
considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring
committee and the National Academies.
1
See https://aeesp.org/nsf-aeesp-grand-challenges-workshops.
viii

Environmental
Engineering for the
Grand Challenges
CONTENTS
Introduction / 1
Grand Challenge 1: Sustainably Supply Food, Water, and Energy / 8
Grand Challenge 2: Curb Climate Change and Adapt to Its Impacts / 26
Grand Challenge 3: Design a Future Without Pollution or Waste / 44
Grand Challenge 4: Create Efficient, Healthy, Resilient Cities / 54
Grand Challenge 5: Foster Informed Decisions and Actions / 66
The Ultimate Challenge for Environmental Engineering:

Preparing the Field to Address a New Future / 78
Endnotes and Figure Sources / 90
appendices
A Statement of Task / 101
B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members / 102
ix


Environmental
Engineering for the
Grand Challenges
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental engineers support the well-being of people and the planet in areas
where the two intersect. Over the decades the field has improved countless lives
through innovative systems for delivering water, treating waste, and preventing and
remediating pollution in air, water, and soil. These achievements are a testament
to the multidisciplinary, pragmatic, systems-oriented approach that characterizes
environmental engineering.
The future holds daunting challenges for human society and our environment.
Populations are expanding, demand for resources is increasing, the climate is
changing, and humanity’s impacts on the planet continue to mount. Will we
be able to achieve a better quality of life for our growing population without
compromising the ability of future generations to achieve the same?
This study, authored by 18 of the nation’s leading environmental engineers,

scientists, and policy experts under the auspices of the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, outlines the crucial role for environmental
engineers in this period of dramatic growth and change. The report identifies five
pressing challenges of the 21st century that environmental engineers are uniquely
poised to help advance:
1: Sustainably supply food, water, and energy
2: Curb climate change and adapt to its impacts
3: Design a future without pollution and waste
4: Create efficient, healthy, resilient cities
5: Foster informed decisions and actions
The report’s vision is ambitious. The challenges ahead are substantial. Yet every
day, environmental engineers are making progress, both by applying existing
knowledge and skills and by advancing research and innovation to generate new
insights and achievements. By refocusing and redoubling its efforts to advance
practical, impactful solutions for humanity’s multifaceted, vexing problems, the
field of environmental engineering can build on its past successes—and chart new
territory—in the decades ahead.
xi


INTRODUCTION
Since the dawn of civilization, humans have transformed the environment

to accommodate and satisfy their needs. Advances in agriculture, mining,
manufacturing, transportation, and energy production, for example, have
dramatically improved standards of living over the centuries. However, this progress
has been achieved at a cost to Earth’s natural systems and has yet to be more
equitably distributed to all. Human impacts on the environment accelerated with
the advent of the Industrial Age and the subsequent rapid growth of the human
population, creating significant areas of friction between human societies and the
environment. At its worst, the human presence is manifest in pollution hanging over
cities; sprawling development in place of forests; hazardous chemicals permeating
rivers, lakes, and soil; vanishing species; and a changing climate.
The field of environmental engineering emerged to support human and

environmental needs while mitigating adverse impacts associated with human
activities. Propelled by public sentiment in support of protecting natural resources
and human health and by laws aimed at curtailing some of the most egregious
forms of environmental damage, the field has achieved remarkable successes over
the past several decades. However, the solutions of the past will not be sufficient
to address the problems of the future. As humanity faces mounting and diverse
challenges, the field of environmental engineering must build on its unique
strengths, inspire and implement visionary solutions, and continue to evolve in
order to serve the best interests of people and the planet.
What Is Environmental Engineering?

Environmental engineering is best characterized by the vast array of issues that
its practitioners address. Broadly, environmental engineers design systems and
solutions at the interface between humans and the environment. Historically, this
work focused on the provision of water and treatment of wastewater, drawing upon
the field’s roots in sanitation system design and public health protection. In the
1970s the term environmental engineering replaced the previous term, sanitary
engineering, as the field’s focus broadened to include the mitigation of pollution
in air, water, and soil. Around the same time, the field’s approach to design shifted
from a focus on engineered treatment systems toward a greater emphasis on
ecological principles and processes. More recently, the field has expanded further
to address emerging contaminants, chemical exposures from goods and materials,
and endeavors such as green manufacturing and sustainable urban design.
To support these activities, many environmental engineers have acquired expertise

in a wide variety of domains, including hydrology, microbiology, chemistry,
systems design, and civic infrastructure. About half of practicing environmental
engineers have graduate degrees; practitioners apply their craft to a wide range of
Introduction | 1

areas in industry, government, nonprofits,

and academia. Trained to take a systems-
level approach to problems, environmental
engineers often act as a bridge among
scientists, other engineers, decision makers,
and communities to assess options, weigh
trade-offs, and design cost-effective,
pragmatic solutions.
The discipline of environmental engineering

has no single, widely agreed-upon definition.
This report does not focus on defining the field
as it is, but rather seeks to outline a vision for
the ways in which environmental engineering
expertise, skills, and areas of focus can help
address future challenges. Fulfilling this vision
will require a new model for environmental
engineering practice, education, and research—
building on and complementary with the field’s traditional core competencies—as
outlined in the report’s final chapter.
New Pressures in the 21st Century

In this century, human pressure on the environment will accelerate. Life expectancy
has increased substantially across the globe over the past several decades as living
conditions have improved and is projected to continue to increase.5 The United
Nations predicts that by 2050 the world’s population will reach roughly 9.8
billion people, an increase of approximately 30 percent from today.6 As human
BUILDING ON A REMARKABLE LEGACY

Although the term environmental engineering has been in use crises sparked the creation of new laws aimed at preventing
for only a few decades, the field’s roots reach back centuries. and mitigating pollution in air, water, and soil. After London’s
Romans built sophisticated sewage disposal and water supply Great Smog of 1952 killed thousands of people, the Parliament
systems, some of which still deliver water to Rome today. In of the United Kingdom passed the first major legislation aimed
the new world, the Inca and the Maya developed innovative at limiting emissions from households and industries. In the
systems to distribute clean water to great cities such as Cusco United States, debilitating smog over Los Angeles and other
and Tikal. The beginnings of modern-day environmental
engineering are typically traced to the creation of the
first municipal drinking water filtration systems, the first
continuously pressurized drinking water supply, and the first
large-scale municipal sanitary sewer in 19th century London.
These and subsequent advancements markedly improved
people’s quality of life by curbing the spread of disease. In
the early 20th century, chlorine-based disinfection for water
treatment and advances in wastewater treatment contributed
to a drastic decline in urban mortality rates.1
Environmental engineering continued to evolve
throughout the 20th century as a series of environmental
2 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

populations grow, so too will humanity’s demand for natural resources and impacts
on natural systems. These impacts will play out in different ways in different areas.
At least two-thirds of the population in 2050 will live in cities, compounding
pressures on urban systems that provide clean water, food, energy, and sanitation.
Rapid economic and population growth in lower-income countries threatens to
overwhelm basic infrastructure and drive sharp increases in pollution, just as the
developed world experienced in the early 20th century. At the same time, countries
of all income levels face new types of challenges—many driven by climate
change—that existing policies, technologies, and infrastructures are not equipped
to handle.
Most environmental engineering expertise is concentrated in developed countries,

but some of the most vexing challenges are concentrated in the world’s poorer
regions. More than 10 percent of humanity continue to live off less than $1.90
per day and lack access to basic services and economic opportunity.7 More than
2 billion people still lack access to basic sanitation services,8 more than 1 billion
are without electricity,9 and more than 3 billion people rely on household energy
sources that produce dangerous indoor air pollutants.10 Unsafe air and water
rank among the major contributors to disease and death worldwide.11 Despite
economic progress, meeting the basic human needs of the large swath of the
world’s population who live in extreme poverty will remain a monumental task in
the decades ahead.
At the same time, many more people are experiencing an improved standard of
living. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty has been reduced by
half since 1990.12 Recent economic growth in China, Brazil, and India has been
lifting about 150 million people out of poverty and into the middle class each
year.13 Although undoubtedly positive for people’s well-being and quality of life,
this growth also has the potential to create or exacerbate some of the same types
U.S. cities from vehicle emissions led to the passage of the with new analytical methods and modeling tools to quantify
Clean Air Act of 1970. Environmental engineers, working with and reduce contamination of rivers and streams.
atmospheric chemists and other scientists, responded by Another infamous episode focused the public and
developing models of pollution and its sources, monitoring environmental engineers on contamination of soils and
emissions, helping ensure compliance with regulations, groundwater. More than 21,000 tons of hazardous chemicals
and designing and implementing technologies to improve dumped into a 70-acre industrial landfill near Love Canal,
air quality. Such efforts resulted in a two-thirds drop in U.S. New York, during the 1950s and 1960s seeped into waterways
emissions of common air pollutants between 1970 and 2017. 2 and soil, affecting the health of hundreds of residents. 3
The same period saw a major movement to reduce water Responding to the disaster, Congress in 1980 passed a law
pollution. After the 1969 fire on Ohio’s Cuyahoga River called launching the Superfund program, which called on the U.S.
public attention to the widespread practice of dumping Environmental Protection Agency to develop remedial actions
industrial and household wastes into rivers and streams, the and treatment technologies to reduce pollutants at designated
U.S. Clean Water Act of 1972 banned the discharge of pollutants sites.4 Environmental engineers today play a crucial role in
from pipes and other point sources into navigable waters carrying out this charge by providing technical expertise to
without a permit. In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking assess and remediate existing contaminants and by designing
Water Act establishing standards for public water systems. new processes and disposal methods to prevent future
Environmental engineers work to support the enforcement of contamination.
these laws by developing water treatment technologies along
Introduction | 3

of environmental problems that wealthier countries have

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS grappled with in the past. Some mistakes of the past may
A vision for responsibly improving quality of be avoided with the benefit of hindsight, public awareness,
life in the world’s poorer regions is embodied and new technology. Nonetheless, it is expected that
in the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for increased purchasing power and consumption preferences
Sustainable Development, which articulates of the world’s growing middle class will generally lead
17 strategic goals designed “to end poverty, to increases in resource and energy use, with negative
protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for implications for ecosystems, biodiversity, and human
all.”14 While environmental quality has the health. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development
potential to contribute to all of these goals, at Goals offer a framework to guide economic development
least 10 of them relate directly or indirectly to while minimizing its potential downsides (see sidebar). The
the work of environmental engineers: grand challenges for environmental engineers outlined in
this report align closely with many of these goals.
Goal 2: Zero Hunger
Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being In addition to drivers related to population growth,
Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation urbanization, poverty, and economic development, climate
Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy change adds new complexity to nearly every environmental
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and challenge. Expected increases in extreme weather, including
Infrastructure heat waves, drought, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods place
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities enormous strain on water supplies, agriculture, and the
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and built environment. Global warming is already contributing
Production to the reemergence of pathogens and spread of insect-
Goal 13: Climate Action borne diseases to new regions. For the increasing number
Goal 14: Life Below Water of people living near a coast, sea-level rise combined with
Goal 15: Life on Land storm surge has become a threat to life and property. These
trends pose urgent threats in developing and developed
countries alike.
A New Vision for Environmental Engineering

Environmental engineers were instrumental in pulling the United States and
other countries out of the depths of environmental crises such as Love Canal
and urban smog. Rivers in Ohio no longer catch fire. Cholera and other
once-prevalent waterborne diseases are now so rare in the United States that
lightning strikes pose a greater threat. These successes, worthy of celebration,
reflect the value of the field’s approach to creating systems and solutions that
are grounded in sound scientific, ecological, and engineering principles while
being cost-effective, feasible, and acceptable for the many stakeholders that
environmental engineers serve.
But these battles are not over. Pollution and waterborne diseases persist around
the globe. Rivers are still catching fire. Billions of people suffer from inadequate
access to clean water, food, sanitation, and energy. As the human population
continues to grow, demands intensify and humanity’s mark on the planet
deepens. In short, the challenges ahead are of a different nature and a larger scale
than those faced in the past.

Today’s environmental engineers also operate in a different policy context than the
one that fueled past achievements. The types of sweeping laws that directed public
attention and funding toward large-scale infrastructure expansion, basic research,
and technology development for environmental remediation in the 1970s-1990s
have not emerged to address today’s national and global challenges. Legislation
may not be the primary drivers of future innovation.
As we face this period of dramatic growth and change, it is time to step back and
consider new roles that environmental engineers might play in meeting human
and environmental needs. Although efforts to characterize, manage, and remediate
existing environmental problems are still essential, environmental engineers
must also turn their skills and knowledge toward the design, development, and
communication of innovative solutions that avoid or reduce environmental
problems. The core competencies of environmental engineering, which emphasize
not only specific goals related to human needs and the condition of the environment
but holistic consideration of the consequences of our actions, are uniquely valuable
in developing the solutions that will be needed in the coming decades.
Introduction | 5

The report identifies five pressing challenges for the 21st century that environmental
engineers are uniquely poised to help advance:
1: Sustainably supply food, water, and energy
2: Curb climate change and adapt to its impacts
3: Design a future without pollution and waste
4: Create efficient, healthy, resilient cities
5: Foster informed decisions and actions
These grand challenges stem from a vision of a future world

where humans and ecosystems thrive together. Although this
is unquestionably an ambitious vision, it is feasible—and
imperative—to achieve significant steps toward these challenges
in both the near and long term.
➀ ➁
➄ The challenges provide focal points for evolving environmental
engineering education, research, and practice toward increased
➃ ➂ contributions and a greater impact. Implementing this new
model will require modifications in the educational curriculum
and creative approaches to foster interdisciplinary research on
complex social and environmental problems. It will also require
broader coalitions of scholars and practitioners from different
disciplines and backgrounds, as well as true partnerships
with communities and stakeholders. Greater collaboration with economists,
policy scholars, and businesses and entrepreneurs is needed to understand and
manage issues that cut across sectors. Finally, this work must be carried out with
a keen awareness of the needs of people who have historically been excluded
from environmental decision making, such as those who are socioeconomically
disadvantaged, members of underrepresented groups, or those otherwise
marginalized.

The inevitable challenges we will face over the next 30 to 50 years are daunting,
but a better future is possible. By learning from the past, capitalizing on existing
knowledge and skills, and growing into new roles, environmental engineers have
the power to engineer a healthier and more resilient world.
INSPIRED BY ENGINEERING GRAND CHALLENGES

This report was inspired in part by the National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges
for Engineering, announced in 2008. The effort is aimed at inspiring young engineers
across the globe to address the biggest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.
An international group of leading technological thinkers identified 14 challenges within
the crosscutting themes of sustainability, health, security, and joy of living. Seven of those
challenges (in green) require significant input from environmental engineers.
Advance Personalized Learning Secure Cyperspace
Provide Access to Clean Water

Make Solar Energy Economical
Enhance Virtual Reality Provide Energy from Fusion
Reverse-Engineer the Brain Prevent Nuclear Terror
Engineer Better Medicines Manage the Nitrogen Cycle
Advance Health Informatics Develop Carbon Sequestration Methods
Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure Engineer the Tools of Scientific Discovery
Introduction | 7

GRAND CHALLENGE 1:
Sustainably Supply
Food, Water, and
Energy
Providing life’s essentials—food, water, and energy—for the

world’s growing population is a major challenge. Doing so in
a manner that does not threaten the environment and the health or
productivity of future generations is an even bigger challenge.
The challenges differ in high- and low-income countries. In low-income countries

the infrastructure to supply water and energy and manage wastewater in many
cases simply does not exist, and economic and social barriers put basic services
out of reach for billions of people. Nearly 800 million people worldwide are
undernourished;15 nutrition-related factors contribute to 45 percent of deaths
in children under age 5.16 In 2015, 844 million people had no access to safe
drinking water, and 2.3 billion people did not have ready access to basic sanitation
services.17 More than 1 billion people, or about 1 in 7 globally, live without
electricity.18 These issues are most severe in sub-Saharan Africa and central and
southern Asia.19 High-income countries have mature production and delivery
systems to provide food, water, and energy to their populations, but these systems
often waste resources and discharge harmful pollutants. In many places, water and
sanitation infrastructure has outlived the planning horizon under which it was built,
creating large challenges in maintaining expected water quality and reliability.

Oceania 65 20
Europe 25 21
Asia 81 9
Americas 48 14
Africa 81 15
World 69 12
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agricultural Industrial Municipal
FIGURE 1-1. Water withdrawal percentages by sector and continent, 2010.
Complexities arise from the fact that food, water, and energy are inextricably
linked. About 70 percent of global water withdrawals are for agricultural purposes
(irrigation, livestock, or aquaculture; Figure 1-1), and agriculture represents about
80-90 percent of all consumptive use.20 Agricultural activities release nutrients and
contaminants into groundwater and downstream water bodies, degrading terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems and threatening the water resources on which humans
depend.21 The food production and supply chain is estimated to consume about 30
percent of global energy and produce about 22 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions (including landfill gas from food wastes), although there is uncertainty
with such calculations.22 The global energy mix remains dominated by fossil fuels,
the extraction and the use of which involve water-intensive
processing and contribute to water pollution.
In the decades ahead, sustainably supplying food, water,

and energy to all will be made more difficult by population
growth, increasing standards of living, and climate change.
Innovation will be needed to augment supplies, improve
distribution, reduce waste, increase efficiency, and reduce
demand. Because the food-water-energy nexus is so tightly
interwoven, potential solutions or demands in one area often
have repercussions in another. A holistic, systems-oriented
approach is crucial to balancing resource demands as we
strive to meet the basic needs of our growing population.
Advancing Sustainable Agriculture to

Feed Earth's Growing Population
Feeding a growing global population while minimizing impacts on water, soil, and
climate poses substantial challenges during the next several decades.23 By 2050,
there are likely to be an additional 2.6 billion people to feed, and gains in affluence
will increase energy use and the demand for water- and resource-intensive diets
Sustainably Supply Food, Water, and Energy | 9

of meats and dairy. Climate change exacerbates pressures on water supplies and
agricultural productivity24 and increases the likelihood of disruptions in the food
supply chain from storms and other factors.25
Almost all land area available for economically feasible food production is in use, and
much of the remaining land, such as tropical forests and grassland preserves, sustains
biodiversity and other important ecosystem services sustainability.26 Increasing food
supply will need to occur, not by adding new land, but by increasing efficiency and
yields in existing agriculture, decreasing food waste, and changing dietary patterns.
Increasing Agricultural Yields with Reduced Environmental Impacts

Over the past century, agricultural yields have increased steadily through advances
in mechanization and the use of fertilizers, pesticides, plant breeding, and
irrigation technology. In the United States, such advances have ensured a safe and
reliable domestic food supply while also generating a trade surplus in agricultural
commodities and foods.
Advances in agricultural technologies, data collection, and computational science

provide opportunities to further enhance efficiencies and increase yields. Sensors
can be designed to detect and diagnose plant diseases in the field or in greenhouses
to reduce lost agricultural productivity.27 Precision applications of pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizer can dramatically reduce agrochemical use without
compromising yields.28 A better understanding of the microbiome in agriculture
could improve soil structure, increase feed efficiency and nutrient availability, and
boost resilience to stress and disease.29 Selective breeding, genetic engineering,
and gene editing could be used to develop crop varieties that maintain productivity
under changing climate conditions.30
The recent explosion in the availability of data presents many opportunities to

improve the resilience and efficiency of food and agricultural production. To inform
decisions effectively, analysis of datasets must account for multiple factors. For
example, understanding yields requires analysis of plant
genetics, farm management practices, local environmental
conditions, and socioeconomic factors over a range of
spatial and temporal scales. Data standards and tools
that can manipulate and analyze such large and complex
datasets are needed to facilitate these advances.31
In low-income countries, some innovative efforts are

improving yields and efficiency in crop production while
minimizing environmental impacts. In India, for example, a
new tractor-mounted seeder has been developed that allows
wheat to be planted in rice paddies without burning the straw
remaining after the rice harvest, a practice that simultaneously
reduces air pollution by avoiding biomass burning and
increases yields by retaining organic matter in the soil.32
Advances in low-cost sensors and cell phone–based tools
designed for agriculture could provide guidance to farmers on
appropriate application rates of seeds, water, and fertilizer to
maximize yields and prevent unnecessary inputs.
FIGURE 1-2. Wheat seeder designed to eliminate crop
waste burning in rice paddies in India.

Today, some yield improvements could come at the cost of greater environmental
burdens. For example, it has been estimated that it may not be possible to further
increase U.S. soybean yields without sacrificing water quality and soil resources
in surrounding ecosystems.33 Environmental engineers can advance sustainable
agriculture by working collaboratively with agricultural engineers and evaluating
environmental benefits and impacts of innovative strategies in both low- and high-
income settings.
Recent innovations in indoor aquaculture and vertical farming are expanding

the possibilities of where emerging agricultural technologies can develop (see
Figure 1-3). These facilities can be designed to produce food with recycled
nutrients, carbon, and water to maximize water efficiency, reduce fertilizer use,
and minimize pollution. Water discharged can be treated so that it is cleaner than
when it enters the facility.34 Because such farms do not require agricultural land,
they can be located close to urban centers, potentially increasing resilience to
supply chain interruptions and reducing the energy expended in distribution. Life-
cycle analyses, considering factors such as cost, energy, water use, and pollution,
will be important to developing indoor agricultural systems that are feasible and
cost-efficient.
FIGURE 1-3. Using stacked growing trays, known as vertical farming, and artificial lighting, leafy greens are grown without soil, reducing water
demand by 90 percent compared to conventional approaches.

Reducing Food Waste

One of the biggest opportunities to stretch the supply of food is to reduce food
waste. Globally, it is estimated that as much as one-third of all food produced—1.3
billion tons per year—is lost or wasted.35 This loss and waste occur throughout the
food chain:
• In the field, when damage or spills occur during harvest or when harvesting does
not occur because of economic or weather reasons;
• After harvest, when food degrades during storage;
• At the processing stage, when spills occur or food is unsuitable for processing;
• At the distribution stage, when food is damaged or degrades as it is transported
or awaits sale; and
• With the consumer, when food spoils or is simply thrown away.
In lower-income countries, such as those in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, most
food loss (at least 85 percent) occurs before the food reaches the consumer; in high-
income countries, over 30 percent of food loss happens at the consumer level (Figure
1-4). These losses threaten food availability in food-insecure regions and represent a
waste of land, energy, water, and agricultural inputs.
Technologies and systems along the entire food chain—including harvest,

transportation, processing, and storage—are needed to reduce food loss from farm
to plate. Nanotechnology-based protective films (in some cases edible) can lengthen
shelf life, possibly without refrigeration.36 Low-cost sensors that indicate food quality
and safety could further reduce food loss. Effective strategies will also need to
consider the attitudes and actions of various stakeholders that affect food waste.

North America, Oceania Post-harvest

consumer waste
Europe, incl. Russian Federation
Food loss and waste per capita
400 Japan, Korea, and China
Latin America
300
North Africa, West and Central Asia
(kg/cap/yr)
Sub-Saharan Africa
200
South and Southeast Asia
100
1 Billion POPULATION
People
FIGURE 1-4. Food loss and waste per capita in different world regions.
Changing Dietary Patterns

Livestock farming may be responsible for as much as 14.5 percent of all human-
induced greenhouse gas emissions,37 and cattle are responsible for nearly two-thirds
of these emissions. Beef and dairy farming also requires vastly more fresh water per
unit of protein produced compared to plant-based equivalents. Meanwhile, it has
been estimated that global meat production may grow by 12 percent between 2016
and 2026 due to population growth and increasing demand associated with rising
standards of living in lower- and middle-income countries.38
Shifting dietary patterns to deemphasize animal-based protein, particularly beef,

could reduce the environmental and resource burdens of feeding the world’s
population. The World Resources Institute estimates that such changes to dietary
patterns could allow feeding of up to 30 percent more people with the same
agricultural land and cropping patterns.39
A variety of meatless protein products, including innovative plant-based products

and protein products grown from animal and plant tissue cells in culture, are
becoming available. If such products can be produced affordably at scale and
be accepted by consumers, they could reduce the demand for livestock, thereby
decreasing the land, energy, and water requirements of animal-sourced protein and
its associated environmental impacts while expanding food availability.
Overcoming Water Scarcity

Global water use is anticipated to increase by 55 percent by 2055, with the
largest increases in Brazil, China, India, and Russia (Figure 1-5).40 At the same
time, the surface water and groundwater resources that have traditionally
supplied ecosystems and human populations with fresh water are increasingly
stressed. Fresh water is a limited resource, with fresh water in lakes, rivers, and
groundwater comprising just 0.77 percent of the water on Earth.41 Although

Earth’s freshwater resources in total remain

constant, their distribution varies widely
across time and space. The beginning of the
21st century saw the Millennium drought in
Australia—the worst drought recorded since
European settlement.42 California recently
experienced a record-breaking multiyear
drought, followed by record flooding in 2016-
2017, and climate change may make such
extremes more common.43
Water scarcity occurs when demands exceed the

available water supply, leading to competition
for available resources. Today, water scarcity
already affects every continent and around 2.8
billion people worldwide for at least 1 month out of every year.44 People living
in water-stressed regions (Figure 1-6) are particularly vulnerable to the impact
of droughts and other extreme weather events, environmental degradation, and
conflict. Recently, Cape Town, South Africa, came perilously close to depleting its
urban water supply. Meeting the water needs of a growing population in a manner
that does not harm the environment requires innovations in water supply, increased
efficiency, and strategies to reliably distribute clean water to those who need it.
6,000
5,000
4,000 Irrigation
Global freshwater use (km3)
Domestic
3,000 Livestock
Manufacturing
2,000 Electricity
1,000
2000 2050
World
FIGURE 1-5. Global freshwater use projected for 2050, compared to the baseline in 2000. Does not include rainfed
agriculture.

FIGURE 1-6. Map of overall water risk. Overall water risk is an aggregated measure of indicators from categories of physical risk quantity (including
flood occurrence, drought severity, and upstream storage capacity), physical risk quality (including return flow ratio and upstream protected land),
and regulatory and policy risk (including access to water).
Innovations in Water Supply

Fewer conventional sources of new water, such as dams and reservoirs, are
being constructed in part because of increasing awareness of their environmental
impacts,45 and groundwater is being depleted worldwide at increasing rates.46 Thus,
alternative means of supplying water will be needed.
For thousands of years, people living with water scarcity have devised ways to
create fresh water from seawater. As of 2015, roughly 18,000 desalination plants
worldwide, almost half of them in the Middle East and North Africa, produced
nearly 23 billion gallons of fresh water per day using technologies such as reverse
osmosis and distillation.47 Although important in water-scarce regions, desalination
remains too expensive and energy-intensive to serve as a widespread solution for
providing fresh water. Innovation and development of alternative, lower-energy
approaches could change that. For example, researchers developed a membrane
embedded with heat-absorbing nanoparticles that enables energy from sunlight
to drive the membrane distillation process. The technology could provide off-grid
desalination at the household or community scale for those who lack access to
clean water.48 Research to understand and reduce environmental impacts and to
develop cost-effective approaches for brine management could also enhance the
use of desalination in areas facing water scarcity.49
Municipalities are increasingly looking for new water supply from the recovery
and reuse of water that has traditionally been simply discarded, such as
stormwater, municipal wastewater, graywater (water from laundry, showers, and
nonkitchen sinks), and contaminated groundwater. New technologies are making
it increasingly feasible to collect stormwater or graywater at individual buildings or
in neighborhoods and treat it for nonpotable uses such as irrigation, street cleaning,
fire-fighting, industrial processes, heating and cooling, and toilet flushing.50

Cities are also turning to potable reuse systems that use

advanced treatment processes to remove contaminants
from wastewater to provide a drought-proof drinking water
supply.51
Wastewater reuse is more expensive than conventional

water supply alternatives such as imported water and
groundwater (assuming other water alternatives are
available at their traditional costs), and public acceptance
of potable reuse remains a challenge. Advances are needed
to reduce the cost and energy requirements of alternative
supply treatment and to develop low-cost, real-time
sensors for chemical and microbial contaminants (or
reliable surrogates) to ensure water quality and safety.52
The development of low-maintenance, community-scale water reuse systems with
reliable quality assurance would further enhance the use of this technology.53
Increasing the Efficiency of Water Use

Important advances have been made over the past few decades to reduce water
use. In the United States, total water withdrawals peaked in 1980, largely due
to enhanced water use efficiencies from industrial production and power plant
cooling,54 although increased imports and reduced production of water-intensive
goods and services, such as fruits and vegetables, may have contributed to this
trend.55 Rates of U.S. water use per person declined 40 percent between 1980 and
2010. Water is still used inefficiently in many regions, especially where it has been
plentiful historically or its price has been heavily subsidized, and further advances
are possible. Existing and emerging technologies and practices offer numerous
opportunities to increase water use efficiency so that existing supplies can better
serve the needs of a growing population and global economic growth. Agriculture
is the largest water user worldwide and on every continent except Europe (see
Figure 1-1). There is substantial potential worldwide for reducing water demand
while maintaining or increasing agricultural output,56 and there is already some
evidence that water use efficiency strategies can improve crop quality with little

FIGURE 1-7. Small graphene sensors placed on plant leaves are used to sense water transpiration and measure plant
water use so that irrigation is only applied when needed.
cost to yields.57 Examples of water-saving techniques include farming practices,

such as improved crop choice, tillage practices, and soil management, and
engineering solutions, including improved precision irrigation tools and advanced
ground-based sensors and remote sensing data to gauge irrigation needs more
precisely (Figure 1-7).58 Innovations are needed that enhance agricultural water
productivity—the amount of crop produced per unit of water depleted (or crop
per drop)—rather than simply reducing water use.59 Current “inefficient” irrigation
approaches may be recharging groundwater and supporting base flow in streams
that other water users or ecosystems depend upon.
Outside of the agricultural sector, there are many other opportunities to reduce
water use. Technologies to detect and prevent leaks in water distribution systems
could reduce loss between the point of supply and point of use. In thermal power
plants, alternative systems for cooling, such as dry cooling, could lower water
demands. Technological or process improvements can help conserve water in
many water-intensive industries, such as textiles, automobile manufacturing, and
the beverage industry. Within homes and businesses, innovative technologies such
as waterless toilets and washers could reduce water use. Innovative monitoring
and communication approaches that help people understand their own water
use relative to others could encourage behavioral change. Economic and policy
strategies will be important, in addition to technical advances, in managing limited
water supplies (see Challenge 5).
Redesigning and Revitalizing Water Distribution Systems

In high-income countries, water treatment and distribution systems developed in
the early to mid 20th century led to significant improvements in public health.60 In
many locations, water infrastructure has now outlived its intended useful life, and

the limits of that infrastructure are becoming evident. Older distribution system
pipes are leaking and require restoration or replacement to ensure water reliability
and quality.61 In the United States, reported cases of Legionnaires’ disease, caused
by bacteria that can grow and spread in water systems, has increased over fourfold
since 2000.62 Some older distribution systems and many residential plumbing
systems in the United States contain lead, which under certain water quality and
flow conditions can become mobilized and has put residents at risk for unhealthy
exposures.63 Environmental engineers have a clear role to play in not only
revitalizing and replacing these aging systems but reimagining them.
A BIG IDEA: SORTING SOLAR RADIATION TO MAXIMIZE ENERGY,

FOOD, AND WATER PRODUCTION
A novel concept proposes to maximize crop production while far-infrared can be used to power water treatment processes
simultaneously producing electricity and treating water through distillation or reverse osmosis. Electricity generated
supplies by unbundling the solar spectrum over a plot of land.66 by the solar battery can be used for agricultural production or
Reflective parabolic troughs can be situated above the field to exported to nearby population centers. As demands for food
collect solar energy from near-infrared and far-infrared light and clean energy increase with growing populations, creative
waves, while the solar spectrum needed for food production ideas such as this are needed to develop cost-effective and
can pass through to the crops on the ground. The near-infrared scalable approaches that maximize energy, food, and water
light can be used to generate energy and the near- and supplies while reducing adverse impacts.
Visible Spectrum Near Infrared Far Infrared
Food (ag products) Energy (electricity) Water Purification
Parabolic
Nutrient recycle/drip irrigation
Troughs
Food Products Central Receiving Rain
Lakes, Rivers, Oceans

Runoff Aquifers
Electricity Electricity
Heat WP
Salt/contamination
Pure Water
Removal
Socio and Techno Economic System
Figure 5: A sustainable use of solar energy on crop/pasture land for harmonious FEW nexus
Figure Concept of a solar spectrum unbundling in which photons are managed efficiently over crop/pasture land to simultaneously produce food, energy
and water products | NOTE: WP = Water purification unit.

Low-income countries face a different set of water distribution challenges. In many

regions, wastewater is discharged to surface waters without adequate treatment,
polluting water bodies and denying people access to safe drinking water.64
Advances in waterless toilets could improve access to sanitation services in low-
income areas while reducing water use and pollution worldwide and enhancing the
recovery of valuable resources such as energy and nutrients.65 Where centralized
infrastructure to collect, transport, and treat water and wastewater does not already
exist, decentralized wastewater treatment systems using advanced technology for
water reuse could enhance water supplies and recover embedded energy.
Providing Clean Energy to Meet Growing Global Demand

Access to energy is increasingly recognized as a basic human need. The UN
Sustainable Development Goal 7 is to “ensure access to affordable, reliable,
sustainable and modern energy for all” by 2030.67 Improving the delivery of energy
services fuels economic growth, increases productivity, and improves standards
of living and health. For example, eliminating the use of unvented cookstoves that
burn biomass (such as coal or dung) by supplying electricity for cooking could
significantly reduce harmful indoor air pollution.
Global energy needs are expected to increase as the population grows and as more
people enter the middle class. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects
that global energy consumption will grow by 28 percent between 2015 and
2040.68 The warming of the climate is also driving changes in energy demand; it is
projected that global energy demand from air conditioners will triple from 2016 to
2050, requiring new electricity capacity equivalent to the electricity capacity of the
United States, the European Union, and Japan combined.69
Switching to More Sustainable Energy Sources

Petroleum, natural gas, and coal have been the dominant
U.S. fuels for more than a century, accounting for about 80
percent of energy consumption in 2017.70 Globally, fossil
fuels also comprised about 80 percent of the primary energy
supply in 2015, with nuclear and renewables such as wind,
solar, hydropower, biomass, and geothermal power making
up the rest.71 Burning fossil fuels is the primary source of air
pollutants as well as the greenhouse gases that drive climate
change. Switching to low-carbon sources of energy and
increasing energy efficiency will be essential steps to curb
climate change,72 as discussed in detail in Challenge 2.
Environmental impacts accrue not only from burning fossil

fuels, but also from their production. Extraction processes, such as coal mining and
drilling for oil and gas, generate air and water pollution and other land impacts that
can harm local communities. For example, spills occurring during drilling processes or
improperly managed mine-waste materials can contaminate surface and groundwater
resources.73 The significant amounts of water needed for unconventional natural gas
extraction (hydraulic fracturing) and for cooling processes at fossil fuel electricity
plants can stress local water supplies during droughts and heat waves.74 Transportation
of fuels generates additional pollution and accidents resulting in spills.75 Continued
efforts to reduce such impacts will be needed in the transition to low-carbon energy.

There are numerous ways to produce energy while emitting little or no carbon
dioxide (CO2) on an ongoing basis. In particular, solar and wind-based energy
sources have gained significant traction. Other promising renewable sources that
can be harnessed with minimal CO2 emissions include hydropower from dams,
tapping the energy of waves, and using geothermal energy (tapping into the heat
under the Earth’s surface).
Environmental impacts, costs, and benefits of renewable energy sources will need to
be considered in their adoption. Wind and solar projects occupy significant amounts
of land, and most wind power projects on land require service roads that add to the
physical effects on the environment (Figure 1-8).76 Siting of wind power projects atop
ridgelines can disrupt scenery and recreational access. Wind turbines can kill bats
and birds and harm their habitats,77 although research on wildlife behavior has led to
ways of siting and operating the turbines that help mitigate that harm.78
FIGURE 1-8. Life cycle of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions (top) and life cycle of land use per kilowatt-hour for various electricity sources (bottom). An
important role for environmental engineers will be to compare renewables by conducting life-cycle analyses of all impacts such as land use, water
use, and pollution.

Environmental impacts also accrue in the production of renewable energy

components, including turbine blades, photovoltaic cells, and electronics, which
require energy and materials to produce with associated land, water, and air
impacts. Production of some components, such as photovoltaic cells, generate toxic
substances that may contaminate land or water resources.79 Wind turbines may use
rare earth minerals, most of which have been mined using processes that result in
substantial environmental pollution.80
The use of biofuels such as corn-based ethanol for

transportation has implications across food, water, and
energy systems. Biofuels derived directly from plants,
have implications for land and water use and crop
prices.81 Biofuels can also be harvested from algae or
produced indirectly from agricultural, commercial,
domestic, and/or industrial wastes (see also Challenge
3). In China, over 40 million household-scale anaerobic
digesters have been installed that use bacteria to
convert plant and animal waste to methane gas.82
Using anaerobic digestion, environmental engineers
have an opportunity to design and create distributed
energy systems that also reduce pollution. Analysis of
environmental impacts and benefits across the full life
cycle of renewable technologies, including the energy
return on investment, is a growing role and opportunity
for environmental engineers.
Finding Ways to Get Energy Where It Is Needed

Providing energy to the one in seven people who do not yet have it will require
decentralized solutions. With declining costs, renewable energy technologies are
offering cost-effective alternatives in remote locations compared to centralized
systems, replacing traditional energy sources that generate harmful air pollutants,
such as diesel generators and biomass burning.83 Continued advances in
transmission and storage as well as further reductions in cost will help provide
access to reliable renewable energy supplies.
The use of renewable “microgrids” has emerged as a promising solution to

sustainably supply locally-generated electricity to remote regions that are not
connected to a conventional power grid. Microgrids can use solar panels, wind,
or hydropower to provide cleaner, more cost-effective electricity at a community
scale, with generators and battery technology providing backup power when
needed. Alaska has been a leader in the development of microgrids, building
them on top of the many diesel generators that have served the state’s remote
areas since the 1960s. Today, Alaska’s 70 microgrids comprise about 12 percent
of renewably powered microgrids in the world.84 In urban areas, microgrids
can provide backup power during natural disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy,
which damaged large parts of the power grid in the Northeast.85 Projects to build
microgrids are accelerating across Asia, Latin America, and Africa. For example,
the University of Chile is working to extend the 10-hour capacity of a small
diesel-powered electrical grid in the Andes Mountains by supplementing it with
solar photovoltaic, wind energy, and a battery system.86

In low-income countries, the use of microgrids and smaller, stand-alone systems

(such as solar home systems) presents a significant opportunity for providing energy
to rural populations without centralized power supply. To achieve universal access
to energy by 2030, the International Energy Agency estimates that an additional
340 million people in low-income countries would need to be connected to
microgrids, with another 110 million using stand-alone energy systems.87
Middle- and high-income countries are challenged to incorporate renewables into

the operations of the traditional electrical grid, and significant modification of the
grid will be needed.88 Renewable energy is not necessarily generated where it is
needed, and unlike fossil fuels, sunshine, wind, and geothermal energy cannot be
transported. Therefore, large-scale transmission projects may also be required. For
example, most wind power in the United States is generated in low-population
High Plains states, which has prompted proposals for large-scale transmission
projects to bring this electricity to population centers in the Midwest and eastern
parts of the country.
Energy storage is another challenge, given that solar- and wind-driven electricity
production is intermittent. When there is too little sun or wind, production can
fall short of demand, while an abundance of sun and wind can create too much
electricity that has to be used or curtailed to avoid overloading the grid. Ideas being
discussed include creating a bigger grid, or “supergrid,” to increase the probability
that the sun will be shining or the wind will be blowing in one part of a supply
network, if not another.
Many efforts are focused on the development of cost-effective energy storage

technologies to smooth out the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy,
enabling renewables to provide a much larger percentage of the energy portfolio.
Innovation in this realm includes the use of large hydroelectric dams to store
electric energy from wind and solar installations in the form of potential energy
(see Sidebar). A similar idea is to use electricity during periods of low demand to

USING THE HOOVER DAM FOR ENERGY STORAGE

The growth of solar and wind power is fueling new ideas about demand exceeds supply. In essence, the process would allow
how to store excess electrical energy for use when there is the dam to store solar- and wind-derived electrical energy in
not enough solar- and wind-driven energy to meet demand. the form of potential energy, acting like a giant storage battery.
In 2017, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power In general, the relative economic advantage offered by
proposed using the Hoover Dam for energy storage to provide pumped storage at hydroelectric dams makes it the most
greater flexibility and reliability to an electrical grid that is widely used method for the large-scale storage of electrical
increasingly reliant on renewable energy.91 Built in the 1930s energy.92 However, it is important to weigh all of the benefits
for flood control, irrigation, and hydroelectric power, the dam and costs when applying that technology to particular
sends water stored in Lake Mead through turbines to provide hydroelectric dams. Consideration of costs includes the
electricity to about 1.3 million people in California, Nevada, and potential ecological impacts associated with water fluctuations
Arizona. From there, the water flows down the Colorado River in rivers related to the energy storage efforts. What effects
where it is no longer available to the hydropower plant for would those fluctuations have on the diversity and ecological
making electricity. function of plants and animals in and near the river? In
The proposed plan is to build a pump station about 20 addition, there are potential recreational and aesthetic impacts
miles downstream of the dam. Powered by surplus electricity to humans in the proximity of the pumped storage system.
generated by solar and wind energy, the pump would capture Environmental engineering expertise will be needed to
river water from the lower Colorado and send it back up to consider the full life-cycle impacts of alternative energy storage
Lake Mead where it can be used to generate electricity when solutions.

pump ambient air into a storage container and, when electricity is needed, allow
the compressed air to expand to drive turbines.89 Other promising leads in this vein
include mechanical storage with rail or flywheels, and use of excess electricity to
create other fuels, such as hydrogen.90
What Environmental Engineers Can Do

Environmental engineers bring decades of experience in water treatment and
alternative water supply technologies to address challenges ahead related to water
scarcity. Environmental engineers have traditionally had less experience in issues
of food supply and energy. Nevertheless, opportunities abound for environmental
engineers to apply systems thinking (see Box 1-1) to analyze the interrelated
behaviors of water, food, and energy systems and their interaction with the
environment that supports them. Through systems and life-cycle thinking, engineers
can help develop technologies and strategies to sustainably supply food, water, and
energy to Earth’s growing population (see Box 1-2 for examples).
Addressing this challenge will require convergence of multiple disciplines across

behavioral and social sciences, engineering, and science. Environmental engineers
can work in collaboration with experts in agriculture, energy, health, ecology,
molecular biology, data science, social science, policy, and other disciplines.
BOX 1-1. SYSTEMS THINKING social behavior. For example, through systems thinking,
We now face environmental issues that are global, complex, environmental engineers can also consider the specific
and interconnected. Environmental engineers are trained needs and perspectives of disadvantaged groups and
to bring a systems-based view to problem solving, allowing understand the role of economic incentives and policy
for more innovative and appropriate solutions. For example, instruments to align socioeconomic behavior with
environmental engineers understand the movement of environmental goals.94
contaminants between air, water, and land so that they Environmental engineers work on systems that are
can develop methods to reduce pollution in one sector integrated and complex, including technical aspects as
that do not result in adverse consequences in another. well as social, environmental, and economic facets. These
Environmental engineers consider a broad array of issues complex systems are difficult to predict in that they are
that often involve systems of systems, such as the vital role nonlinear, have feedback mechanisms, are adaptive, and
and value of ecological services as well as the life cycle have emergent behavior.95 Only recently has computing
impacts and benefits of an engineered system, from its raw power increased sufficiently to enable quantitative
materials to end of life.93 evaluations of technological advances in the context of
Although environmental engineers have a long history potential changes in underlying social and economic
of thinking about complex environmental systems, there systems.96 With these tools, environmental engineers can
is a need to routinely extend this type of thinking beyond help design solutions that are appropriate, effective, and
the natural world to encompass broader aspects, such sustainable.
as the regulatory environment, economic drivers, and

BOX 1-2. EXAMPLE ROLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS TO HELP SUPPLY

FOOD, WATER, AND ENERGY FOR EARTH’S GROWING POPULATION
Environmental engineers have many strengths to help address the challenge of supplying clean
water and nutritious food to Earth’s population in the 21st century. Examples include
Food
• Develop a systems-level “farm to plate” assessment to identify ways to reduce waste, energy,
and water consumption and to improve access to healthy food choices.
• Develop precision delivery systems for water, nutrients, and pesticides to minimize impacts
on air quality, soil, groundwater, and ecosystems while reducing waste and energy
consumption.
• Develop on-site systems to affordably transform agricultural waste into energy.
• A ssess the costs and benefits of alternative food sources, such as cultured meat, from human
and environmental perspectives.
• Develop aquaculture and aquaponics systems to meet increasing demand for seafood to
reduce impacts on ocean supplies with integrated nutrient recovery and reuse to minimize
adverse effects on the environment.
• Design urban agriculture systems to utilize waste energy and recycle water, minimizing water
use and pollution.
Water and Sanitation
• C onsidering the full spectrum of human development conditions, develop energy-
efficient water conservation strategies and technologies that are socially acceptable and
implementable.
• Develop low-cost desalination and water reuse technologies, including strategies to reduce
energy use and manage or reuse waste streams to minimize environmental impacts.
• Develop water supply and water quality forecasting tools, including low-cost, distributed
sensing systems, to anticipate water availability and quality threats.
• Develop and evaluate energy-neutral or energy-positive cost-effective wastewater treatment
technologies suitable for low-, middle-, and high-income settings that provide enhanced
contaminant removal, minimize energy consumption, and promote safe water reuse.
• Participate in innovative interdisciplinary teams to develop and evaluate approaches to water,
sanitation, and hygiene challenges in low-income countries.
• Develop improved diagnostic tools and predictive modeling approaches to understand the
state of aging water infrastructure and develop cost-effective strategies to maintain the water
services provided by existing infrastructure.
Energy
• C onduct life-cycle analyses of renewable technologies and distribution strategies in terms
of benefits provided and water and energy use and pollution, including all stages. Develop
approaches to minimize those impacts.
• Investigate approaches to store energy, such as with hydroelectric dams or batteries, and
examine associated environmental impacts and ways to minimize those impacts.
• Develop low-cost ways to reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional energy
production.
• Develop viable, sustainable biofuel options.

GRAND CHALLENGE 2:
Curb Climate Change

and Adapt to Its
Impacts
It is now more certain than ever that humans are changing

Earth’s climate.97 The burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation,
transportation, heating, cooling, and other energy uses has raised the
concentration of global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to more than
400 parts per million (ppm)—a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago
when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher
than today.98 At the same time, the production of fossil fuels and agricultural and
industrial processes also have emitted large amounts of methane and nitrous oxide,
both powerful greenhouse gases, into the atmosphere.
The heat trapped by the sharp rise in greenhouse gases has increased Earth’s global
average surface temperature by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the past 115 years, and
at an increased rate since the mid-1970s (see Figure 2-1).99 This warming has been
accompanied by rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice, reduced snow pack,
and other climatic changes. Many urban areas across the globe have witnessed a
significant increase in the number of heat waves. More rain is falling during the
heaviest rainfall events, causing flooding and further stressing low-lying coastal

FIGURE 2-1. Earth’s global average surface temperature has risen about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the past 115 years, with
much of that increase occurring since the mid-1970s. The temperature changes (anomalies) are relative to the global
average surface temperature of 1951−1980.
zones already vulnerable to storm surges and other causes of temporary coastal
flooding, along with sea-level rise.100 In other areas, prolonged dry periods and
droughts are increasing the risk of destructive wildfires and water shortages.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise in the 21st century, Earth is expected to
warm by an additional 4.7°F to 8.6°F (2.6°C to 4.8°C) by 2100 (relative to 1986-
2005).101 The greater the warming, the greater the impacts will be. In the United
States, each degree of warming (Celsius) is projected to result in a 3 to 10 percent
increase in the amount of rainfall during the heaviest rain events, a 5 to 15 percent
reduction in the yields of crops as currently grown, and a 200 to 400 percent
increase in the area burned by wildfire in western states.102 Similar types of changes
are expected in many other parts of the world, which could be most devastating to
low-income countries that do not have the resources to respond or adapt.103
Warming of about 5.4°F (3°C) or more could push Earth past several “tipping points.”
For example, this amount of warming could melt the Greenland ice sheet, which would
raise global average sea level an additional 20 feet (6 meters).104 It could also accelerate
the thawing of permafrost, which would accelerate the release of CO2 and methane
stored in frozen soil, exacerbating warming.105 While projections such as these are
useful in planning for the changes ahead, it is also important to recognize that a great
deal remains unknown, particularly when it comes to the complex feedbacks among
human activities, ecosystems, and the atmosphere.
For decades, scientists have led the efforts to understand and predict climate change
effects, but engineers are now recognizing that their efforts are needed to help develop
and implement solutions. Conceptually, climate solutions are divided into two areas of
focus: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce the magnitude or
rate of climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases or removing them from the atmosphere. Adaptation refers to solutions that
avoid or lessen the impacts of climate change on people, ecosystems, resources, and
Curb Climate Change and Adapt to Its Impacts | 27

infrastructure. Environmental engineers have an opportunity to be leaders in developing

technologies and systems that provide solutions on both of these fronts. Given that future
climate changes likely hold surprises, it will be important to remain nimble, incorporate
new knowledge, and work to address uncertainty as environmental engineers develop,
test, and implement solutions.
Reducing the Rate and Magnitude of Climate Change

A sharp reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is needed to
slow climate change and prevent some of the most severe impacts. For the past few
decades, international climate talks have focused on establishing goals to minimize
the planet’s warming, with the most recent goals set at limiting future warming to
3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels. The 2016 Paris Agreement set an aspirational
target of limiting warming to 2.7°F (1.5°C). Since the planet already has warmed
about 1.8°F (1°C), scientists have calculated that, in order to stay within the 3.6°F
(2°C) limit, atmospheric CO2 concentrations must not rise beyond 450 ppm, which
in turn requires 40 to 70 percent reductions in global anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emission by 2050 compared to 2010, and emissions levels near zero or below
in 2100.106
A special report issued in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change urged world leaders to work toward limiting warming to 2.7°F (1.5°C) to
avoid the severe impacts on weather extremes, ecosystems, human health, and
infrastructure that are expected to occur at 3.6°F (2°C) warming.107 Meeting that
tougher goal will require global emissions to be reduced by about 45 percent
from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Meeting those
emissions targets will require dramatic reductions in global CO2 emissions
combined with the active removal of CO2.108
Greenhouse gas emissions are driven by

the use of energy for electricity generation,
transportation, industry uses, commercial
and residential needs, and agriculture.
Figure 2-2 shows the U.S. breakdown
for greenhouse gas emissions sources.
Emissions can be reduced by using energy
more efficiently, switching to fuels that
produce less (or no) greenhouse gases, and
capturing the emissions before they enter
the atmosphere.
In general, reducing emissions will

require that existing and planned
transportation, building, and industrial
infrastructure be converted to electricity
that is generated with substantially lower
carbon intensity. Doing so will have
the added co-benefit of reducing the
environmental and human health impacts
FIGURE 2-2. Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2016, in CO2
equivalents.
associated with coal, oil, and natural
gas extraction and fossil-fuel-generated
electricity (see Challenge 3).109

Using Energy More Efficiently

High-income countries have already substantially reduced their energy use
per capita and per unit of economic output. These improvements have resulted
from significant technological changes, such as the advent of LED lighting,
energy-efficient appliances, and other efficiency intelligence in buildings;
industrial restructuring to enhance productivity; and investment in fuel-efficient
transportation technologies. Lower- and middle-income countries are beginning
to make similar gains.
Efficiency gains made to date, however, will not be sufficient to avoid a 3.6°F
(2°C) average rise in global temperatures. More than 80 percent of vehicle
miles traveled in 2050 need to be powered by something other than an internal
combustion engine.110 Substantial efficiencies also are needed in industry and
in the heating and cooling of buildings. In Germany, for example, a high-level
commission calculated that German buildings would need to achieve a 54
percent improvement in efficiency by 2030 to meet stated emission reduction
goals.111 Effectively deploying new and emerging technologies can help advance
these goals. It has been estimated that energy-efficient technologies for residential
and commercial buildings, transportation, and industry that exist today or are
expected to be developed soon could reduce U.S. energy use by 30 percent,
slashing greenhouse gas emissions along with other air pollutants, while also
saving money.112

Switching to Fuels That Produce Less (or No) CO2

As discussed in Challenge 1, there are many sources of energy that produce little or
no CO2 emissions, including solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower. Although
low-emissions energy sources exist, there is still a long way to go toward their
widespread adoption. As of 2017, U.S. electricity generation was composed of
about 63 percent fossil fuels, 20 percent nuclear, and 17 percent hydropower and
other renewables.113 A study by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable
Energy Laboratory shows that it is feasible for the United States to generate most
of its electricity from renewable energy by 2050, but a number of challenges
remain.114 Cost has been a significant barrier, although costs are dropping for both
solar and wind power technologies.115
Reducing U.S. emissions enough to

stay within the 2.7°F (1.5°C) limit
would require the current balance of
energy production to shift substantially,
such that 70-85 percent of electricity
is generated from noncarbon-emitting
sources.116 In China, maturation and
economic restructuring of the industrial
sector has already substantially reduced
coal consumption per unit of output, a
trend that is projected to continue and
be further enhanced by their recently
introduced carbon cap and trade
system.117 In addition, China is leading
the charge in developing renewable
energy, for example, building 45 percent
of the world’s solar installations in
2016.118
Advances are needed to improve the

efficiency and reduce the costs of such energy sources to make them competitive with
traditional fossil fuel–based sources. In addition, since many renewables produce
energy intermittently, there is a need for energy storage systems with increased capacity,
scalability, reliability, and affordability, as discussed in Challenge 1.
Nuclear power is one low-emission energy source that already comprises one-
fifth of U.S. electricity generation. Increasing the use of nuclear power could
help reduce carbon-emitting energy generation, but there are significant barriers,
including cost, public concerns related to safety and waste disposal, the high
business and regulatory risks involved in designing and building nuclear power
plants, and the lack of progress in developing long-term waste repositories.
Retiring existing nuclear plants will exacerbate the challenge of reducing CO2
emissions from the power system, because large increases in renewable and other
zero-emitting energy sources will be needed simply to replace zero-emitting
nuclear energy. To support continued nuclear capacity, working in combination
with renewables, research is needed on advanced nuclear technologies for next
generation reactors designed to significantly improve performance and safety.119
Moving to electrically powered transportation with increased renewable energy

generation would substantially reduce fossil fuel use, because more than 90 percent

of the transportation fuels are petroleum based.120 Electric vehicle technology

has advanced substantially in the past 5 years, with roughly 2 million all-electric
and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road worldwide today,121 and automobile
companies are increasing investments in electric vehicle production. For example,
Volvo announced a plan to transition all of the company’s car models to electric
or hybrids by 2030, Ford has announced an $11 billion investment in electric
vehicles, and GM plans to release 20 new models of electric vehicles by 2023.122
Several countries, including Britain, France, and Norway, cities such as Beijing, and
several U.S. states have proposed banning gasoline- and diesel-powered cars as
early as 2030.123 Achieving the transition to electric-based transportation systems
raises many engineering challenges beyond the need for low-carbon energy
sources, including the need for charging infrastructure, better battery performance,
and faster recharge times.
Making progress toward reducing emissions will depend in large part on private-
sector investments and on the behavioral and consumer choices of individual
households, which are explored in more detail in Challenge 5. Governments at
federal, state, and local levels can influence those choices through policies and
incentives. Such policies can include setting a price on emissions, such as a carbon
tax or cap-and-trade system; providing information and education on voluntary
emission reductions; and mandates or regulations designed to control emissions,
for example, the Clean Air Act, automobile fuel economy standards, appliance
efficiency standards, building codes, and requirements for renewable or low-carbon
energy sources in electricity generation.
Advancing Climate Intervention Strategies

Even if human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were to cease today, it would
take millennia for natural processes to return Earth’s atmosphere to preindustrial
carbon dioxide concentrations.124 To avoid the worst impacts of warming, it is no
longer enough to reduce emissions. Deploying negative-emission technologies that
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reliably sequester it will also be
needed.125
Some carbon dioxide removal strategies

focus on accelerating natural processes
that take up carbon dioxide. Changes
in agricultural practices can enhance
soil carbon storage, for example, by
planting fields year-round in crops or
other cover crops.126 Land use and
management practices can be employed
that increase the amount of carbon
stored in terrestrial environments, such
as forests and grasslands and in near-
shore ecosystems, such as mangroves,
tidal marshes, and seagrass beds.127
One recent study estimates that nature-
based approaches can deliver more
than one-third of the carbon reductions
needed by 2030 to stay within the 3.6°F

(2°C) limit at competitive costs,128 but there are many unknowns. Further research
is needed to determine what conditions and practices can maximize carbon uptake
in plants over the long term. There can also be unintended effects. For example,
planting more trees in northern boreal forests can contribute to warming, because
in winter months the trees can obscure snow that reflects sunlight.
Other technologies being explored seek to actively remove CO2 from the
atmosphere and from point sources and sequester it. One technology involves
growing plants such as switchgrass to be converted to fuel, coupled with capturing
and storing any CO2 emissions from biofuel burning (called bioenergy with carbon
capture and sequestration, or BECCS). Another approach proposes using chemical
processes to capture CO2 directly from the air and concentrate it for storage (called
direct air capture and sequestration, or DACS). These technologies will be needed
around the world because many countries will still be
using significant amounts of fossil-fuel-generated electricity
by 2050. They will also be needed to mitigate emissions
where electrification is not possible and for industrial
processes that produce carbon dioxide.
Engineering challenges in carbon removal strategies

include the need to reduce costs, increase the scale of the
technologies, and store or reuse the carbon in ways that
keep it from being released back into the atmosphere.
Available land is a key limiting factor for the potential of
removing CO2 through reforestation or growing fuel crops;
removing 10 gigatons CO2 per year (about one quarter of
global yearly emissions) by 2050 would require the use of
hundreds of millions of hectares of arable land.129 Land use
at that scale could threaten food security, given that food demands are expected
to increase by 25 to 70 percent over the same time period.130 Breakthroughs in
agriculture discussed in Challenge 1, including advances in crop productivity,
alternative methods of growing food, food waste reduction, and changes in diet,
will be needed.
A different set of climate intervention strategies seeks to reduce warming by

reflecting sunlight off of specially treated clouds and aerosols. In general, such
technologies are not as developed as carbon dioxide removal strategies and carry
greater risks of unintended consequences that are not well understood.131
Reducing Other Greenhouse Gases

Methane, nitrous oxide, and some industrial gases (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons)
comprise about 18 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in terms of CO2
equivalents.132 Molecule for molecule, those gases are much stronger climate
warming agents than CO2, although they are less abundant, and some do not last
as long in the atmosphere. Methane, for example, is about 28 times more potent as
a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, making it particularly important to prevent or
capture methane leaks from oil and gas systems, coal mines, shale gas extraction,
and landfills.133 To that end, there is a need for better systems and methodologies to
measure and track methane leakage throughout those systems.134
Agriculture is one of the largest sources of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Methane is

produced when livestock digest their food and also is emitted in large quantities

from rice paddies. Nitrous oxide arises from the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Precision
agriculture techniques can help farmers minimize fertilizer use and reduce nitrous
oxide emissions (see also Challenge 1). Feeding livestock easier-to-digest foods and
strategically managing livestock waste—through proper storage, reuse as fertilizer,
and recovery of methane—also can help reduce emissions.135 Efforts to curb
agricultural methane emissions can benefit from new insights and biotechnology
tools that offer new ways to study the complex microbial ecosystems involved in
soils, manure management, and livestock digestion.
Some short-lived pollutants that are not greenhouse gases also contribute to
warming. One example is black carbon, commonly called soot, which absorbs
sunlight and traps heat in the atmosphere. Black carbon is produced by incomplete
fuel combustion and burning of biomass (e.g., the dung used in cookstoves). Black
carbon also can amplify regional warming by leaving a heat-absorbing black
coating on otherwise reflective surfaces, such as snow in mountainous regions.
Although North America and western Europe were the major sources of soot
emissions until about the 1950s, low-income nations in the tropics and East Asia
are the major source regions today. Identifying and targeting the largest sources of
black carbon could be crucial to curbing warming in the short term.
What Can Environmental Engineers Do to Curb Climate Change?

Environmental engineers have an opportunity to be leaders in developing
technologies that will help slow warming through alternative energy development,
green infrastructure, carbon capture and sequestration, and monitoring and
measurement, as summarized in Box 2-1. Although the challenge to curb climate
change will stretch environmental engineering beyond its traditional boundaries,
many of the skills typical of environmental engineers can be applicable for
advancing these goals. For example, the design of technologies to capture and
store carbon underground, in soils, and in coastal ecosystems can take advantage
of environmental engineers’ expertise in water chemistry, environmental

microbiology, groundwater and surface water hydrology, and atmospheric

chemistry. Environmental engineers can also bring large-scale perspectives to
illuminate how proposed technologies will interact with multiple systems. Specific
applications of those skills might include
• Using the tools of geochemistry to engineer accelerated mineralization processes

that would transform carbon into a stable carbonate, while avoiding water
quality impacts.
• Using the emerging tools of synthetic biology and microbial ecology to abate
greenhouse gas emissions and generate chemicals, materials, and fuels.
• Using the tools of life-cycle assessment to explore efficiencies for producing low-
carbon liquid fuels from biomass feedstocks without increasing overall water use.
• Using the tools of life-cycle assessment to assess and optimize the energy
return on investment (the ratio of the amount of usable energy delivered from a
particular energy resource to the amount of energy used to obtain that energy
resource).
BOX 2-1. EXAMPLE ROLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS TO HELP CURB

CLIMATE CHANGE
Environmental engineers can play an important role in collaboration with other disciplines to
address four areas related to slowing climate change.
Increasing Energy Efficiency
Using life-cycle analysis, identify opportunities for improved energy efficiency across sectors
•
to focus energy efficiency improvements toward those with the greatest benefits.
Identify opportunities for the use of the heat that is a by-product of the generation of
•
electricity. Currently much of this heat is “wasted” during cooling processes.
Advancing Alternative Energy Sources
Identify opportunities for addressing environmental issues associated with promising
•
renewable energy sources, including hydropower, solar, and wind.
Develop low-cost reliable anaerobic carbon conversion systems to turn organic wastes,
•
including human waste as well as agricultural plant and forest residues, into energy.
Develop strategies to manage nuclear waste.
•
Advancing Climate Intervention Strategies
Develop biological and mechanical carbon capture methods that can be scaled at reasonable
•
cost.
Develop uses for captured carbon and methods for safe storage, including monitoring for
•
leakage.
Improve understanding of the factors that influence the permanence of carbon capture by
•
vegetation and soils.
Reducing Other Greenhouse Gases
Develop monitoring tools to detect emissions of methane in natural gas systems and methods
•
to minimize or eliminate them.
Develop technologies and approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
•
Identify the largest sources of black carbon and develop low-cost strategies to reduce these
•
emissions.

Adapting to Climate Change Impacts

Many of the things people use or do every day—from roads to farms, buildings to
subways, jobs to recreational activities—were optimized for the climate of the 19th
and 20th centuries. They were built with the assumption of certain temperature
ranges, precipitation patterns, frequency of extreme events, and other manifestations
of climate, which are now shifting. Even if humankind were to succeed in limiting
global climate change in accordance with current goals, adaptation will be needed to
protect people, ecosystems, infrastructure, and cultural resources from the impacts of
climate change, many of which are already evident.
Sea level is one area in which those impacts are already being felt. Since 1900,
global mean sea level has risen about 8 inches, driven by expansion of the warming
ocean, melting of mountain glaciers, and losses from the Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets.136 This rise has caused coastal cities to see an uptick in flooding, both during
storms and as “sunny-day” flooding from tides alone. These flooding events disrupt
economies, make it difficult to deliver emergency services, and disproportionately
affect older, infirm, and low socioeconomic status populations.
Global sea level is expected to rise by an additional 0.5 to 1.2 feet by 2050 and 1
to 4.3 feet by 2100, which will increase the frequency and severity of flooding (see
Figure 2-3). Even at the low end of that estimate, up to 200 million people could
be affected worldwide and 4 million people could be permanently displaced as
frequent or permanent flooding makes low-lying developed areas uninhabitable.137
Some communities already are being forced to relocate as a result of sea-level
rise, including Native American communities in Alaska, communities south of
New Orleans in the Louisiana Delta and island communities in the Pacific and
Indian oceans. In addition to flooding, sea-level rise causes erosion and saltwater
encroachment, which kills forests near the coasts, reshapes marshes and wetlands,
and renders aquifers along the coast unusable for human consumption without
desalination technology.

FIGURE 2-3. Annual occurrences of tidal flooding, also called sunny-day or nuisance flooding. Recent documented
events are shown in orange and future flooding projections based on three greenhouse gas emission scenarios
known as representative concentration pathways (RCP) ranging from low (RCP2.6) to high (RCP8.5).
Climate change is also expected to intensify regional contrasts in precipitation

that already exist: Dry areas are expected to get drier and wet areas to become
even wetter. Changes in precipitation patterns have resulted in heavier rainfalls,
reduced snow cover, and glacial extent, and doubled the amount of land area
classified as “very dry.”138 Warmer temperatures tend to increase evaporation
from oceans, lakes, plants, and soil, exacerbating the impacts in areas of reduced
precipitation.
Extreme precipitation events are becoming more frequent, leading to increased

flooding as well as spikes in the release of some pollutants during heavy storms.139
In August 2016, for example, more than 2 feet of rain fell in central Louisiana over
10 days, an event the National Weather Service called a “one in a thousand year”
event. Scientists predict that climate change will cause an increase in the number
of the most severe hurricanes, leading to stronger storm surges and more intense
rainfall events.140 In 2017, Hurricane Harvey dumped a staggering 50 inches of rain
on Houston, which is as much rain as typically falls there over an entire year. Work
is ongoing to assess the future probability of similar rainfall events.
As Earth’s climate warms, changing temperatures are expected to reduce agricultural

productivity for some major crops and may exacerbate the impacts of agricultural
pests and pathogens.141 Extreme heat waves will become more frequent, causing
additional wildfires and further degrading air quality. Urban residents, especially
those without access to air conditioning, are vulnerable to heat waves, as heat island
effects make building and pavement surfaces 7°F to 22°F (4°C to 12°C) warmer than
the surrounding natural environment.142

These changes are expected to pose a number of serious risks to human societies,
affecting freshwater management, ecosystems, biodiversity, agriculture, urban
infrastructure, and human health. To manage the risks and lessen the impacts, there is
an urgent need to develop and deploy adaptation measures. Appropriate adaptation
measures will vary from location to location, and some climate change impacts
will be beyond the scope of adaptation. In some places, incremental steps will be
sufficient to manage risk over the next several decades. In other places, transformative
changes, such as relocation, are likely to be required. Because there is a great
deal of uncertainty regarding future changes, advances in tools that support robust
decision making under deep uncertainty143 and adaptive management—a model that
maximizes flexibility as new knowledge becomes available—will be crucial.
Adaptation strategies range from technological and engineered solutions to social,

economic, and institutional approaches. Social and cultural factors will affect which
strategies are acceptable to local communities. The following examples highlight
current strategies being developed and future areas of focus for adaptation. Other
examples related to water scarcity are discussed in the context of Challenge 1.
Building Disaster Resilience

Communities need to increase their resilience to disasters, such as floods and
wildfires, which are expected to become more frequent and more intense in the Resilience
decades ahead. Flood impacts can be lowered by, for example, developing building is the ability to prepare
and plan for, absorb,
standards based on future flood risks and curtailing development in high-risk areas.
recover from, and more
Improved local projections of flood risk based on changes in climate and land use successfully adapt to
are needed to inform such planning and decision making; advanced GIS technologies adverse events.146
are offering flexible tools that engineers and communities can use toward this goal.
In a departure from past strategies, which emphasized centralized flood control
management with levees and dams that have severe impacts on river and floodplain
ecosystems, communities are increasingly turning to natural systems to manage flood
risks while enhancing habitat, water quality, and other environmental services.

Wildfires play a natural role in preserving the health of forests and other ecosystems
that are adapted to wildfire. However, growth of communities into the wildland-
urban interface and also climate change, which has made fire seasons longer and
droughts worse, has increased the costs and impacts of wildfires.144 California
suffered its worst fire season ever in 2017, which was followed by rainstorms that
triggered devastating mudslides. Globally, billions of dollars are spent to remediate
impacts on human health, property damage, loss of tourism, and the restoration of
crucial ecosystem goods and services.145
A major need related to wildfire is the creation of improved models and

measurements to predict wildfire spread and the transport of wildfire smoke
emissions. Other efforts to increase resilience to wildfire include improved
landscape design principles and adaptive management to protect assets through
tree cultivation, prescribed burning, grazing, and education programs to reduce
accidental ignitions.
Reducing Impacts on Ecological Systems and Services

For many aquatic and terrestrial species, climate change has altered habitat
conditions, leading to changes in biodiversity and species abundance and
distribution. Increasing ocean temperatures and nutrient inputs from rivers are
expanding the number and size of areas with low-oxygen conditions (“dead
zones”), impacting commercial fisheries. Declining Arctic sea ice is reducing
the habitat and hunting ground for polar bears, threatening survival of the
species. Some changes are happening too quickly to allow for adaptation.
However, efforts to reduce other environmental stressors, such as pollution (see
Challenge 3), could reduce the severity of climate impacts and prevent species
extinctions. Other adaptation strategies include habitat restoration, assisted
migration, active management of invasive species, and updated management
strategies for fisheries.147

Adapting Agricultural Practices

Technological advances during the 20th century’s green revolution dramatically
improved agricultural yields, economic stability, and food security in many parts
of the world.148 However, climate change threatens to undercut some of these
advances. Agricultural adaptations such as adjusting planting dates, seed or crop
selection (for example, to develop more flood- and drought-tolerant crops), or
altering irrigation practices have the potential to buffer the impacts of climate
change.149 In the long run, it may be necessary to shift the location of agricultural
operations or even to shift human diets (see Challenge 1). Additional economic and
institutional strategies will be necessary to maintain food security amid increased
weather variability and climate extremes.150
Adapting Infrastructure for Sea-Level Rise

Widespread adaptations in infrastructure are needed to adjust to climate change.
Adaptation strategies include ensuring that critical infrastructure and systems such
as water supply, wastewater, and solid waste management systems, electricity-
generating facilities, hospitals, and transportation systems are resilient to expected
heat, storm, and flooding stressors. With projections of 1 to 4 feet of sea-level
rise by the end of the century,151 engineers are developing ways to hold back the
sea where possible or to buy time until more transformative adaptation strategies,
including managed retreat, are developed.
In the near term, the city of Miami, Florida, is spending $400 million to raise streets,
build sea walls, and construct pumps to reduce frequent flooding.152 Natural areas,
such as coastal wetlands and mangroves, are being protected or restored to maintain
natural buffers against storm surge (see Box 2-2). In the Netherlands, engineers have
designed long-term strategies to protect heavily developed areas and accommodate
increased flooding in less-developed regions. Innovations include smart dikes
with embedded sensors that relay real-time status reports to decision makers and
ecologically enhanced dikes to provide habitat for marine organisms.153

BOX 2-2. REBUILDING WETLANDS

IN LOUISIANA
The wetlands of southern Louisiana, the
largest in the United States, are disappearing
at an alarming rate. More than 1,900 square
miles have been lost since 1930 from natural
and human causes. Levees and canals have
diverted the flow of sediments from the
Mississippi River that once sustained the
wetlands, while sea-level rise and natural
subsidence continue to affect the coastline.
Coastal wetlands, including salt marshes
and mangroves, provide habitat for local
fisheries and are the first line of protection
against hurricanes and storm surge. Without
action, the state could lose an additional
2,250 square miles of land over the next 50
years. The 2017 Louisiana Coastal Master
Plan,154 approved unanimously by Louisiana’s
legislature, focuses on restoring the natural
flow of sediments to the wetlands, as well
as such projects as marsh creation, barrier To inform decision making, cities need comprehensive
island restoration, and oyster reef restoration. analyses to understand the adaptation options, their
Wetland loss is problematic in many places, potential impacts, and the benefits and costs of local,
and environmental engineers can contribute regional, national, and private-sector infrastructure
to the design of green infrastructure that investments to manage future risks. It will be particularly
helps restore lost ecosystems services and important to develop economic and institutional strategies
retain habitats at risk from sea level rise. to support low-income and vulnerable communities as
these adaptation measures are implemented.
Anticipating and Responding to Health Threats

Climate change has a broad range of implications for human health.155 Changes in
temperature are expected to increase heat-related illnesses and deaths (see Figure
2-4), while increases in ozone and wildfires are expected to worsen air pollution,
with major effects on human health. Temperature changes may directly affect
the transmission of vectorborne and zoonotic diseases carried by rodents and
insects, such as ticks and mosquitoes, by increasing the frequency and shifting the
geographic areas at risk. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may
also affect the prevalence or distribution of foodborne, waterborne, and water-
related diseases.156 Temperature changes can also affect wildlife migration patterns,
potentially leading to more human-wildlife contact and increasing the risk of
infectious diseases that originate in animal populations and spread to humans.
The risk of infectious disease outbreaks also can rise in mass displacement events,
such as natural disasters. In the aftermath of Hurricane Maria in 2017, Puerto Rico
grappled with many health issues including an outbreak of leptospirosis a bacterial
disease.157 Outbreaks in such settings pose enormous challenges for policy makers
and medical, public health, and environmental health personnel, and such events
can also contribute to food and water insecurity and malnutrition and cause stress
to those who are displaced from their homes.

FIGURE 2-4. Projections of temperature-related

excess mortality in cities in North America, Southeast
Asia, and southern Europe under low-, medium-, and
high-greenhouse gas emission scenarios, termed
representative concentration pathways (RCP2.6, RCP4.5,
and RCP8.5, respectively).

Adaptation strategies could include strengthening infectious disease surveillance

systems, developing rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests, and improving rapid
response capabilities for disasters and infectious disease outbreaks. Progress toward
ensuring water and food security and reducing air and water pollution would also
reduce the human health impacts from climate change. One strategy for adaptation
in urban areas is to mitigate the urban heat island effect, with efforts needed to test
and evaluate the potential for reflective surfaces, vegetation, and other features to
reduce the temperature of cities.
What Environmental Engineers Can Do to Advance

Climate Change Adaptation
Responding to climate change is about making choices amid substantial
uncertainty. Decision strategies have been developed to support robust planning
and decision making under deep uncertainty.158 To support these decision
processes, engineers and scientists can improve the understanding of potential
long-term climate impacts and examine and communicate the effectiveness and
consequences of adaptation strategies, considering a wide array of environmental,
social, and economic factors (see also Challenge 5). Environmental engineers
are trained with a broad, systems view, which enables them to become a vital
bridge across disciplines and act as integrators of information. Using modeling
and decision support tools, environmental engineers can work with diverse
interdisciplinary teams to synthesize information, analyze adaptation alternatives,
and weigh the costs, benefits, and risks. Environmental engineers have skills in
uncertainty analysis and can support iterative risk management approaches to
analyze climate adaptation strategies for effectiveness and lessons learned in the
context of an evolving understanding of climate science. Examples of specific
opportunities for environmental engineers to help address this challenge are
highlighted in Box 2-3.

BOX 2-3. EXAMPLE AREAS IN WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS CAN

ADVANCE EFFORTS TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Environmental engineers, working with civil engineers and experts in climate science and data,
can play a number of roles in adapting to the expected impacts of climate change:
Building Disaster Resilience
• Develop a national wildfire smoke forecast system.
• Analyze changing coastal and inland flood risks under climate change and land-use change,
including risks to priority infrastructure.
Adapting Urban and Coastal Infrastructure
• Analyze the benefits and costs of gray versus green infrastructure, including pollution control
and ecosystem services.
• Identify cost-effective adaptation strategies for water and wastewater infrastructure at risk
from sea-level rise.
Ecosystems
• Develop a better understanding of ecosystem services in mitigating the impact of climate
change.
• Develop and evaluate approaches to reduce pollutant loading to ecosystems.
• Develop strategies to reduce and mitigate impacts of environmental degradation,
deforestation, and ecosystem loss.
Agriculture
• Analyze large-scale costs and benefits of major changes to agriculture, including location
and dietary changes.
Health
• Develop sensors capable of rapid pathogen detection in humans, animals, and the
environment.
• Use green infrastructure, vegetation, and other methods to reduce urban heat island effects
while improving water quality in vulnerable communities.
• Participate in formulation and implementation of innovative strategies to reduce the risk of
transmission of vectorborne, zoonotic, foodborne, and waterborne diseases.

GRAND CHALLENGE 3:
Design a Future
Without Pollution or
Waste
In nature, waste is a resource. One organism’s waste is

repurposed to sustain another. Since the Industrial Revolution,
human society has adopted a more linear model. Resources and
energy are used to manufacture products, which are then used and
ultimately discarded as waste when those products are no longer wanted
(Figure 3-1). This linear model of “take-make-dispose” has been successful in
providing affordable products to billions of people and advancing their standard of
living. However, this production model generates over a billion tons of discarded
products and by-products globally each year (see Box 3-1), and uses large amounts
of energy and resources that are never recaptured. An analysis of five high-income
countries found that one-half to three-quarters of annual resource inputs are
returned to the environment as waste within a year.159 Despite improved efficiency
in the use of resources, the overall production of waste in many countries,
including the United States, continues to increase.160
The “take-make-dispose” model introduces large amounts of pollutants into the

water, soil, and air. Throughout much of the 20th century, large-scale chemical
production combined with inappropriate chemical handling and waste disposal
created a daunting array of legacy hazardous waste sites globally.165 Technologies
to characterize these sites and contain and remove hazardous contaminants have
advanced significantly over the past three decades, and there have been many
successes.166 However, there remain at least 126,000 hazardous waste sites with
residual contamination in the United States alone, about 12,000 of which are
considered unlikely to be remediated to the point of unrestricted use with current
technology. Some of these sites will require monitoring, treatment, and oversight
in perpetuity.167 Meanwhile, new concerns associated with legacy contaminants
continue to be discovered (Box 3-2).
FIGURE 3-1. The linear model of resource extraction, manufacturing,

consumption, and disposal (“take-make-dispose”) dominates global
economies. This model produces ever-increasing amounts of garbage
while wasting resources and generating excess pollution. NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION

TABLE 8
Income Level Average MSW Generation (kg/cap/day)
Average MSW
ration Rates Low-Income 0.6 – 1.0
by Income Middle-Income 0.8 – 1.5
BOX 3-1. RETHINKING CONSUMPTION AND WASTE
High-Income solid waste generated per 1.1 year is expected to double
– 4.5
Energy, water, and food resources are routinely wasted by 2025162 and triple by 2100.163 This upward trajectory is
along supply chains. For example, food waste includes occurring despite increases in recycling and reuse in the
the values presented in this report, it’s important
harvest spillage or damage, losses during processing, and GDP (high-,
developed worldmiddle-,
primarily or low-income)
because and an
the increasing sizeaverage
of
toproduce
keep in mind that values for waste generation at range of MSW generation based
thrown away because of blemishes or spoilage (see the middle class, which accounts for the bulk of consumer on that income
aChallenge
regional1).level can differand
For computers markedly because
other electronic of the goods
devices, level.spending
Modest(see adjustments
figure below).for current
In 2015, there experience
were
influence from afrom
waste is generated single country,
mining such and
raw materials as the
from US, more andthan
waste generation
3 billion people in practices wereworldwide,
the middle class made where
China or India.
manufacturing processes. Once in use, many end products and by 2030, the middle
appropriate. Similar class
tois‘energy
anticipatedintensity’
to expand byurban
do not take long to become waste themselves. The plastic another 2 billion
residents alsopeople.
exhibitMuch
164
‘wasteof this growth is in the
intensity’.
sandwich bag that is manufactured from petroleum or the developing world, where modern environmentally sound
Methodology for calculating 2025 projections:
foil wrapper derived from refined bauxite ore are often used methods to manage
For further waste are less
information oncommon. Encouraging
the sources used for
for a matter offor
Projections hours before
urban being discarded.
municipal The service
solid waste life
gener- less consumption, developing product
the 2025 projections please refer to Table designs and 7.
of electronic
ation in 2025 products
werecontinues
made by to shrink due to expected
factoring technical manufacturing that minimizes waste, and increasing
advancement, style preferences, or planned
growth in population and GDP and estimated obsolescence. recycling
Table
Figure 3. Urban Waste 8andillustrates
Generation
reuse globally
theisrange
a major ofopportunity
MSW based and on
Globally, about 80 percent of consumer goods, excluding responsibility of the environmental engineer that will
per capita waste generation. Projections for each country income level. These values are supported
packaging, are disposed after a single use with no plan or preserve resources for future generations and reduce waste
country were made based on the level 161of expected by Table 6.
ability to be reused, recycled, or biodegraded. Municipal and pollution.
1,200
Waste Generated (millions tons/year)
956
FIG. 3 1,000
Urban Waste
Generation 800 686
ncome Level 602
and Year 600
369 360
400
213 243
200 75
0
Urban Population (millions) 343 676 1,293 2,080 573 619 774 912
Waste (kg/capita/year) 219 343 288 344 423 628 777 840
Country Income Group Lower Lower Middle Upper Middle High
Income Income Income Income
2010 Projected 2025
Current and projected urban waste generation by income level and year.
PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION WASTE & POLLUTION
Design a Future Without Pollution or Waste | 45

BOX 3-2. EMERGING CHALLENGES WITH LEGACY combined with insufficient environmental protection over
CONTAMINATION the past three decades has resulted in widespread soil
New concerns associated with legacy contaminants contamination. China’s first national soil survey results
continue to be discovered. For example, per- and are alarming: nearly 20 percent of agricultural lands
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which include over 3,000 are classified as polluted.187 The pollution stems from
compounds, have been produced worldwide since the atmospheric deposition of heavy metals and direct irrigation
1940s for use as water-resistant coatings in manufacturing using industrial wastewater,188 and human exposure is
and in fire-fighting foams commonly used at military and evidenced by heavy metal contamination in China’s rice
civilian airports.183 Over the past decade, these chemicals, crop.189 The scale of environmental cleanup needed to
sometimes called “forever chemicals” because they do not address this problem is similarly alarming, with cost
biodegrade, have been increasingly detected in surface estimates of China’s current land remediation plan as much
water and groundwater, sometimes at levels exceeding as $69 billion by 2020.190
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental engineers can help address legacy
lifetime health advisory level (70 ng/L, established based contamination problems using sustainable remediation
on exposure to two PFAS compounds).184 Based on EPA approaches. These include stakeholder engagement and
sampling of public water supplies in the United States, up life-cycle analysis to identify the best long-term solutions
to 15 million people live in areas where their drinking water that are socially acceptable and economically viable while
exceeds the EPA health advisory level.185 However, in mid- minimizing negative side effects of cleanup activities, such
2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as air pollution and ecosystem degradation.191
stated in a draft toxicology risk assessment that the EPA
level may be 7 to 10 times too high for two common PFAS
compounds to protect against health risks.186 Continued
research is needed to determine the scope of the problem,
assess the risks posed by the many different chemicals,
and develop water treatment options where appropriate to
inform policy decisions for use and management of these
compounds.
Rapidly developing countries are also facing escalating
environmental crises as a consequence of major economic
growth without regard for socioenvironmental costs.
A key example is China, where industrial development
Over the past few decades, the amount of pollution produced by some industries
and activities has dropped precipitously thanks to research and technology
advances and effective policy interventions (see Challenge 5). For example,
regulations on heavy-duty diesel fuel emissions, the development of ultra-low-
sulfur diesel fuel, and new emission control technologies have helped reduce
particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 90 percent in
diesel truck and bus engines put into use since 2010 in the United States.168
Nevertheless, large quantities of untreated sewage, industrial by-products, and
vehicle emissions continue to find their way into the water, soil, and air.169 Human
activities are causing nitrogen and phosphorus to accumulate in bodies of water170
and greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere (see Challenge 2).171 Toxic
chemicals have been detected in people and wildlife in every corner of the globe,
from the Arctic wilderness to remote tropical islands.172
Because of improvements in living conditions, including water treatment, sanitation,

and health care, the 20th century saw a doubling of life spans globally,173 but
pollution continues to have profound effects on human health. Pollution contributes

12
Global attributable deaths (millions)
10
FIGURE 3-2. Global estimated deaths by risk factor and by total environmental and occupational causes (blue),
which are disaggregated and shown individually in purple. Air pollution–attributable deaths are primarily linked
to particulate matter pollution and indoor burning of solid fuels. Water-related risks are associated with diarrheal
disease from unsafe water and poor sanitation. The estimated occupational deaths include 0.33 million from injury,
but the remainder are from pollution-related causes, such as asbestos, carcinogens, and airborne particulate matter.
The risk factors are not exclusive of one another.
to the leading causes of death worldwide including heart disease, stroke, and chronic
lung disease. One of every six deaths in 2015—about 9 million deaths worldwide—
can be attributed to disease from exposure to pollution (Figure 3-2).174 Air pollution
causes two-thirds of the premature pollution-related deaths, while unsafe drinking
water and sanitation account for nearly 20 percent.175 More than 90 percent of the
world’s population lives in areas where air quality does not meet health standards.176
Although the problems are worse in low- and middle-income countries where
the sources of air pollution are minimally controlled, air pollution is estimated
to cause nearly 400,000 premature deaths annually in high-income countries.177
Because these estimates do not account for compounds whose effects are not well
characterized, for example, chemicals thought to cause endocrine disruption, the true
toll of the health effects of chemicals is likely underestimated.
Pollution also harms natural ecosystems. Metals leaching into streams from
abandoned mines have been linked with reduced biodiversity, and trace organic
chemicals, such as pharmaceuticals, have been associated with reproductive
anomalies including the feminization of male fish.178 Millions of tons of plastic end
up in the oceans every year,179 creating large floating islands of garbage, and small
plastic particles (“microplastics”) are accumulating in the food chain with a largely
unknown effect.180 Wastewater discharges, urban and agricultural runoff, and fossil
fuel combustion sources have overloaded lakes, estuaries, and rivers with nutrients,
fostering algal blooms that can deplete oxygen and produce toxins.181 All of these
ecological problems ultimately harm human health and disrupt industries such as
fisheries and agriculture. In 2014, for example, about 500,000 residents of Toledo,
Ohio, were ordered not to use their tap water for days due to toxins produced by an
algal bloom in Lake Erie.182

Challenges posed by pollution and waste will intensify as the world’s population
grows, people live in ever higher densities, standards of living increase, and
industrial production expands to meet increasing demands. Two new approaches
will be required to achieve economic progress while minimizing negative health
and environmental impacts and sustainably managing Earth’s resources. First, a new
paradigm of waste management and pollution prevention is needed—one that shifts
from a linear model of resource extraction, production, use, disposal, and cleanup
toward one designed to prevent waste and pollution from the outset. Second,
innovative approaches are needed to recover valuable resources from the waste we
do produce. Ideally the two approaches are closely coupled. These new approaches
will require life-cycle and systems thinking to identify sustainable solutions that
minimize the amount of energy and resources consumed and the amount of waste
and pollution generated through all components of production and use.
Preventing Pollution and Waste

Through Improved Design
Every day, new chemicals and materials are manufactured, elements are mined from
the earth, fuels are burned, and fertilizers and pesticides are made and used. These
activities are undertaken to support functions and provide services—such as the
production of food, medicines, clothing, building materials, and electronics—that are
vital to our society and economy. The question is now how to provide these functions
and services without generating the types and scale of pollution and waste that have
harmed human health and ecosystems in the past.
The solution requires working toward a circular economy designed to prevent

harmful waste and pollution from the outset. Within a circular economy, processes
are designed to minimize waste, products and waste materials are reused if
possible, and materials that cannot be reused are remanufactured or recycled
(Figure 3-3). Organic wastes that cannot be reused are converted to other useful
products such as chemicals, materials, or fuels. Pollution prevention is also
considered at every design stage to minimize negative impacts. Using materials

source efficiency and

n for re to m
sig inim
De ize
po
Re
llu
sp
on
ib
le
tio
s
ex
n
tra Manufacturing
ctio
n
Sourcing
gy recovery
Landfi
ll ener
d
Wastew ting
n
ra
os
ate
Comp
and chemicals that are relatively Distribution
benign in the environment reduces
Design for r
risks to human and ecosystem
health as they are cycled through Recycling ecyc
the economy and society. When
ling
considering the entire life cycle,

designs that reduce energy use and
De
for
promote efficiency are emphasized.

sig
Use
dis
n fo
By thinking beyond incremental
e
as
us
rd
as Reuse
se
re
d
is
se an
improvements (such as treating effluents
m
mb y
bl
ly vit
y
ge
on site) and working to develop innovative De Des or lon
sig ign f gn f
new approaches that eliminate waste and n fo or repa
ir Desi
r re
pollution, environmental engineers can help achieve
a sustainable future.
FIGURE 3-3. Sharply reducing waste and
Design is the stage that most influences the types and pollution requires new approaches to design
amounts of waste or pollution that will be generated. based on life-cycle thinking.
At the design stage, engineers are able to help select
and evaluate the characteristics of the final outcomes,
considering material, chemical, and energy inputs;
effectiveness and efficiency; aesthetics and form; and specifications such as
quality, safety, and performance. In the development of new systems, this stage is
ideal for innovation and creativity and represents a key opportunity to integrate
environmental goals into the specifications of the products or processes. Through
life-cycle and systems thinking—as well as green chemistry and green engineering,
which emphasize designs that ensure that inputs, outputs, and processes are as
inherently nonhazardous as possible—new designs can be implemented that rely
on more benign materials and less energy, that do not generate much waste, and
that do not shift environmental burdens from one place to another. Benefits of such
an integrated approach include wise use of resources, improved human health,
and enhanced protection of natural systems. Advances needed to support a circular
economy include efficient and effective separation and recycling technologies
and market forces or government incentives that recognize the broader impacts of
pollution and waste (see Challenge 5).
Many of the most successful interventions focus on preventing the production or

release of pollution or waste. This strategy is generally easier and less expensive
than remediating contamination sites after toxins are dispersed in the environment.
For example, perchloroethylene, a widely used solvent for dry cleaning fabrics
and metal degreasing operations and a likely carcinogen,192 has been replaced in
these applications with supercritical carbon dioxide, which has low toxicity and is
chemically stable, readily available, and easily recyclable. Another example is the
recent movement away from subtractive manufacturing, a process by which three-

dimensional objects are constructed by successively cutting material away from a

solid block of material. Instead, additive manufacturing,for example, 3-D printing
constructs objects by successively depositing material in layers without the need to
generate waste by cutting material away. A growing number of zero-waste businesses
and communities aim to reuse, recycle, or recover at least 90 percent of discarded
material while also aiming to produce no pollutants to air, water, or land.193
Eliminating the use of the most toxic chemicals is an important part of green
design. To develop nonpolluting components and processes and prevent
future contamination, it will be important to fill knowledge gaps about the full
environmental risks of new and existing contaminants. For example, methyl-tert-
butyl ether (MTBE) was added to gasoline to help reduce emissions in vehicle
exhaust. However, MTBE became a groundwater quality problem once gasoline
leaked from underground storage tanks because MTBE was able to migrate farther
and was more resistant to biodegradation than other compounds in gasoline.194
Of the more than 140,000 new chemicals that have been introduced since 1950,
fewer than half have been subject to human safety or toxicity testing.195 EPA’s
Pollution Prevention Framework can be used to estimate physical properties,
which are then used to predict environmental concerns such as toxicity, mobility,
persistence, and bioaccumulation, but more development and validation is needed.
In addition, there are significant needs related to risk communication to help the
public and decision makers understand the true costs of pollution.
Capturing the Value of Waste

Under a linear production model, resources are used inefficiently and can become
depleted as landfills expand. Recovering resources from waste recaptures the value
of those materials and minimizes environmental impacts from further resource
extraction. Localized or distributed recovery and reuse also reduces the energy
requirements and pollution associated with transportation of materials and waste.
Resource recovery can also address local resource shortages in economically
depressed or geographically isolated communities.

Today’s common waste recovery efforts focus on recycling plastic, glass,

paper, aluminum, and scrap metals, but much more is possible with advances
in engineered environmental processes that allow the extraction of specific
components from waste mixtures. Precious and rare-earth metals could be retrieved
from electronic waste196 and potentially even mined from landfills. Carbon
capture systems could be used to turn carbon dioxide into forms that are useful
for applications ranging from building materials to plastics to greener solvents.197
Nutrients in wastewater could be captured for use as fertilizers (see Box 3-3).
Many of today’s municipal and agricultural waste streams are rich in organic
carbon, which could be recovered and channeled toward chemical manufacturing
or energy recovery.198 The amount of energy contained in wastewater is equivalent
to several multiples of the amount of energy required to treat it.199 Energy recovery
has been implemented at numerous centralized wastewater treatment plants,
including in Oakland, California, and in Strass, Austria, by converting a fraction of
the incoming organic carbon to biogas to produce heat and electricity.200 However,
technologies have not yet been developed to cost-effectively capture the full
potential of the embedded energy.201
Recovery of resources from waste streams has long been practiced, but in a
nonsystematic fashion. In Dharavi, India, one of the largest slums in the world,
people have built a thriving economy, employing approximately 250,000 people,
based on recovering waste generated in Mumbai. “Gobar gas,” produced from
anaerobic digestion of animal waste, is used for cooking and community-scale
lighting in rural and urban communities, particularly in Southeast Asia and sub-
Saharan Africa. Fly ash and gypsum by-products of coal combustion have been used
in the manufacturing of concrete and wallboard.207
BOX 3-3. NUTRIENT RECOVERY reserves for the future, but further advances in waste
Nutrients present in wastewater can cause problems separation are needed to achieve the technical and economic
for the environment and infrastructure, such as algal viability for widespread adoption. 205 In addition, producing
blooms in lakes and estuaries and buildup of the mineral reactive nitrogen for fertilizer from inert nitrogen gas in the
struvite in the mechanical systems of wastewater atmosphere requires a considerable amount of energy and
treatment plants. Globally, humans release about 30 creates further imbalance in the global nitrogen cycle. 206
percent more phosphorus and twice as much nitrogen Some wastewater facilities have been successful in extracting
into the environment, mostly from fertilizers, than aquatic phosphorus to create a commercial fertilizer, but in most
ecosystems can bear without degrading habitats. 202 Reusing cases, recovery of phosphorus and nitrogen from wastewater
nutrients in existing waste streams can help mitigate these using current technologies is not economically viable.
challenges while producing valuable services. For example,
reuse of municipal wastewater or agricultural runoff for
irrigation can reduce fertilizer use.
Innovative approaches to cost-effectively recover and
reuse nitrogen and phosphorus from waste streams rather
than mining new phosphorus or synthesizing new nitrogen
could conserve natural resources, reduce pollution, and save
energy. Phosphorus is an increasingly scarce natural resource
with limited mineable reserves, 203 but the phosphorus
available from human urine and feces could account for 22
percent of the global phosphorus demand. 204 Recovering
phosphorus from waste thus helps to preserve phosphorus

Resource recovery is rapidly being integrated into existing

manufacturing, agricultural, and industrial practices, but
much work remains to be done to realize its potential, both
in terms of recovery yields and the types of resources that
can be cost-effectively recovered. A significant impediment
to utilization of waste is that existing traditional waste
streams have not been systematically characterized with
resource recovery in mind. Local, regional, and global
inventories of waste materials are needed to identify
opportunities for reuse or inputs to other production
schemes. With this information, appropriate technologies
for resource recovery can then be developed using physical,
chemical, and biological processes that capture the
maximum financial, social, and environmental benefits.
This information could also lead industries to redesign
their resource extraction and manufacturing processes to reduce waste and more
efficiently and cost-effectively recover and reuse valuable resources.
Results of public programs to reduce, reuse, and recycle have been mixed. The
United States, for instance, recycles or composts 35 percent of its municipal waste
and less than 10 percent of its plastics,208 but higher rates are possible. Six countries
recycle or compost more than half of their waste, led by Germany at 65 percent and
South Korea at 59 percent.209 In 2016, nearly 48 million metric tons of electronic
waste were produced globally, representing a value of approximately $60 billion in
raw materials, and only 20 percent of this waste was recycled.210 EPA reports that
electronic waste accounts for 70 percent of heavy metals in landfills, such as mercury,
lead, and cadmium.211 Waste streams are often heterogeneous, complex mixtures
that currently require significant resources and energy to separate. Sorting technology
has been developed and commercialized for some wastes, such as separating
organic from inorganic wastes. The extent of resource recovery from wastes could be
enhanced by improved, cost-effective waste separation techniques.212
Effective waste recovery requires attention not only to scientific and engineering
capabilities but also to economic and behavioral factors. Considerations of financial
viability and feasibility include the cost of the recovery technology, the quality
of the recovered product, the market for the product, any adverse environmental
impacts, and measures required to manage and prevent them. Governments can
also develop incentives to encourage waste recovery that account for broad societal
and environmental benefits of these programs (see Challenge 5).
Many of these advances are focused on large urban areas, where the highest
volumes of waste are generated. However, there is also substantial potential to
harvest the value of waste streams that are smaller or more intermittent to benefit
rural communities. For example, decentralized resource recovery systems could be
developed, particularly for sewage, food, animal, and agricultural waste.

With training in environmental chemistry, microbiology, hydrology, transport
processes, solid waste management, water and wastewater treatment, and air
pollution—as well as skills in life-cycle and systems thinking—environmental
engineers bring important capabilities toward designing a future without pollution

and waste (see Box 3-4). Technological advances combined with innovative new
materials and designs can be used to conserve natural resources and minimize adverse
effects on human health and the environment. These complex challenges demand
solutions that consider broad costs and benefits throughout the life cycle, including
human health risks, environmental impacts to water, soil, and air, as well as social and
financial impacts (see Challenge 5). Environmental engineers can help analyze the
impacts of innovative manufacturing and resource recovery approaches compared to
the life-cycle impacts of traditional processes to identify the most promising solutions.
For many pollutants, although the knowledge and technology exist to reduce exposure,
the greater challenges are economic, political, and social. For example, billions of
people worldwide use solid fuel–burning cookstoves for daily meal preparation,
creating large amounts of particulate matter pollution. It is possible to design cookstoves
that are much cleaner burning to benefit health, local environmental quality, and
climate, but there are cultural, economic, and logistical hurdles to their adoption.213
Improving resource recovery in developed countries may require people to change
their behaviors and accept new approaches to waste separation. An interdisciplinary
approach applying social and cultural knowledge is crucial to overcoming such hurdles
to guide the development and adoption of sustainable solutions.
BOX 3-4. EXAMPLE ROLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS TO DESIGN A FUTURE WITHOUT
POLLUTION OR WASTE
Environmental engineers have essential skills needed to move toward a future without pollution or waste. Examples of ways
environmental engineers can contribute include
Preventing Pollution and Waste
• R edesign products and their production processes to promote resource efficiency, longevity, reuse, repair, and recycling
while minimizing pollution.
• Develop and use tools to better predict the risks of new and existing chemicals in the environment, including toxicity,
fate, and transport.
• Quantify and document the life-cycle consequences associated with producing commonly used resources and products
and the broad costs and benefits of alternative approaches designed to reduce pollution and waste. Work with social
and behavioral scientists to communicate this information to inform the decisions of consumers, manufacturers, and
governments that could incentivize these efforts.
• Manage or remediate existing legacy hazardous waste and contaminated sites to eliminate harmful exposures and return
sites to productive use.
Capturing the Value of Waste
• Quantify waste-stream characteristics and identify opportunities to reuse or recover materials traditionally considered as
waste.
• Identify products that could be manufactured with recycled and reused materials that would have lower cost, lower
greenhouse gas emissions, and require less energy to produce.
• Develop new resource-recovery technologies and processes for cost-effective recovery of materials and energy from the
waste stream.
• Work with other sectors including public health, architecture, and urban planning to integrate engineering designs,
processes, and technologies to develop effective approaches to resource recovery with broad societal benefits.

GRAND CHALLENGE 4:
Create Efficient,
Healthy, Resilient
Cities
The future is increasingly urban. Cities will absorb almost

all of the world’s projected population growth in the next three
decades. By 2050 cities will be home to over 2 billion more people
than today. The proportion of the world’s population that lives in urban
areas will grow from 55 percent in 2017 to 66 percent in 2050.214 By 2030, 10
more cities are expected to cross the 10-million-inhabitant threshold for the first
time, increasing the number of “megacities” from 31 in 2016 to 41 in 2030. The
majority of these will be in lower-income countries and contain large slums—dense
informal developments without government services.215
While this massive concentrated population growth is likely to further compound

many of the current problems that cities face, the urbanization of the human
population is happening at least in part because of the inherent attractiveness of
cities. They offer significant educational, economic, and cultural opportunities
as well as better access to communication and health care services. These
opportunities draw migrants from the rural countryside where such opportunities
are sparser. As noted in a 2016 United Nations report on urbanization, cities are
seen as economic hubs and drivers of innovation and competition, propelling a
steady flow of people from rural to urban areas, particularly in Asia.216

Even as this economic attraction accelerates urbanization, today’s cities face

persistent problems associated with air and water pollution, energy distribution,
water supply, waste disposal, and waste generation. Although cities only occupy 3
percent of Earth’s ice-free landmass, they produce 50 percent of global waste and
60 to 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cities account for 60 to 80
percent of the world’s energy use and 75 percent of all natural resource use.217
Cities have stark inequities in the distribution of incomes, public services, access to
open space, and quality of life. In middle- to high-income countries, urban sprawl
and car-centric and inefficient transit systems create traffic congestion, pollution,
and safety hazards, degrading quality of life. Lack of green space and abandoned
properties contribute to social and environmental stress, especially in poor urban
neighborhoods. Urban communities are fractured by poverty and unequal access
to community services, even as accelerating gentrification exacerbates those
inequities.
In low- and middle-income countries, large populations live in dense informal

settlements that are expanding rapidly; about 880 million people live in slums
today and that number is projected to more than double by 2050.218 With many
cities unable to provide adequate sanitation or food and water security for
these slums, their residents face a high risk of
malnutrition and disease.219 Increased human
contact with domestic animals and wildlife in
these settings heightens the risk of diseases with
pandemic potential that emerge from animals and
subsequently spread from person to person, as
occurred with the SARS epidemic. SARS spread
rapidly to more than 30 counties before being
contained.220
The functioning and stability of many of the world’s

major cities are made all the more precarious by
threats from extreme events such as floods, heat
waves, and droughts, which are expected to hit cities
harder and more frequently in the coming decades,
putting more lives and infrastructure at risk.221
These challenges, however, are not insurmountable. The scale and structure of
cities offer unique opportunities to improve quality of life and equitably address
many of the grand challenges such as climate change adaptation, pollution, waste,
and sustainable food, water, and energy supplies. Aging physical infrastructure
represents both a major challenge and a key opportunity to reshape tomorrow’s
world. The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that $4.6 trillion in
U.S. infrastructure investment will be needed by 2025,222 and the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development estimates worldwide infrastructure needs
at $70 trillion by 2030.223 If this infrastructure were refashioned to support multiple
city functions and the lives of residents in an integrated way, it is possible to create
cities that are more equitable, efficient, healthy, and resilient. Environmental
engineers can bring unique training and analytical skills to build partnerships with
the other professions—in planning, energy, and transportation, among others—
who together can creatively overcome these challenges and take advantage of the
significant opportunities that cities present.
Create Efficient, Healthy, Resilient Cities | 55

What Does an Efficient City Look Like?

Cities can be viewed as urban ecosystems, composed of systems of infrastructure
networks (such as water, energy, transportation, waste, and public spaces), the
people who use and operate the infrastructure, and the multiple interactions that
occur between them. Accordingly, urban infrastructure is a system of systems
through which energy, money, information, and materials flow. Significant inequity
in the distribution of resources and political power within cities can result in
infrastructure systems that serve different communities to different degrees.
There are multiple ways to make cities more efficient, both by increasing the
efficiency of their individual parts and by making various systems function more
in concert with each other. For example, waste from one system can be used in
another system (waste to market or waste to energy), thereby minimizing inputs
and reducing net waste (see also Challenge 3). Documenting inequities in the
distribution of infrastructure services can help urban planners and engineers work
to address those issues. Two approaches to improve a city’s efficiency involve
reenvisioning urban infrastructure and incorporating smart systems.
Reenvisioning Urban Infrastructure

Cities cannot achieve these desired efficiencies by simply monitoring and
improving the operations of older infrastructure. In the past, infrastructure systems
were designed to optimize water delivery, energy provision, transit, and land use in
a siloed fashion that led to suboptimal solutions. Going forward, sustainable urban
infrastructure development needs to look beyond the local scale and consider
transboundary infrastructures across regional, national, and global scales.224 For
example, developing reliable, nutritious, and sustainable food supplies in densely
populated cities requires looking beyond a city’s boundaries to the full range
of producers, suppliers, and transporters and
the implications to energy and water use and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Cities can be more efficient by considering the

urban infrastructure as a system of systems at many
scales rather than individual disconnected entities
(energy, water, sanitation, and traffic). The design
of buildings and communities affects how much
energy and water are used and how much waste is
produced (Figure 4-1). Low-impact development
that mimics natural processes, for example
rain gardens and porous pavement, reduces
uncontrolled stormwater runoff and its associated
water pollution and erosion.225 It also provides
additional benefits such as added urban green space, reduced urban heat island
effects, and recreation opportunities. Improved management of urban stormwater
runoff increases nutrient and organic matter concentrations in wastewater, making it
easier to recover valuable resources, such as energy and nutrients. Urban aquaponic
systems, in which fish and plants are grown together, can recycle wastes and nutrients
while providing food security and eliminating food deserts.
Integrated urban solutions that address multiple needs or challenges can also help
save money. For example, in lieu of filtration to maintain water quality control

FIGURE 4-1. The Bullitt Center in Seattle is an example of a building designed to minimize its environmental impacts.
Constructed of local materials selected for their low health and environmental impacts, the building has solar panels
that generate as much energy as the building uses, employs geothermal heating and cooling, actively controls
windows and shades to optimize natural lighting and circulation of fresh air, stores rainwater for nonpotable use, and
has its own wetland to filter graywater.
of pathogens, for about 90 percent of its supply New York City uses watershed
protection strategies combined with chlorination and ultraviolet disinfection. This
approach up to the present time has allowed the city to save $8 billion to $10 billion
in capital expenses and approximately $1 million per day in operational costs as
compared to an engineered filtration-based approach for the entire supply.226
There are significant opportunities to transform urban infrastructure, but also

large challenges: Most of the residential and commercial buildings and other
infrastructure in today’s cities are old and inefficient, needing significant
investment to be maintained let alone enhanced. Older infrastructure is especially
prevalent in the poorest urban communities, further exacerbating inequities. This
transformation to efficient, sustainable urban infrastructure—and the contributions
of environmental engineers to that transformation—will need to address head-on
how to apply those changes not just to new buildings and infrastructure, but to
adaptive reuse and revitalization in all city neighborhoods.
Advancing Smart Cities

Improvements in efficiency can also be gained through “smart” technologies
that capitalize on advances in sensing technology, data, connectivity, artificial
intelligence, and participatory governance to optimize operations and resource
management.227 A smart system can be not only reactive but proactive, using
inputs, information processing, intelligence, and actuation to anticipate and prevent

BOX 4-1. DESIGNING SMART SYSTEMS

Smart systems are being developed to improve city functions, as demonstrated by these examples. Such systems can
become more predictive and require less human involvement as technology improves and smart systems are more
effectively integrated into city operations.
• A start-up company is applying artificial intelligence to help cities efficiently respond to earthquakes by predicting,
in real time, which areas are likely to have suffered the most damage and where injured people are likely to be
concentrated. 231
• In Barcelona, sensors provide site-specific weather information that is used to calibrate the precise amount of water
needed to irrigate parks. 232
• In Amsterdam, a mobile app allows cyclists to turn up the intensity of outdoor lighting while they ride along a bike path
and then let the lights dim after they pass through, allowing residents to play an active role in helping the city operate
efficiently. 233
• Smart grid technology in being implemented to improve efficiency and avoid cascading failure, as happened in the 1996
western United States blackout. 234
• Smart waste management systems monitor how full bins are and use solar power to compress waste before pick-up,
helping managers plan waste collection routes for greater efficiency. 235
Smart systems are not limited to cities in higher-income countries; low- and middle-income countries have begun to “leap-
frog” over older technologies to take advantage of newer ones:
• A collaboration between the World Bank, the ride-hailing platform Grab, and the government of Cebu City, the Philippines,
allows the city government to use GPS data from taxi drivers’ smartphones to track traffic patterns and incidents and
inform emergency response and transportation planning. 236
• An app developed for residents in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, uses crime data and machine learning to predict where and
when crimes are most likely to occur, allowing users to make informed decisions and reduce their risk as they move
throughout the city. 237
problems or inefficiencies.228 Although there are many ways to define a “smart city,”
the basic idea is that cities can improve outcomes, such as efficiency or quality of
life, by incorporating smart interconnected systems into municipal functions.229
Technological advancements are increasing opportunities to develop smarter cities.

Improvements in sensing technology have made it feasible to collect detailed
geospatial and other types of data on the systems that keep cities ticking, such as
transportation patterns and water and energy use. When appropriately analyzed
and connected to decision making or operational controls, these data can be a
powerful asset to improve city functions and planning. Developments in data
science and machine learning are advancing these capabilities; a 2018 report by
the World Economic Forum230 identified artificial intelligence as a key technology
for efforts to transform traditional sectors and systems to address climate change,
deliver food and water, protect biodiversity, and bolster human well-being.
Smart systems are being tested in cities around the world. To date, most of these
tests focus on isolated sectors, such as transportation, emergency response, or
electricity distribution (see Box 4-1), although some projects are experimenting
with combining multiple smart systems across a community (see Sidebar).
Despite these encouraging developments, adaptive, full-scale predictive smart

cities are still a long way off. Questions around performance, control, security,
economics, equity, and ethics in smart cities must be addressed in order to fully
realize the complete suite of societal benefits.241 In addition, while sensors and

DEVELOPING SMART COMMUNITIES

Smart communities that combine multiple smart systems are to reduce energy demands. Autonomous shuttles, cycling,
being planned around the world. One such planning effort is and walking would be the primary means of transit. Sidewalk
under way in Toronto in a formerly industrialized area along snow melters and automated awnings would keep bike-share
the waterfront, called Quayside. Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary stations, transit stops, and cycling and walking paths useable
of Alphabet, is planning to take a 12-acre plot and create the through the winter.
“world’s first neighborhood built from the Internet up,”238 with Sensor deployment and data acquisition represent the
flexible mixed-use space and housing for about 5,000 people backbone of the Quayside project vision. Sensors would
(see figure below). 239 measure everything from air pollution and noise to sewage
Some of the smart features envisioned at Quayside include flow rates to how often a public waste bin is used. 240 The
a carbon-neutral thermal grid that would use geothermal design process was launched in 2017 and Sidewalk Toronto is
energy, waste heat, and energy generated by anaerobic working with experts and stakeholders to co-create the final
digestion of organic waste to heat and cool buildings, neighborhood design plans.
combined with rigorous building construction standards aimed
DIGITAL
Digital Layer
BUILD
Buildings
PHYSICAL LAYER
Mobility MOB
Public Realm
PUBLIC
Infrastructure
INFRASTR
A NEW KIND OF NEIGHBOURHOOD 19
A vision for Quayside, a mixed-use urban development in Toronto. The design process was launched in 2017.

tools for citizen participation are being actively developed, implementation—

effectively integrating real-time information and feedback into actual city
operations—remains a challenge.242 These challenges are not mere technological
hurdles; overcoming them will require deep understanding of the physical and
social systems that are integral to city functions, as well as a deeper understanding,
on the part of engineers and city managers, of the opportunities and limitations
of the technology. Furthermore, there is a need not only to continue to develop
and scale tools for collecting data, but also to facilitate the effective and equitable
application of such information. This will require interdisciplinary efforts to manage
and interpret data, a willingness and capacity to adapt city operations to changing
circumstances, and adequate protections for privacy and security.
What Makes a City Healthy?

Healthy cities facilitate good health and promote a high quality of life for all
their residents. Healthy cities support mental and physical health, providing
residents sufficient and equitable access to community services, education,
housing, art, clean rivers, recreation, and green space, as well as protection from
crime, violence, and hazardous environments. Clean air, safe drinking water and
sanitation, effective and affordable transportation, reliable access to power, ample
opportunities for employment, and access to nutritious food and health services are
important facets of a healthy city.
Healthy buildings are a critical component of healthy cities because people

spend over 90 percent of their time indoors.243 Healthy buildings are constructed
of materials that do not off-gas toxic compounds into the air. They feature
ventilation and lighting designed to optimize productivity and well-being, while
also conserving energy. Designing buildings for health, well-being, and water and
energy conservation can sometimes involve trade-offs to optimize for competing
needs. For example, a tightly sealed building is more energy efficient with respect
to temperature control, but it also allows build-up of contaminants in air. Likewise,
technologies and practices designed to save water and reduce energy used for
heating water may inadvertently promote the spread of pathogenic microbes.244

The capacity to prevent, detect, and mitigate

the spread of infectious disease is particularly
vital to healthy cities, but it will become
more difficult to establish and maintain this
capacity as cities and slums grow larger and
denser. Many emerging diseases result from
transmission of infectious agents from animals
to people.245 These trends underscore the
need to take a holistic view of public health
that encompasses the health of humans,
animals, and the environment, a concept
and approach known as One Health.246 Two
important infectious disease challenges are
the emergence of diseases with pandemic
potential and the emergence of antibiotic-
resistant pathogens.247 Although these challenges are not uniquely urban, many
infectious disease problems could be exacerbated in cities and spread through
connected suburban communities.
Sophisticated techniques such as culture-independent diagnostics, genomic

analysis, and advanced epidemic modeling offer valuable tools to track and
contain the spread of pathogens and antibiotic-resistant organisms. Yet, these tools
cannot make up for a lack of basic infrastructure to deliver clean air, safe food
and water, sanitation services, and reliable electricity to homes and health care
facilities. The knowledge and technology to mitigate many of the environmental
drivers of infectious disease and other public health threats exist, but there are
significant gaps in infrastructure and services, especially in the poorest areas. This
disparity points to a need for more efficient, scalable solutions to support public
health, including measures to prevent and contain infectious diseases along with
improvements to the broader social and physical environments of the world’s cities.
Innovative solutions have been proposed to apply technologies and policies to

improve public health in low-income settings. In Africa’s largest urban slum (Kibera
in Nairobi, Kenya), integrated “biocenters” are being used to capture waste and
digest it into biogas, which can be used as cooking fuel, thereby helping to manage
waste while simultaneously reducing exposures to both outdoor and indoor air
pollution from traditional cooking with wood, dung, and charcoal.248 The Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act249 has provided grant funding and other incentives to
support clean diesel projects, helping to replace old diesel school buses in low-
income communities in Houston with low-emission models, reducing children’s
exposure to pollution from diesel exhaust. With new emission standards and
advances in technology, the percentage of low-income populations in the United
States that live with air quality above the current fine-particulate standards dropped
from 57 percent in 2006-2008 to 8 percent in 2014-2016.250
What Makes a City Resilient?

Resilient cities have the capacity to endure disasters, whether they are economic,
environmental (such as floods, earthquakes, or drought), or the result of terrorism.
To be resilient, cities must have the ability to withstand stress and quickly recover
or adapt. One way to accommodate stress is to have redundant systems, for
example, in utilities such as power or water grids or transportation routes, to

support continued operations when the primary system is not functional. Resilience
also means being able to mobilize resources quickly in response to a disruptive
event and contain the amount of damage caused. Resilience encompasses
preparation, response, recovery, and adaptation.
Increasing a community’s resilience can involve repurposing existing systems

or creating infrastructure that serves multiple purposes. Boston’s Muddy River
Restoration Project restores riparian habitat to reduce the severity of flooding
events.251 The project discourages development in flood-prone areas, reducing the
damage, displacement, and disruption associated with future floods. In the wake of
significant flooding, Copenhagen’s Østerbro neighborhood is creating a network of
green streets and neighborhood park stormwater retention areas that will make the
neighborhood more resilient to future storms.252
To increase resilience, it is important to systematically assess current vulnerabilities

to inform better design. Such assessments can be used to prioritize measures for
addressing vulnerabilities through existing and planned systems and infrastructure.
Climate science provides one input into such an assessment. For example, planners
can use decision tools to examine the range of potential infrastructure impacts
associated with future climate scenarios, projecting threats such as sea-level rise,
drought, and extreme heat. Planners also need to look at anticipated shifts or stressors
that are likely to affect a city’s ability to respond to such events. For example, it may
be important to assess transportation patterns and factors that may influence the
number and use of vehicles. As a city’s population rises, dramatic increases in the
number of vehicles could overwhelm infrastructure and necessitate the replacement
of open lands with parking areas and buildings that would exacerbate flooding and
increase heat island effects. On the other hand, a significant increase in the use
of shared vehicles, as might occur with autonomous vehicles, could eliminate 90
percent of parking demand,253 thereby reducing projected flood risk and allowing the
repurposing of parking space for the creation of green space.
Many cities are actively pursuing sustainable, multipurpose solutions like those
in Copenhagen and Boston, but the scale of these projects is often not aligned

with the full scale of the challenge, and

there remains much room for improvement
toward understanding risks and building more
resilient structures, systems, and communities.
In addition to research and technological
solutions, becoming resilient requires a cultural
shift among decision makers, stakeholders, and
citizens. By better assessing, understanding, and
communicating risk, cities can garner support
for forward-looking resilience goals and the
steps needed to achieve them.
What Can Environmental

Engineers Do?
In general, efficient, healthy, resilient cities will not be built from scratch. Rather,
the challenge is to incorporate new designs and systems into existing cities and
their infrastructure. This means actively reengineering existing land-use patterns,
built environments, and water, sewer, electricity, and transportation modalities and
infrastructure. What’s more, cities must undertake these efforts at the same time
as they are absorbing massive population growth, that stresses current systems
as new ones are established. This will undoubtedly be a complex process, and
implementing effective solutions will require research and coordination involving
multiple disciplines and sectors. Research is needed to identify and prioritize key
vulnerabilities that cities face and effective adaptations that they should undertake.
These efforts should include gleaning lessons from cities that have begun such
transitions, as well as finding innovative ways to engage both the private sector,
which has significant sway over the state of the built environment, and the public
sector, which typically leads the way on infrastructure.254
Creating efficient, healthy, resilient cities involves many overlapping considerations

from the challenges discussed previously in this report. The solutions will require
leadership, systems thinking, and innovation from environmental engineers working
with the many other professionals—in planning, transportation, energy, and public
health, among others—to create and implement successful urban solutions. In
particular, the tools of environmental engineering will be invaluable in applying
sensors strategically, building distributed systems, and improving the design of cities.
Applying Sensors Strategically

Sensors are key to smart, responsive cities and are particularly valuable for
conserving resources and increasing livability and safety. Traffic-monitoring sensors,
for example, can be used to change signal patterns to relieve congestion in real
time or inform long-term solutions to more systemic traffic issues, thus reducing the
amount of energy wasted, pollution generated, and productivity lost in traffic jams.
Similarly, sensors that collect data on water or energy use can help individuals
minimize their consumption of these resources and inform how utility companies
manage and deliver them or respond to disruptions. Systems that monitor chemical
or biological contaminants in air, water, food, and human populations can provide
early warning of emerging health threats. Sensor technology is developing rapidly
and in many cases is now good enough and cheap enough for widespread use;

the question is, how can these technologies be deployed and utilized through
applications of artificial intelligence algorithms to enable efficient operations at the
scale of a city?
Building Distributed Systems

Although many of today’s cities are built with centralized systems for water, energy,
and waste, distributed systems could make cities both more efficient and more
resilient. For example, buildings or city blocks can generate their own electricity
by incorporating renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass, or wastewater.
Or, they can reduce their reliance on centralized water supplies by collecting
graywater, rainwater, or cooling water and using it for nonpotable purposes.255
Multimodal systems, such as combined cooling, heating, and power systems, use
the waste heat from electricity generation to heat or cool buildings; these systems
can be twice as efficient as separate systems256 and also reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, air pollutants, and water consumption.257 A city with a combination of
centralized and distributed systems also means that, in a time of disaster, people
live closer to the services they need and are less heavily impacted by disruptions
that occur elsewhere in the city. These same distributed systems could also be
customized for use in rural areas, providing access to services that are costly to
deploy in areas with low population density.
Although there are now many emerging technologies and models to support
distributed systems, environmental engineering expertise is needed to determine
which solutions are most practical, resource efficient, and appropriate for
different circumstances and to optimally integrate these solutions into existing city
infrastructure. At the same time, it is important to continue to develop, optimize,
and apply distributed solutions to address the anticipated demands and needs
of future cities. To ensure that these solutions are practical and palatable for
communities, environmental engineers will also need to be trained to look beyond
the technology opportunities and understand perceived and real unintended
impacts, such as noise and emissions, which have stymied previous efforts to
distribute energy generation in cities.
Improving City Design

Revising the design of cities will be necessary to accommodate more people in a
way that improves rather than harms quality of life. Connectivity is one important
element. Connecting people from all economic
strata to basic goods and services—from clean
water and reliable electricity to groceries and
health care to employment—improves equity,
health, and resilience. Improving infrastructure
for active transportation (walking and cycling) can
enhance health and reduce congestion, energy use,
and pollution. Optimizing the design of buildings
and public spaces—and identifying ways to build
those principles into the revitalization of existing
buildings and public spaces—is another key goal
that can reduce resource consumption and improve
environmental quality and quality of life.

Adapting to climate-related changes and designing for resilience will be key to

sustaining cities and their populations in the coming decades. Such adaptations
often can serve multiple purposes; for example, equitably distributed green space
can promote well-being,258 while also mitigating natural disasters by absorbing
floodwaters and recharging aquifers. Stakeholder engagement is paramount to ensure
citizen support for new city designs (see Challenge 5). By identifying, prioritizing,
and implementing solutions that will reap multiple benefits, environmental engineers
can make significant contributions toward building more efficient, healthier, and
more resilient cities. Box 4-3 provides specific examples of ways that environmental
engineers can work to create efficient, healthy, resilient cities.
BOX 4-3. EXAMPLE ROLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS TO CREATE EFFICIENT, HEALTHY,
RESILIENT CITIES
The following are examples of ways that environmental engineers, working collaboratively with other disciplines, can
engage with the public and private sectors to help build efficient, healthy, resilient cities. In doing so, environmental
engineers can ensure as well that solutions like those highlighted below are designed and implemented in ways that are
fully cognizant of—and help to address—the significant current inequitable distribution of services in today’s cities.
• Design and revitalize infrastructure systems, including water, energy, food, buildings, parks, and transportation systems,
to achieve equitable access and optimize among sometimes competing objectives for health, well-being, water and
energy conservation, and resilience.
• Evaluate the potential positive and negative consequences from alternative infrastructure designs, including impacts to
pollution, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.
• A ddress extraordinary infrastructure challenges in low-income country settings by developing and evaluating innovative
approaches to address water, sanitation, and health challenges unique to urban and periurban slums.
• Identify opportunities in cities and design systems for capturing and repurposing waste (solid waste, wastewater, and
heat) for energy or resource recovery, considering both large, centralized and small, decentralized systems.
• Develop and use sensors to support more efficient city operations, including transportation, water and wastewater,
energy, environmental quality, and public health. This includes working to develop artificial intelligence decision-making
algorithms for smart cities and working, in collaboration with social scientists, to engage citizens in the development and
refinement of these algorithms.
• Develop and evaluate innovative approaches to reducing indoor and outdoor air pollution.

GRAND CHALLENGE 5:
Foster Informed
Decisions and Actions
Addressing the world’s largest environmental problems

will require major shifts in our approaches and actions.259
New strategies and technologies will only be effective in solving
these grand challenges with widespread adoption, which may require
regulatory changes at the governmental level and behavioral changes at
the community and individual levels. For this to happen, decision makers in the
public and private sectors and a significant portion of the general public must
believe that the environmental problems are serious enough to warrant change—
and that proposed solutions are worth adopting. In other words, addressing grand
environmental challenges requires, in addition to effective solutions, a pervasive
recognition that implementing those solutions is in our best interest.
Achieving this will require, first, engendering a civil society that is well informed
about how the environment affects human well-being and prosperity. This is not
about changing people’s preferences or making the public “care” more about
the environment. Rather, it is about equipping people with options that provide
solutions and with information to make wise choices based on an understanding
of the potential outcomes and costs associated with each course of action and the
potential risks from inaction.

Second, it is important that experts and stakeholders act in partnership to identify

problems and consider alternative solutions. There is sometimes a gap between
what scientists and engineers believe will be useful for stakeholders and what the
stakeholders themselves understand as useful.260 It is possible to reduce this gap
by taking a collaborative approach that engages both experts and stakeholders
to define and prioritize problems, select alternatives to be considered, identify
constraints and criteria for success, and consider issues of equity and distribution.
These first two elements—understanding and stakeholder engagement—create

a foundation for identifying and implementing policy, management, and
regulatory approaches to promote outcomes that are consistent with the collective
priorities. Although the responsibility for engaging stakeholders and fostering full
understanding of environmental choices does not lie entirely with environmental
engineers, there is much that the engineering community can contribute.
Understanding Linkages Between the Environment,

Human Well-Being, and Prosperity
In the context of environmental challenges, understanding potential consequences
involves making the connection between our actions (or inactions) and the impacts
that these have on the environment and the well-being of different individuals or
groups in society. The choices made by individuals or groups can have spillover
impacts on the well-being of others. For example, consider
a property developer in an urban area deciding on the
design of a new building and surrounding landscape.
Incorporating features such as green or reflective roofs,
reflective pavements, and increased tree plantings can
reduce a property’s contribution to urban heat island effects,
but doing so often comes at a cost to the developer.261
Similarly, farmers deciding how much nitrogen fertilizer
to apply will typically consider the benefit from improved
yields and the cost of purchasing and applying the fertilizer.
But applying nitrogen fertilizer has additional costs, such as
when fertilizer leaches into surface water or groundwater,
polluting a nearby town’s water supply or downstream
estuaries.262 Some of the excess nitrogen will volatilize in
the form of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, or to
ammonia and nitrogen oxides, potentially contributing to
regional air pollution.263 The developers or farmers may be unaware of the impacts of
their choices on the well-being of others. But even if they are aware, they typically
have inadequate incentives to reduce environmental impacts because many of the
consequences are borne by others (what economists refer to as “externalities”).
Identifying and quantifying the full set of consequences of human actions on

the environment and human well-being are active areas of research involving
environmental engineering, ecology and other natural sciences, ecological and
environmental economics, and other social sciences. Uncovering the important
impacts often involves active cogeneration of knowledge by stakeholders and
experts, as discussed in more depth in the next section. Over the past two decades,
ecologists working with many other disciplines have made substantial progress
in describing the benefits that nature provides to people, known as ecosystem
services.264 Ecosystem services include:
Foster Informed Decisions and Actions | 67

BOX 5-1. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS: sequestration, water quality, and economic returns (see
ANALYZING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND figure below). These endpoints and alternative land-use
ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS TO IMPROVE plans were developed in consultation with Kamehameha
LAND-USE DECISIONS Schools and the local community with goals of balancing
In Hawaii, the largest private landowner is the education economic, environmental, educational, cultural, and
trust Kamehameha Schools, which owns roughly 8 percent community returns. A diversified agriculture land use was
of the land in the state. In the early 2000s, Kamehameha ultimately selected as the plan that best met the overall
Schools faced a decision about what to do with a large goals, even though monetized income returns were the
block of land on the north shore of Oahu. Kamehameha lowest for this scenario. Kamehameha Schools was awarded
Schools, engaged the Natural Capital Project266 to analyze the American Planning Association’s 2011 National Planning
the effects of alternative land-use plans on carbon Excellence Award for Innovation in Sustaining Places. 267
Projected changes in ecosystem services under three future land-use scenarios.
Matson et al. Pursuing Sustainability. 2016

Princeton University Press
1. The provision of material goods (food, fiber, energy, and other materials);
2. Ecosystem functions that naturally regulate environmental conditions in ways
that improve human living conditions, such as filtering pollutants from water or
air, providing protection for coastal communities from storm surge, or reducing
riverine flooding; and
3. Nonmaterial services related to psychological, spiritual, and cultural values.
Work on ecosystem services has highlighted many ways in which environmental

protection or improvement can provide tangible benefits for human quality of life
and prosperity (see Box 5-1). In addition, such work can highlight the risks posed
by continued environmental degradation, including the potential for crossing
thresholds with sudden catastrophic changes that may be difficult or impossible
to reverse.265 In the face of such risks, increasing system resilience is an important
component of system design.
Another approach to quantifying the full set of environmental consequences is

life-cycle assessment. This technique, commonly used by industrial ecologists and
environmental engineers, aims to measure environmental impacts associated with
producing and consuming specific products, from production of raw materials to
the disposal of the product at the end of its useful life.268 Life-cycle assessments

often measure impacts in physical units, such as materials and energy consumed
or the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, and do not require assessment of
impacts in monetary terms. This simplifies the analysis in some respects but can
make it difficult to compare alternatives that have different types of environmental
impacts. Other tools are also available to quantify the full environmental
consequences of actions and to help engage stakeholders in this process (Box 5-2).
BOX 5-2. TOOLS TO CLARIFY SOCIAL, A number of stakeholder engagement tools are being
ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS used to facilitate collaboration and to ensure that multiple
OF CHOICES viewpoints are considered. Collaborative problem solving
A number of tools are used to help decision makers brings together stakeholders to work on a particular
measure, monetize, or evaluate the potential impacts of a concern that has been identified. Design charrettes help
decision or action, including multiple social, environmental, stakeholders develop a mutually agreed-on vision of
and economic dimensions. Some tools help identify a full future development, usually regarding land-use planning
range of consequences of a given action. In addition to life- decisions.
cycle analyses, social impact assessments identify possible More than one tool can be applied simultaneously.
social effects of an intervention or action. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Design for the
Complex decisions often come down to weighing Environment program272 uses a variety of tools as it screens
benefits against costs or risks and perhaps most importantly new chemicals, including collaborative problem solving
who pays the costs and who reaps the benefits (including with manufacturers and chemical alternatives assessments.
intergenerational considerations). Tools to help clarify such The use of collaborative problem solving in conjunction
decisions include risk assessments and economic benefit- with environmental-justice analysis helped officials in
cost analyses. Chemical-alternatives assessment evaluates northeast Ohio make decisions on the best infrastructure
hazards to human health and the environment of comparable options to help meet stormwater discharge limits and to
chemicals (functionally) to choose the safest alternative. provide additional environmental and recreational benefits
Environmental-justice analysis evaluates exposure and risk using green infrastructure, particularly in low-income
for minority populations and low-income populations to communities. 273
inform equitable decision making.

The field of environmental economics has devoted decades of research to assessing

the benefits of environmental improvement.269 To make it easier to compare
alternatives, economists typically try to measure all benefits and associated costs
of environmental improvement in monetary terms, using market and nonmarket
valuation techniques. For example, even though there is no market price for clean
air, economists infer the value of clean air to homeowners by observing how home
values vary with air quality while controlling
for other characteristics of houses that influence
value, such as the lot size and number of
bedrooms. However, some environmental impacts
are difficult to measure in monetary terms, such
as a community’s sense of place or the value of
the existence of other species. In addition, this
approach can require a great deal of time and
resources, and improved methods are needed to
appropriately apply estimates developed in one
area to other related areas.270
Because of the difficulty of quantifying all

benefits in monetary terms, some business
and environmental groups have pushed for a
“triple bottom line” approach that captures
environmental impacts, social responsibility,
and financial returns without forcing all aspects
to be evaluated in monetary terms.271 Ideally, these assessments include metrics
that reflect various values that are easily understood by stakeholders, such as
measures of health impacts, water and air quality, biodiversity, and resilience.
Using the triple bottom line approach to choose among alternative management
or policy options would typically require a decision maker to weigh the relative
importance of the three bottom lines.
Despite substantial progress toward understanding and quantifying the various

impacts of our actions on the environment, important questions remain. For
example:
• How do changes in policy and technology shape behavior in ways that affect the
environment?
• How can knowledge from natural sciences, social sciences, and engineering
disciplines be better integrated to understand how environmental change affects
human well-being and prosperity?
• How can well-being and prosperity be measured in a rigorous and consistent
manner and reported in a way that is readily understood by decision makers and
stakeholders?
In addition, there is a great need to improve data collection to support robust

ecosystem service analyses, life-cycle assessments, and other environmental
analyses. This work should include consideration of the differential impacts on
vulnerable communities and geographies due to physical, social, and economic
factors. A significant part of this challenge is learning how to communicate
clearly with decision makers and the broader community about the findings of
environmental assessments and how various stakeholders value different benefits
and costs.
70
| ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

Engaging With Stakeholders to Create Solutions

If progress is to be made toward the grand challenges, society must develop the
right solutions for the right problems. The grand challenges identified in this report
will manifest differently in different communities, and many efforts to address these
challenges will play out on a local scale. Different communities have different
values and priorities, and these should inform how problems are identified and
addressed. In addition, the solutions that work in one community may not work in
another. For successful adoption, it is crucial that innovations and approaches be
acceptable and usable by the communities for which they are intended.
This cannot be achieved by scientists and engineers working in a vacuum. When

considering specific strategies, multidisciplinary teams need to determine the
circumstances under which they are most likely to be implemented, both in the near
future and under a variety of future scenarios. What are the barriers to adoption and
the potential for misuse? What are the economic, environmental, and social impacts
of implementing these new strategies, including possible unintended consequences?
How will the benefits and costs be distributed among different groups?
Research has shown that solutions are more likely to be successfully developed
and adopted when interested stakeholders are engaged in a genuine dialogue
with scientists and engineers that allows for iteration and exchange between the
producers and users of research and technology (Figure 5-1). Such a process helps
to better define the problem to be addressed, improves the likelihood that the
priorities of various stakeholder groups are understood, and ensures that a broad
range of alternatives are considered. Engaging with stakeholders can often reveal
social or institutional factors that may affect the long-term success or failure of a
new technology or strategy. It also reduces misunderstanding, increases perceived
credibility, and generates trust.274

Distrust of science and technology are

Decision-Makers deeply held in many communities due to
Managers complex social, economic, and political
Stakeholders forces, and this can present major barriers
to the development of sustainable solutions.
Effective Outcomes Like other members of the scientific
Knowledge community, engineers should work to
understand the historical and political
Engagement Improving Legitimacy
contexts behind these perspectives and
Credibility
identify opportunities for establishing
Relevance new partnerships between engineers
and stakeholders. Many well-intentioned
Scientists scientists and engineers have focused
Technical Experts their efforts on improving scientific
understanding with the expectation that
this will overcome skepticism. Yet, decades
of social science research suggest that
Figure 5-1. Effective public engagement on complex environmental
scientific literacy and technical knowledge
challenges requires technical experts to learn from stakeholders and decision
have relatively minor impacts on the
makers through a genuine two-way dialogue.
public’s trust in science.275 Rather than a
lack of knowledge, skepticism more often
stems from doubts regarding the honesty
and integrity of outside experts and the institutions that they represent or concerns
over the implications of proposed actions to their economic interests.
To overcome these tensions, engineers, scientists, and other experts should

collaborate to forge relationships within skeptical communities, especially with
trusted community leaders, to identify acceptable pathways forward. Transparency
and inclusiveness should be prioritized in all aspects of the process, from data
collection to decision making, by creating genuine opportunities for public
participation, especially within communities that are seemingly disinterested,
disadvantaged, or marginalized.276

Engineers should also strive to improve gender, racial, and ethnic diversity within
the engineering community. Currently, African Americans, Hispanic Americans,
and Native Americans are underrepresented in environmental engineering,
and no gains have been made in increasing the percentage of undergraduate
or graduate degrees awarded to underrepresented minorities in environmental
engineering since 2008.277 A community of engineers that represents and reflects
the heterogeneous cultural and demographic backgrounds of society at large is
necessary to understand the perspectives and interests of a diverse public. These
varying life experiences will lead to the development of innovative strategies
and technologies that may not necessarily come from a homogeneous group
with similar world views.278 In addition, improving professional opportunities
for those from underrepresented backgrounds will bring in new talent
and perspectives from wider segments of the population, generate healthy
competition, and foster creativity.
Adopting Policy Solutions

The development of policy, both public and private, can
encourage society to act with a full understanding of
environmental impacts and long-term community priorities.
Without policy interventions that help align private incentives
to match societal objectives, the decisions and behaviors
of individuals and businesses often do not account for
externalities that are imposed on others. Most policy,
management, and regulatory approaches relevant to addressing
environmental challenges involve one or more of four basic
elements: providing information, changing the decision
context, creating incentives, and setting rules and regulations.
Often a mix of these approaches is optimal.279 In all four areas,
research from the social and behavioral sciences combined
with environmental engineering and science can help craft
policies that are grounded in evidence and most likely to
change behavior. Determining the best policy solutions to
complex challenges, such as adapting to climate change, also
often requires decision making under uncertainty, as discussed
in Challenge 2.
Providing Information
Educating the public can be an effective strategy to drive
widespread action or attitude change.280 Successful public
information campaigns, such as those launched to raise
awareness of the problems associated with smoking or forest
fires, clearly state the problem and provide simple actions that
can be taken to address the problem (“only you can prevent
forest fires”). Information can also be used to create social pressures Figure 5-2. Manufacturer labeling is one
that encourage change. For example, electricity bills that present strategy used to increase public awareness of
environmental impacts and inform consumer
a household’s energy consumption relative to their neighbors have
choices.
successfully reduced energy demand in many communities.281
In the context of complex environmental problems, information-based policies can

take many forms including mandating disclosure, identifying chemicals of concern,

and advocating for transparency throughout the supply chain. For example, the
“Ecolabel” program, developed in the European Union, identifies products that
meet established environmental criteria considering a product’s full life cycle.
Governments, manufacturers, and retailers can make the environmental impacts
of various products more transparent by supporting labels and collecting, curating,
and sharing data (Figure 5-2). Environmental awareness could be further increased
through calculation and expanded disclosure of carbon, water, and chemical
footprints, supported by consensus-based standards and third-party audits. These
efforts can in turn encourage innovation throughout the supply chain.
Subtle changes to the way information is presented can also have profound
impacts by reducing known biases in decision making. For example, consumers
systematically misunderstand fuel efficiency information when it is shown in miles
per gallon. When the same information is depicted in gallons per mile, consumers
make better financial and environmental choices.282
Changing the Decision Context

Policies that focus on changing behavior by modifying the decision context
have gained much attention in recent years.283 Such strategies are often designed
to make a desired behavior easier or more probable by removing barriers to
behavioral change. For example, reducing the paperwork and hassle required for a
homeowner to participate in an energy efficiency rebate program can dramatically
increase participation.284 The percentage of people who have agreed to donate their
organs is more than 95 percent higher in Belgium than in neighboring Netherlands,
largely because citizens of Belgium are asked to sign a form to opt out of donating
an organ, whereas citizens of the Netherlands must sign a form to opt-in.285 Even
though most citizens in both countries support organ donation, the hassle of opting
in or opting out of a program can result in dramatic societal-level impacts on health
and well-being. Careful consideration of default settings has resulted in improved
environmental, health, and financial outcomes.286
74

Reducing barriers to behavior change is often less expensive and more politically
feasible than other alternatives.287 A challenge in implementing this approach,
however, is for policy makers, social scientists, and engineers to collaboratively
identify where such opportunities lie.
Creating Incentives
Policies can also be used to provide incentives for environmental solutions
with broad societal benefits or disincentives for activities that contribute to
environmental problems (see sidebar). Economic incentives are particularly
valuable if technologies that provide broad ecosystem services come at a higher
cost than similar technologies that do not. For example, tax credits have been
provided to consumers to incentivize the purchase of electric cars and solar
panels and to companies investing in renewable energy sources. Further, the
government can take steps to reduce policy and financial risks for environmentally
beneficial projects, such as by issuing partial loan guarantees and streamlining the
permitting process, to make them more competitive with conventional projects
among private investors.288 Establishing disincentives for actions that are harmful
to the environment is also an important policy mechanism. For example, if
wetland impacts cannot be avoided as part of a permitted construction project,
the Clean Water Act requires that other wetland areas be established or restored
as compensation. Levees on carbon emissions could be established to discourage
carbon emissions and stabilize the changing climate, while also funding permanent
carbon sequestration efforts.
Social science research is needed to better understand how people respond

to incentives. For example, are social incentives more or less effective than
financial incentives for particular objectives? How can incentives or disincentives
be implemented effectively and efficiently, considering their monitoring and
enforcement costs? Environmental engineering research can inform policy makers
about the systemwide benefits and costs of various policy alternatives.
INCENTIVIZING WATER CONSERVATION WITH SMART SOLAR PUMPS

Growth in the use of solar-powered pumps has reduced
the energy costs of pumping water to irrigate crops
while reducing carbon emissions. However, heavily
subsidized solar panels and free solar power led to another
problem: excessive irrigation of crops and overuse of
limited groundwater supplies. Faced with this problem,
researchers from the International Water Management
Institute developed a solution that is partly technological
and partly based on policy and management. Their “smart
solar pump” initiative, piloted in Gujarat, India, incentivizes
farmers to sell excess solar power back to the grid.
Through guaranteed solar buy-back, farmers supplement
their income, the country expands its energy reserves
while making strides toward its renewable energy goals,
and groundwater resources are conserved. 289 Solar pump in Jagadhri, India.

Setting Rules and Regulations

Local, state, national, or international rules and regulations represent another
tool to discourage environmental impacts and encourage improvements. For
example, the Montreal Protocol in 1987 led to an international ban on the use of
chlorofluorocarbons, which had damaged Earth’s protective stratospheric ozone
layer, and the result is that the ozone hole is now healing. Several countries have
implemented bans on phosphate in detergents to address phosphorus pollution
in surface waters. In the United States, after more than half of the states adopted
phosphate detergent bans, the industry voluntarily removed phosphate from
laundry detergents.290 Another policy approach is to set environmental performance
standards for government or corporate contracting and purchasing decisions,
which would provide incentives for alternative technology choices and further
technology development. Environmental rules and regulations are built upon
substantial scientific and engineering research, and these efforts benefit from clear
communication of policy-relevant scientific findings.

To foster informed decisions and actions, environmental engineers should
work in collaboration with decision makers, stakeholders, and other experts to
increase the public’s understanding of the consequences of their choices, identify
problems, create solutions, and support efforts to develop effective policies.
Environmental engineers have the skills to assess the broad risks and benefits
of alternative approaches to address the grand challenges and to work across
disciplines as integrators of information. To develop approaches that are effective
and acceptable—and therefore likely to succeed—it is vital to partner with
76

communities (particularly traditionally marginalized communities), businesses,

and governments and work in collaboration with experts in social and behavioral
sciences, communications, environmental and ecological economics, computer
science, policy and management, and other disciplines. Given the complexity of
the challenges to be addressed, it is to be expected that continuous iteration will be
needed to refine collaborative approaches and develop feasible, acceptable, and
impactful solutions.
To meet this challenge and create solutions that meet the needs of all,
environmental engineers will need to build new skills and proactively diversify
the field, as discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Examples of specific
opportunities for environmental engineers to help address this challenge are
highlighted in Box 5-3.
BOX 5-3. EXAMPLE AREAS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS TO HELP FOSTER

INFORMED DECISIONS AND ACTIONS
Some of the many ways environmental engineers can partner with other experts and
stakeholders to help foster informed decisions and actions include:
• Work with communities and other disciplinary experts, including ecologists, economists,
sociobehavioral scientists, and communication experts, to analyze and clearly communicate
the potential consequences of alternative choices associated with the environmental grand
challenges. Analyses should include impacts and benefits to individuals and various groups
in society so that stakeholders and decision makers can better understand the impacts of
their choices.
• Proactively diversify the field by recruiting members of underrepresented groups to become
experts in the environmental engineering field and partner disciplines.
• Develop new approaches and technologies to collect environmental data needed to support
ecosystem services and life-cycle analyses.
• Partner with communities and citizens to collect and assess environmental and
socioeconomic data, understand the connections between trends and individual, corporate,
and governmental behavior, and communicate the implications of this information.
Environmental engineers can also develop enhanced participatory science approaches and
technology-enabled platforms. Particular attention should be given to communities that have
traditionally been underserved and marginalized.
• Develop transparent, user-friendly decision tools that can assist decision making by
synthesizing information on financial, social, and environmental risks, costs, and benefits.

THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING:
Preparing the Field to

Address a New Future
Historically, the discipline of environmental engineering has

centered around public health and sanitation, and its practitioners’
primary objectives have been to provide clean water and properly
manage waste. These services are vital for the health and prosperity of
society, lengthening life spans, and improving quality of life. The world now
faces a number of challenges that are fundamentally broader in scope and larger
in scale than the problems that environmental engineers have solved in the past.
Communities have grown larger than ever. Technological innovation and major
social changes occur over the course of years, rather than decades. Humans now
influence the environment on a global as well as a local scale.
Environmental engineers should respond to the grand challenges outlined in

this report and provide leadership to address them. To do so, the environmental
engineering field must expand its scope, moving from a focus on individual
problems toward systems-based solutions that address a broad set of issues.
Environmental engineers will need to anticipate problems rather than react to
them. The knowledge, skills, and problem-solving approaches that environmental
engineers used in the past are not fully sufficient to meet the demands of the
future. To create solutions that work for society, environmental engineers will
need to cultivate diversity and engage collaboratively with stakeholders and other
disciplines.
Some of these shifts are already under way. Environmental engineers are applying
their expertise in areas beyond the field’s roots in sanitation—air quality, green
manufacturing, climate change, and urban design are examples (Figure 6-1).
Environmental engineers have begun to evolve from those who characterize,
manage, and remediate existing environmental problems to those who develop
new knowledge, design innovative technologies and strategies, and implement
solutions that prevent environmental problems. As this journey continues,
environmental engineers can enable the creation of systems and infrastructure that
allow people and ecosystems to thrive in the face of predictable and unforeseen
challenges.
Adopting a new model for the discipline and practice of environmental engineering
does not mean abandoning a proud history or eschewing traditional expertise.
Environmental engineering can build on its strengths while positioning itself to keep
pace with the scope and scale of society’s needs. The following sections outline ways
that environmental engineering practice, education, and research will need to evolve
to best serve communities and address the complex global challenges ahead.

FIGURE 6-1. Timeline of major U.S. environmental engineering efforts, highlighting the broadening scale and complexity of the challenges and the
expanding numbers of disciplines involved.
Environmental Engineering Practice

Environmental engineers operate in many sectors—private practice, industry,
government, academia, and nonprofits—and at many scales, from individual
facilities to international organizations. Environmental engineers apply their craft
to a wide range of areas and develop careers in a variety of employment structures.
How can environmental engineers evolve practices across this diverse field to
address the complex challenges we face? While specific needs may vary for different
sectors and areas of focus, there are two common threads. First, life-cycle and
systems thinking should be applied within all aspects of environmental engineering
to design or analyze solutions, considering the broad potential environmental,
societal, and financial outcomes. Second, genuine engagement with communities
and stakeholders and interdisciplinary collaboration with other experts are needed
to inform solutions that are effective and likely to be implemented.
An example that encompasses both of these elements is the decision-making

process used to address pathogens in the New York City water supply, as discussed
in Challenge 4. A narrow view by traditional water treatment practice would be
to focus solely on improving engineered water filtration. Instead, decision makers
took a broader view. After evaluating multiple approaches to prevent or remove
pathogens, they ultimately concluded that partnering with upstream residents and
Preparing the Field to Address a New Future | 79

farmers to protect the watershed and compensating them for their efforts, along
with more modest treatment, would be the most cost-effective approach to meet the
water quality objectives while providing additional watershed benefits. Developing
and implementing this approach required effective engagement of all stakeholders
and ultimately reduced costs.
Solving global challenges cannot be done by environmental engineers alone.

Today’s environmental engineers work within complex, interconnected systems,
often in the context of competing demands from
agriculture, industry, people, and ecosystems.
Environmental engineers need to work
collaboratively with interdisciplinary partners
and engage the public in the development of
solutions. In most cases, there is no single answer
that works for all communities, and solutions may
need to be adapted over time. Environmental
engineers need to examine the challenges and the
alternative solutions using community input and
considering short- and long-term consequences
across local, regional, and global scales. In this
role, the profession can provide a broad systems
perspective for the disciplines and communities
that are building the future so that they can more
effectively achieve success. An engineering
profession that represents the diversity of society
at large will ensure that varied perspectives are understood and that the field draws
upon the full potential of talent available.
To effectively address the changes ahead, environmental engineering
practitioners should work collaboratively with stakeholders and other
disciplines to analyze, design, and implement practical, systems-based
solutions. To support these efforts, the environmental engineering field
should cultivate a more diverse workforce, focusing especially on
increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of the pipeline.
Examples of steps that environmental engineers can take to transition to more

collaborative and systems-based practices include the following:
1. Enhance stakeholder engagement by seeking diverse sources of information and
community input.
2. Make use of available tools to incorporate full-cost life-cycle analysis and other
sustainability tools to help stakeholders and decision makers understand the
potential consequences of decision alternatives.
3. Build new tools to understand and predict adaptive and emergent behaviors of
complex systems.
4. Implement evidence-based tools to recruit underrepresented minorities and
women into the field beginning at the K-12 level and extending through
graduate training.
Environmental Engineering Education

Although there are multiple models for educating and training environmental
engineers, the 4-year undergraduate engineering program has traditionally served
as the foundation for environmental engineering and is typically the minimum

education required for practice. Most undergraduate environmental engineering

programs today initially emphasize fundamental knowledge in the basic and applied
sciences, mathematics, and engineering. This foundation is usually followed by
more advanced courses focused on fate, transport, and treatment of contaminants
in air, land, or water, and additional topics such as environmental health or the
impacts of pollutants on ecosystems. Finally, through advanced courses or capstone
projects, students explore subspecialties of the field and hone the skills that they
will ultimately use in professional practice.291 Many of these undergraduate students
continue their environmental engineering education in graduate school to receive
additional training and specialization. Because of the complex multidisciplinary
nature of the field, environmental engineering has among the highest percentage of
engineering practitioners with graduate degrees (50 percent based on 2014 data).292
Meeting tomorrow’s more complex, integrated, global, and nuanced challenges

will call for additional knowledge and skills beyond what today’s environmental
engineering curriculum provides. Educational institutions need to work with thought
leaders from academic and practitioner communities and beyond to strengthen the
education of tomorrow’s environmental engineers, enhancing the curriculum and
building essential skills.
Enhancing the Curriculum

To address society’s environmental challenges, environmental engineers will
need to have strength in their area of expertise but also have sufficient breadth to
appreciate the broader societal context and devise effective solutions (Figure 6-2).
For example, they will need to appreciate the social and behavioral components of
the challenges they are trying to solve; even an efficient and effective technological
FIGURE 6-2. A T-shaped environmental engineer brings engineering depth with breadth in topics such as social
science and policy that are essential to understanding and developing effective solutions for today’s complex challenges.

solution cannot realize its full potential without consideration of societal, cultural,
economic, legal, and political issues (see Challenge 5). To anticipate potential
outcomes and avoid unintended consequences, environmental engineers will also
need to understand the nonlinear and dynamic forces in many natural and human
systems and the feedbacks that these forces can create.
Students also need opportunities for in-depth education in the scientific

subspecialties that are most relevant to the future challenges. While environmental
engineering programs provide a robust foundation in water and contaminants (in
keeping with the historic focus of the field), topics such as climate, air pollution,
and energy are sparsely covered in most current university curricula, leading to
knowledge gaps between what our education system provides and the challenges
future environmental engineers will face. Furthermore, most current environmental
engineering curricula lack sufficient training in data science, which is emerging as a
key strategy in 21st century solutions.
To complement and build on the traditional emphasis on applied science,
mathematics, and engineering, environmental engineering education
programs should strengthen foundational knowledge in two areas:
complex system dynamics and the social and behavioral dimensions of
environmental challenges. In addition, programs should ensure that the
scientific content of their curricula keeps pace with current and anticipated
global challenges and the most promising tools for developing solutions.
Examples of steps that can be taken to enhance the foundational content of

environmental engineering programs include the following:
• Cultivate rigorous systems thinking by integrating training in complex systems,
data science, and decision analysis into the environmental engineering
curriculum.
• Engage with colleagues in the social sciences to develop learning opportunities
relevant to understanding the social, cultural, economic, legal, policy, and
political contexts of environmental engineering challenges.

• Strengthen scientific curricula and subspecialty offerings for topics relevant to the
full spectrum of current and anticipated challenges, such as climate, energy, and
air pollution, in addition to more traditional areas of focus.
Building Essential Skills

In addition to these new areas of foundational knowledge, tomorrow’s
environmental engineers will require new types of skills, capabilities, and
perspectives. Finding solutions that are feasible within the broader context also
requires engaging decision makers and the public, and working collaboratively
with experts in other disciplines. To complement the traditional focus on
problem-solving skills, environmental engineering programs should educate
students to communicate well and work collaboratively in interdisciplinary
multicultural teams. In practice, it is rare for a single engineering solution to
engender unanimous support. Environmental engineers must therefore learn to
think creatively and critically, balance competing needs and priorities, forge
compromises, and communicate persuasively. These capabilities are enhanced by
an understanding of how people and communities make decisions, especially in
the context of uncertainty, as well as a sense of empathy and social conscience.
Environmental engineering education should equip graduates with the

skills to communicate effectively, work collaboratively, think critically, and
forge compromises.
Examples of steps educators can take to equip trainees with these skills include the
following:
• Teach communication skills such as analyzing a communication situation,
assessing the communication capacity and needs of target audiences,
establishing goals and objectives, and formulating strategies.
• Develop partnerships with practitioners and community leaders to develop
student learning experiences that involve real-world projects that are solved with
creativity, stakeholder engagement, consensus building, and compromise.
• Provide opportunities for aspiring environmental engineers to directly experience
community decision-making processes.
• Incorporate culturally relevant and diverse approaches to educational
experiences, including activities that challenge students to develop solutions
specific to socioeconomically disadvantaged and underserved communities.
• Create opportunities to explore the ethical and social dimensions of
environmental engineering challenges.
• Offer educational experiences in negotiation, compromise, and conflict
resolution.
Approaches to Engineering Education Reform

Solving the grand challenges in environmental
engineering demands a broader approach
to education. Interdisciplinary, experiential
learning equips students to consider how
myriad factors such as budget constraints,
historical context, public acceptance, and
regulatory frameworks affect the design and
implementation of technological solutions
to societal challenges. A new model for

environmental engineering education is needed to support the development of

more innovative, creative, and effective problem solvers.
There is already movement in this direction. Several universities have instituted

engineering leadership initiatives and developed educational models that broaden
the undergraduate engineering experience.293 The National Academy of Engineering
also has led several efforts to advance undergraduate engineering education
through its work with the Engineer of 2020 Project294 and the Grand Challenge
Scholars Program.295 These initiatives illustrate how existing engineering programs
can be enhanced without necessarily adding new coursework. For example, the
Grand Challenges Scholars program involves training on five basic components—
research/creative, multidisciplinary, business/entrepreneurship, multicultural, and
social consciousness—that can be layered upon or crafted within existing degree
requirements. By encouraging universities to adopt project- or service-based learning
models to provide students with experience designing solutions in the context of
real-world complexities, the Grand Challenge Scholars Program engenders a broader
educational experience without fundamentally disrupting existing programs. This type
of program could extend to significant global experiences with the goal of creating
more effective and engaged environmental engineers.
There are limits to how much can be included in a 4-year undergraduate program.
New subspecialties related to the grand challenges may need to be introduced at
the undergraduate level but fully delivered through graduate programs. Engineering
education can also be enhanced through other opportunities for formal and
informal education. Continuing education that develops specialized knowledge
and skills for practicing engineers is particularly important. Extracurricular activities
involving experiential learning, such as student projects, study abroad, internships,
independent research, student professional societies, and community involvement
programs would benefit undergraduate and graduate programs.
Engineering programs are outliers in professional education in that they conflate

the necessary preparation for practice with a general college education. Other

professions have abandoned this approach, transitioning their degree requirements

to graduate programs to accommodate the needs of an increasingly demanding and
specialized profession while enabling a comprehensive pre-professional college
education. Physical therapy, pharmacy, and nursing are examples.296 To cultivate
a professional workforce with the breadth and depth necessary to address grand
challenges, greater emphasis on graduate education in environmental engineering
may be needed. By shifting specialization out of the undergraduate experience, this
approach would also open opportunities for those with an undergraduate degree
in engineering to pursue further education in other fields, such as law, policy,
education, and economics, thus bringing a rich engineering background to those
fields and enhancing opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. However,
such an approach could have an undesired result of further reducing the percentage
of underrepresented minorities in the field. If greater emphasis is placed on
graduate programs to educate the environmental engineers of the future, targeted
programs may be needed to recruit underrepresented groups into environmental
engineering graduate programs.
College and university programs should evaluate their undergraduate

and graduate degree requirements and other educational opportunities
to ensure that environmental engineers can receive sufficient training to
address the grand challenges. Several approaches are available to broaden
and strengthen the undergraduate environmental engineering education,
but these changes may necessitate a greater reliance on graduate
education for specialization.
Among the engineering disciplines, environmental engineering is well positioned to

lead the charge toward a broader, more holistic approach to education. Examples
of steps that educational institutions can take include:
• Restructure programs with greater reliance on graduate school for specialized

training to allow undergraduates more room to explore topics such as the
social and behavioral dimensions of environmental challenges, complex
systems dynamics, data science, and real-world problem solving and to build
the skills needed to develop solutions to complex interdisciplinary challenges.
Such a change would likely require concurrent efforts to recruit and retain
underrepresented minorities.
• Use practice- or service-based learning models to encourage experiential
learning and enhance the undergraduate experience.
• Incorporate the Grand Challenge Scholars Program into undergraduate education.
Environmental Engineering Research

Research will continue to play a central role in propelling the technological
innovations and the approaches needed to address society’s grand challenges.
Environmental engineering research is carried out in a variety of settings. Universities
are perhaps the most visible contributors (and the primary backdrop for the analysis
and vision outlined in this section), but national laboratories, government agencies,
private corporations, nonprofit organizations, and international organizations and
collaborations are also vital hubs for research and innovation.
The purpose of research in engineering is to increase the body of knowledge and

discover better ways to solve problems. Underlying these overarching goals, there
are two key factors that influence what types of research questions are pursued,

how research is carried out, and how the results are translated into practice. The
first driver relates to employment structures for researchers. The second relates to
research funding. While employment and funding structures vary across sectors,
generally speaking, most researchers start by acquiring specialized foundational
knowledge and research experience through formal education, obtain a research
position within their subdiscipline, and then advance their career by independently
spearheading projects, securing research funding, and publishing findings. In the
United States, research funding, by and large, flows from the federal government
into universities and other research organizations; however, many private
companies also perform research.
Although these structures have produced significant gains, there is a growing

awareness of ways in which the research enterprise falls short,297 thus limiting
engineering research—and consequently, engineering practice—from reaching
its full potential. One of the most significant and pressing challenges in both
research and practice is the need for effective interdisciplinary collaboration.
Solving the grand challenges of the future will require advances within traditional
environmental engineering disciplines but also engagement across the engineering
disciplines, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Environmental
engineers today routinely collaborate with other engineering and science
disciplines, but genuine collaboration with the social sciences is essential to
developing effective solutions to 21st century challenges (see Challenge 5).
Interdisciplinary research integrates information, perspectives, and techniques from
multiple disciplines to address problems that cannot be fully addressed within a
single discipline.298
Incentivizing Interdisciplinary Research

Successful interdisciplinary collaboration requires a cultural transition to embrace
new areas of expertise and new ways of thinking, reinforced by incentives that
provide tangible rewards for interdisciplinary work from the scale of the individual

to the scale of the institution. This transition has been under way for approximately
two decades,299 but barriers remain.300 Many university early career scholars
are counseled to avoid interdisciplinary and team-based research based on the
rationale that researchers should demonstrate strength within their discipline
before engaging outside their discipline. This is reinforced by employment
structures (particularly in universities) in which research positions are allocated to
departments organized around a traditional discipline; researchers earn recognition
and promotions by prioritizing independent scholarship in that discipline.
Winning sole-investigator research grants and publishing with their students
(rather than colleagues) in disciplinary journals is a far surer way to earn tenure
and promotions than participating in large collaborations, for which papers take
a long time to publish and have author lists comprising numerous investigators.
These factors combine to make interdisciplinary research a liability for some early
career scholars, despite the recent growth in funding, job opportunities, and, most
importantly, the potential for substantial impact from such collaborations.
Despite recent progress, when evaluating accomplishments many

universities continue to prioritize disciplinary endeavors at the expense of
interdisciplinary collaboration. To facilitate the collaboration necessary to
meet future challenges, research employment structures should evolve to
value and incentivize interdisciplinary work.
Examples of actions that research institutions can take to incentivize

interdisciplinary collaboration include the following:
• Develop recruiting, promotion, and reward processes that reflect the

interdisciplinary nature of environmental engineering, including valuing impact
associated with coauthorship and publication in nontraditional interdisciplinary
journals.301
• Enhance interdisciplinary mentoring to support the development and impact of
early career scholars in nontraditional academic units and careers.
Interdisciplinary Research Support

Research support is a key factor for building and sustaining research programs
and developing the next generation of scholars. Some of the primary agencies
supporting research in the United States, including the National Science
Foundation (NSF), still rely on disciplinary structures to organize their research
agendas. However, crosscutting funding support for interdisciplinary scholarship
has improved in recent years, stimulating a new generation of innovative
research. Examples include NSF programs in Smart and Connected Communities,
Innovations in Food, Energy and Water Systems, Dynamics of Coupled Natural
and Human Systems, and Water Sustainability and Climate—programs that overlap
substantially with the challenges presented in this report. Research support for
early career scholars, such as the NSF Faculty Early Career Development Program
(CAREER) and the Graduate Research Fellowship Program, remain primarily
discipline based. Opportunities such as these can dramatically shape the long-term
trajectory of a scholar.
Research teams supported by interdisciplinary initiatives often include engineers,

social scientists, economists, and other experts. Success of these teams is
contingent on genuine integration across disciplines. This requires more than
placing experts from different disciplines into a room and adding interdisciplinary

verbiage to a proposal. Addressing today’s interdisciplinary challenges requires

investigators to invest time to build connections with others outside of their
discipline, and universities need to value and reward this investment of time and
effort. Although seed funding can incentivize new collaborations and reduce the
barriers to launching new interdisciplinary projects, some of the most successful
interdisciplinary collaborations are those that develop organically from groups
of researchers inspired to address a common problem. For example, forums that
bring interdisciplinary scholars together to discuss and present research can
catalyze discussion and launch new collaborations. Though effective, these types of
interactions are not yet commonplace. Interdisciplinary institutes can be well-suited
for engaging diverse scholars around a common theme, provided that the institute
itself does not become a silo.
Interdisciplinary collaborations require meaningful interactions and
genuine integration across disciplines. Funding organizations and research
institutions can facilitate effective collaboration through well-designed
grant programs and by fostering environments where relationships and
collaborations can develop organically.
Examples of steps that research agencies, organizations, and corporations can take
to foster interdisciplinary collaboration include the following:
• Craft opportunities for research support for early career scholars geared toward
crosscutting and interdisciplinary themes.
• Prioritize expansion of interdisciplinary research support, even at the expense
of disciplinary support, and incorporate proposal evaluation techniques that
reward research teams and proposals that ensure genuine collaboration among
scholars.302
• Develop NSF Engineering Research Centers focused around grand challenges, as
recommended in the 2017 National Academies report, A New Vision for Center-
Based Engineering Research.303

• Support workshops and other forums that stimulate interdisciplinary engagement

and discussion around the grand challenges in environmental engineering.
• Embrace interdisciplinary research structures and programs that bring together
researchers with different disciplinary expertise but common interests around
specific challenges or themes.304
Industry and Community Engagement

The impact of interdisciplinary research is realized when new knowledge created
by interdisciplinary teams is put into practice in industry and communities.
Prototype applications at field scale provide opportunities to validate and refine
new knowledge gained through scholarly research, and they provide a gateway
for translation for societal benefit. These interactions also provide faculty with
opportunities to understand the practical and fundamental issues that challenge
engineering practice. Many university scholars have limited experience in
translating research knowledge to applications at field scale. University promotion
and reward programs often do not acknowledge the significance of these efforts,
despite their importance. Several programs provide opportunities for both basic
and translational research engaging academics and industrial partners in teams that
solve real-world problems, including the Clinical and Translational Science Awards
Program at the National Institutes of Health and NSF’s Grant Opportunities for
Academic Liaisons with Industry and Partnerships for Innovation programs.
Examples of steps that research agencies, organizations, and corporations can take
to enhance the translation of research to practice include the following:
• Develop additional opportunities for translating interdisciplinary research into
practice through collaborative partnerships between industry, academia, and
communities.
• Develop promotion and reward systems at universities to incentivize faculty
engagement in translating environmental engineering research findings into
practice, with emphasis on research products and technologies that have a
demonstrated positive impact on society.

ENDNOTES
1. Cutler, D., and G. Miller. 2005. The role of public health and Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management
improvements in health advances: The 20th century United Institute.
States. Demography 42(1): 1-22. 22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2011.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Air Pollutant “Energy-Smart” Food for People and Climate. Issue Paper.
Emissions Trends Data. Rome: FAO.
3. Engelhaupt, E. 2008. Happy birthday, Love Canal. Chemical & 23 Godfray, H., J.R. Beddington, I.R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence,
Engineering News 86(46): 46-53. J.F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S.M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. CERCLA/Superfund 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
Orientation Manual. EPA/542/R-92/005. Science 327:812–818; Conway, G. 2012. One Billion Hungry:
5. GBD 2016 Mortality Collaborators. 2017. Global, regional, Can We Feed the World? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
and national under-5 mortality, adult mortality, age-specific 24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2017.
mortality, and life expectancy, 1970–2016: A systematic The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges.
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Rome: FAO; U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017.
Lancet 390(10100): 1084-1150; Kontis, V., J. E. Bennett, C. D. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate
Mathers, G. Li, K. Foreman, and M. Ezzati, 2017. Future life Assessment, Vol. 1. D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A.
expectancy in 35 industrialised countries: Projections with a Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds.
Bayesian model ensemble. The Lancet 389(10076): 1323-1335. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
6. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2017. 25. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016.
World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate
11.2 Billion in 2100. Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press;
7. World Bank. 2017. No Poverty. Atlas of Sustainable Development Reddy, V. R., S. K. Singh, and V. Anbumozhi. 2016. Food Supply
Goals. Washington, DC. Chain Disruption Due to Natural Disasters: Entities, Risks,
8. World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. and Strategies for Resilience. Economic Research Institute for
2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 ASEAN and East Asia Discussion Paper Series.
Update and SGD Baselines. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF. 26. Foley, J. A., N. Ramankutty, K. A. Brauman, E. S. Cassidy, J. S.
9. International Energy Agency. 2017. Energy Access Outlook 2017: Gerber, M. Johnston, N. D. Mueller, C. O’Connell, D. K. Ray,
From Poverty to Prosperity. Organisation for Economic Co- P. C. West, and C. Balzer. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated
operation and Development. planet. Nature 478(7369): 337-342.
10. World Health Organization. 2018. Household Air Pollution and 27. Mahlein, A.-K. 2016. Plant disease detection by imaging sensors—
Health. Fact Sheet. Parallels and specific demands for precision agriculture and
11. GBD 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators. 2017. Global, regional, plant phenotyping. Plant Disease 100(2): 241-251.
and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, 28. Schumann, A. W. 2010. Precise placement and variable rate fertilizer
environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or cluster application technologies for horticultural crops. HortTechnology
of risks, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden 20(1): 34-40.
of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet 390(10100): 1345-1422. 29. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018.
12. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2016. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research
Development and Globalization: Facts and Figures 2016. by 2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
13. Kharas, H. 2010. The Emerging Middle Class in Developing 30. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Countries. OECD Development Centre Working Paper 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.
No. 285. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Development. 31. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018.
14. United Nations. 2018. Sustainable Development Goals. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research
15. United Nations. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals Report by 2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
2017. 32. Anand, G. 2016. Farmers’ unchecked crop burning fuels India’s air
16. World Health Organization. 2017. Children: Reducing Mortality. pollution. The New York Times. Nov. 2.
Fact Sheet. October. 33. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
17. World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. 2018. Scientific Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural
2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation andHygiene: 2017 Research by 2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Update and SGD Baselines. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF. Press.
18. International Energy Agency. 2018. Access to Electricity. Energy 34. Poppick, L. 2018. The future of fish farming may be indoors.
Access Database. Scientific American, September 17.
19. World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund. 35. FAO. 2011. Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent,
2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Causes, and Prevention. Rome: FAO.
Update and SGD Baselines. Geneva: WHO and UNICEF. 36. Sharma, C., R. Dhiman, N. Rokana, and H. Panwar. 2017.
20. Foley, J., N. Ramankutty, C. Balzer, E. M. Bennett, K. A. Brauman, Nanotechnology: An untapped resource for food packaging.
S. R. Carpenter, E. Cassidy, J. Gerber, J. Hill, M. Johnston, C. Frontiers in Microbiology 12(8): 1735.
Monfreda, N. D. Mueller, C. O’Connell, S. Polasky, D. K. Ray, 37. Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J.
J. Rockström, J. Sheehan, S. Siebert, D. Tilman, P. C. West, and Dijkman, A. Falcucci, and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling Climate
D. P. M. Zaks. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature Change Through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions
478(7369): 337-342. and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture
21. Mateo-Sagasta, J., S. M. Zadeh, and H. Turral. 2017. Water Pollution Organization.
from Agriculture: A Global Review. Executive Summary. Rome: 38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and Food and Agriculture Organization. 2017. Commodity

snapshots: Meat. Pp. 110-112 in OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 56. Brauman, K. A., S. Siebert, and J. A. Foley. 2013. Improvements in
2017-2026. Special Focus: Southeast Asia. Paris: OECD. crop water productivity increase water sustainability and food
39. Ranganathan, J., D. Vennard, R. Waite, P. Dumas, B. Lipinski, and T. security—A global analysis. Environmental Research Letters 8(2):
Searchinger. 2016. Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future. 024030.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 57. Chaves, M. M., T. P. Santos, C. R. Souza, M. F. Ortuño, M. L.
40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Rodrigues, C. M. Lopes, J. P. Maroco, J. S. Pereira. 2007. Deficit
2012. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences irrigation in grapevine improves water-use efficiency while
of Inaction. controlling vigour and production quality. Annals of Applied
41. Gleick, P. H. 1993. Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Biology 150(2): 237-252.
Water Resources. New York: Oxford University Press. 58. Ali, M. H., and M. S. U. Taluder. 2008. Increasing water productivity
42. van Dijk, A. I. J. M., H. E. Beck, R. S. Crosbie, R. A. M. de Jeu, Y. in crop production—A synthesis. Agricultural Water Management
Y. Liu, G. M. Podger, B. Timbal, and N. R. Viney. 2013. The 95(11): 1201-1213; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): and Medicine. 2018. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and
Natural and human causes and implications for water Agricultural Research by 2030. Washington, DC: The National
resources, ecosystems, economy, and society. Water Resources Academies Press.
Research 49(2): 1040-1057. 59. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003.
43. Swain, D. L., B. Langenbrunner, J. D. Neelin, and A. Hall. 2018. Unlocking the Water Potential of Agriculture.
Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first-century 60. Cutler, D., and G. Miller. 2005. The role of public health
California. Nature Climate Change 8(5): 427. improvements in health advances: The 20th century United
44. ScienceDaily. 2018. Water scarcity. Available at https://www. States. Demography 42(1): 1-22.
sciencedaily.com/terms/water_scarcity.htm. 61. National Research Council. 2006. Drinking Water Distribution
45. Graf, W. 1999. Dam nation: A geographic census of American Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks. Washington, DC: The
dams and their large-scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources National Academies Press.
Research 5(4): 1305-1311; Richter, B. D., S. Postel, C. Revenga, 62. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. Legionella
T. Scudder, B. Lehner, A. Churchill, and M. Chow. 2010. Lost in (Legionnaires’ Disease and Pontiac Fever). Available at https://
development’s shadow: The downstream human consequences www.cdc.gov/legionella/about/history.html.
of dams. Water Alternatives 3(2): 14-42; Gleick, P. H. 2000. A 63. Pieper, K.J., L.A.H. Krometis, D.L. Gallagher, B.L. Benham, and
look at twenty-first century water resources development. M. Edwards. 2015. Incidence of waterborne lead in private
Water International 25(1): 127-138. drinking water systems in Virginia. Journal of Water and Health
46. Konikow, L. F. 2011. Contribution of global groundwater 13(3): 897-908; Deshommes, E., L. Laroche, S. Nour, C. Cartier,
depletion since 1900 to sea-level rise. Geophysical Research and M. Prévost. 2010. Source and occurrence of particulate
Letters 38(17): L17401, doi: 10.1029/2011GL048604. lead in tap water. Water Research 44(12): 3734–3744.
47. International Desalination Association. 2018. Desalination by the 64. United Nations. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals
Numbers. Available at http://idadesal.org/desalination-101/ Report 2017.
desalination-by-the-numbers. 65. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2018. Reinvent the Toilet
48. Dongare, P. D., A. Alabastri, S. Pedersen, K. R. Zodrow, N. Challenge, Strategy Overview.
J. Hogan, O. Neumann, J. Wu, T. Wang, A. Deshmukh, 66. Gençer, E., C. Miskin. X. Sun, M. R. Khan, P. Bermel, M. A. Alam,
M. Elimelech, and Q. Li. 2017. Nanophotonics-enabled and R. Agrawal. 2017. Directing solar photons to sustainably
solar membrane distillation for off-grid water purification. meet food, energy, and water needs. Scientific Reports 7:3133.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(27): 67. United Nations. 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals
6936-6941. Report 2017.
49. National Research Council. 2008. Desalination: A National 68. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. EIA projects 28%
Perspective. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. increase in world energy use by 2040. Today in Energy.
50. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 69. International Energy Agency. 2018. The Future of Cooling:
2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Opportunities for Energy Efficient Air Conditioning. Organisation
Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 70. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2018. Petroleum, natural
51. National Research Council. 2012. Water Reuse: Potential for gas, and coal still dominate U.S. energy consumption. Today in
Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Energy.
Wastewater. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 71. International Energy Agency. 2017. Key World Energy Statistics.
52. National Research Council. 2012. Water Reuse: Potential for Available at https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf.
Wastewater. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 72. National Research Council. 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced
53. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Consequences of Energy Production and Use. Washington, DC:
2016. Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local The National Academies Press.
Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits. 73. Jenner, S., and A. J. Lamadrid. 2012. Shale gas vs. coal: Policy
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale
54. Maupin, M. A., J. F. Kenny, S. S. Hutson, J. K. Lovelace, N. L. Barber, gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the
and K. S. Linsey. 2014. Estimated Use of Water in the United United States. Energy Policy 53:442-453; U.S. Environmental
States in 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405. Protection Agency. 2016. Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas:
55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking
Ag and Food Statistics: Charting the Essentials. Available at Water Resources in the United States. Final Report. EPA/600/
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics- R-16/236F. Washington, DC.
charting-the-essentials/agricultural-trade/; Mekonnen, M. M., 74. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017.
and A. Y. Hoekstra. 2011. The green, blue and grey water Flowback and Produced Waters: Opportunities and Challenges for
footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Innovation: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The
Earth System Sciences 15(5): 1577. National Academies Press.
Endnotes and Figure Sources | 91

75. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 95. Sterman. J. D. 1994. Learning in and about complex systems. System
2017. Safely Transporting Hazardous Liquids and Gases in a Dynamics Review 6(2-3): 291-330.
Changing U.S. Energy Landscape. Washington, DC: The National 96. Boccara, N. 2010. Modeling Complex Systems, 2nd ed. New
Academies Press. York: Springer.
76. National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind- 97. National Academy of Sciences. 2014. Climate Change: Evidence
Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; and Causes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2010. Electricity from Renewable 98. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science
Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments. Washington, DC: Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D.
The National Academies Press. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C.
77. National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind- Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
Energy Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 99. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science
78. American Wind Wildlife Institute. 2014. Wind Turbine Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D.
Interactions with Wildlife and Their Habitats: A Summary of J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C.
Research Results and Priority Questions. Fact Sheet. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
79. National Research Council. 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced 100. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Consequences of Energy Production and Use. Washington, DC: 2017. Attribution of Extreme Weather in the Context of Climate
The National Academies Press. Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
80. Sprecher, B., Y. Xiao, A. Walton, J. Speight, R. Harris, R. Kleijn, 101. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science
G. Visser, and G. J. Kramer. 2014. Life cycle inventory of the Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D.
production of rare earths and the subsequent production of J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C.
NdFeB rare earth permanent magnets. Environmental Science & Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
Technology 48(7): 3951-3958. 102. National Research Council. 2012. Climate Change: Evidence,
81. Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany. 2006. Impacts, and Choices. Washington, DC: The National
Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits Academies Press.
of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National 103. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2015. Climate
Academy of Sciences 103(30): 11206-11210. Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution
82. Lim, X. 2016. Uphill climb for biogas in Asia. Chemical & of Working Group III to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
Engineering News 94:20-22. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83. Levin, T., and V.M. Thomas. 2016. Can developing countries 104. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science
leapfrog the centralized electrification paradigm? Energy for Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D.
Sustainable Development 31: 97-107. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C.
84. Koss, G. 2016. Renewable energy: Necessity drives Alaska’s “petri Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
dish” of innovation. E&E News Greenwire. 105. Knoblauch C., C. Beer, S. Liebner, M. N. Grigoriev, and E. M.
85. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Pfeiffer. 2018. Methane production as key to the greenhouse
2017. Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electricity System. gas budget of thawing permafrost. Nature Climate Change 8:
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 309-312.
86. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2018. Microgrids at 106. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate
Berkeley Lab: Huatacondo. Available at https://building- Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers.
microgrid.lbl.gov/huatacondo. 107. International Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global warming
87. United National Conference on Trade and Development. 2017. of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global
The Least Developed Countries Report 2017: Transformational warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
Energy Access. Geneva: UNCTAD/LDC/2017. global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
88. National Research Council. 2010. The Power of Renewables: strengthening the global response to the threat of climate
Opportunities and Challenges for China and the United States. change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; National poverty. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D.
Research Council. 2010. Electricity from Renewable Resources Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, Y. Chen, S. Connors,
Status, Prospects, and Impediments. Washington, DC: The M. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, W. Moufouma-Okia,
National Academies Press. C. Péan, R. Pidcock, N. Reay, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, and X.
89. Chen, H., Q. Ejaz, X. Gao, J. Huang, J. Morris, E. Monier, S. Zhou (eds.). In Press.
Paltsev, J. Reilly, A. Schlosser, J. Scott, and A. Sokolov. 2016. 108. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science
Food, Water, Energy, Climate Outlook: Perspectives from 2016. Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C.
Science and Policy of Global Change. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
90. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. 109. World Health Organization. 2018. Ambient (Outdoor) Air
Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Electricity System. Quality and Health. Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 110. Williams, J. H., B. Haley, F. Kahrl, J. Moore, A. D. Jones, M. S. Torn,
91. Penn, I. 2018. The $3 billion plan to turn Hoover Dam into a giant and H. McJeon. 2014. Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the
battery. New York Times, July 24. United States. [Revision with technical supplement. Nov 16,
92. Luo, X., J. Wang, M. Dooner, and J. Clarke. 2015. Overview of 2015].
current development in electrical energy storage technologies 111. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. 2016. Green
and the application potential in power system operation. Paper on Energy Efficiency. Berlin, Germany.
Applied Energy 137: 511-536. 112. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
93. Meadows, D. H. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River 2010. Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States.
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
94. Mihelcic, J. R., J. B. Zimmerman, and M. T. Auer. 2014. 113. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2018. Electricity
Environmental Engineering: Fundamentals, Sustainability, Design, Explained: Electricity in the United States, Generation,
Vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Capacity, and Sales.

114. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2012. Renewable Electricity 131. National Research Council. 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting
Futures Study: Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National
Futures, Vol. 1. NREL/TP-6A20-52409. Golden, CO: NREL. Academies Press.
115. Cole, T. M., P. Donohoo-Vallett, J. Richards, and P. Das. 2017. 132. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Greenhouse Gas
Standard Scenarios Report: A U.S. Electricity Sector Outlook. Emissions: Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
NREL/TP-6A20-68548. Golden, CO: National Renewable 133. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Global Methane
Energy Laboratory. Initiative: Importance of Methane.
116. International Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global warming of 134. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming 2018. Improving Characterization of Anthropogenic Methane
of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse Emissions in the United States. Washington, DC: The National
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global Academies Press.
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, 135. Horowitz, J., and J. Gottlieb. 2010. The Role of Agriculture in
and efforts to eradicate poverty. V., Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Economic Brief No. 15.
H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, Y. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic
Chen, S. Connors, M. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, W. Research Service.
Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, N. Reay, M. Tignor, T. 136. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science
Waterfield, and X. Zhou (eds.)]. In Press. Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D.
117. International Energy Agency. 2017. World Energy Outlook 2017. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C.
118. Rueter, G., and M. Kuebler. 2017. China leading the way in solar Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: USGCRP.
energy expansion as renewables surge. Deutsche Welle, July 6. 137. National Research Council. 2012. Climate Change: Evidence,
119. U.S. Department of Energy. Advanced Reacter Technologies Impacts, and Choices. Washington, DC: The National
https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/ Academies Press.
advanced-reactor-technologies. 138. Bates, B., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu, and J. Palutikof. 2008.
120. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2018. Use of Energy Climate Change and Water. IPCC Technical Paper VI. Geneva:
In the United States Explained: Energy Use for Transportation. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat.
Available at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_ 139. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
energy_transportation. 2016. Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of
121. Zev Alliance. 2017. The rise of electric vehicles: The second Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies
million. Blog, Jan. 31. Available at http://www.zevalliance.org/ Press.
second-million-electric-vehicles. 140. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. 2018. Global Warming
122. Lutsey, N., M. Grant, S. Wappelhorst, and H. Zhou. Power Play: and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results.
How Governments Are Spurring the Electric Vehicle Industry. Princeton University Forrestal Campus.
White Paper. Washington, DC: International Council on Clean 141. Baltes, N.J., J. Gil-Humanes, and D.F. Voytas. 2017. Chapter
Transportation. One-Genome Engineering and Agriculture: Opportunities
123. Mucio, D. 2017. These countries are banning gas-powered and Challenges. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational
vehicles by 2040. Business Insider, Oct. 23. Available at https:// Science 149: 1-26.
www.businessinsider.com/countries-banning-gas-cars-2017-10. 142. Phelan, P. E., K. Kaloush, M. Miner, J. Golden, B. Phelan, H. Silval
124. National Research Council. 2011. Climate Stabilization Targets: ll, and R. A. Taylor. 2015. Urban heat island: Mechanisms,
Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. implications, and possible remedies. Annual Review of
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Environment and Resources 40: 285-307.
125. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 143. Lempert, R. J., D. G., Groves, S. W., Popper, and S. C. Bankes.
2018. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: 2006. A General, Analytic Method for Generating Robust
A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Strategies and Narrative Scenarios. Management Science 52(4):
Press. 514-528; Haasnoot, M., J. H. Kwakkel, W. E. Walker, and J. ter
126. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Maat. 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for
Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global
2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Environmental Change 23(2): 485-498.
127. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 144. Westerling, A. L., B. P. Bryant, H. K. Preisler, T. P. Holmes,
2018. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: H. G. Hidalgo, T. Das, and S. R. Shrestha. 2011. Climate
A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies change and growth scenarios for California wildfire. Climatic
Press. Change 109(Supp. 1): 445-463; Barbero, R., J. T. Abatzoglou,
128. Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, N. K. Larkin, C. A. Kolden, and B. Stocks. 2015. Climate
D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V. Siikamäki, P. change presents increased potential for very large fires in the
Smith, P. Woodbury, C. Zganjar, A. Blackman, J. Campari, R. T. contiguous United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire
Conant, C. Delgado, P. Elias, T. Gopalakrishna, M. R. Hamsik, 24(7): 892-899.
M. Herrero, J. Kiesecker, E. Landis, L. Laestadius, S. M. Leavitt, 145. Smith, A., C. A. Kolden, T. B. Paveglio, M. A. Cochrane, D. M.
S. Minnemeyer, S. Polasky, P. Potapov, F. E. Putz, J. Sanderman, Bowman, M. A. Moritz, A. D. Kliskey, L. Alessa, A. T. Hudak,
M. Silvius, E. Wollenberg, and J. Fargione. 2017. Natural climate C. M. Hoffman, J. A. Lutz, L. P. Queen, S. J. Goetz, P. E. Higuera,
solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences L. Boschetti, M. Flannigan, K. M. Yedinak, A. C. Watts, E. K.
114(44): 11645-11650. Strand, J. W. Van Wagtendonk, J. W. Anderson, B. J. Stocks,
129. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. and J. T. Abatzoglou. 2016. The science of firescapes: Achieving
2018. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable fire-resilient communities. BioScience 66(2): 130-146.
Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The 146. National Research Council. 2012. Disaster Resilience: A National
National Academies Press. Imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
130. Hunter, M. C., R. G. Smith, M. E. Schipanski, L.W. Atwood, and 147. Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, M. van
D.A. Mortensen. 2017. Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating Aalst, W. N. Adger, D. J. Arent, J. Barnett, R. Betts, T. E.
targets for sustainable intensification. Bioscience 67(4): 386-391. Bilir, J. Birkmann, J. Carmin, D. D. Chadee, A. J. Challinor,

M. Chatterjee, W. Cramer, D. J. Davidson, Y. O. Estrada, J.-P. global transformation for public health. The Lancet 391(10120):
Gattuso, Y. Hijioka, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Q. Huang, G. E. 581-630.
Insarov, R. N. Jones, R. S. Kovats, P. Romero-Lankao, J. N. 156. Haines, A. 2008. Climate change, extreme events, and human
Larsen, I .J. Losada, J. A. Marengo, R. F. McLean, L. O. Mearns, health. Pp. 57-74 in Global Climate Change and Extreme
R. Mechler, J. F. Morton, I. Niang, T. Oki, J. M. Olwoch, M. Weather Events: Understanding the Contributions to Infectious
Opondo, E. S. Poloczanska, H.-O. Pörtner, M. H. Redsteer, A. Disease Emergence. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Reisinger, A. Revi, D. N. Schmidt, M. R. Shaw, W. Solecki, D. A. Press.
Stone, J. M. R. Stone, K. M. Strzepek, A. G. Suarez, P. Tschakert, 157. Zorrilla, C. D. 2017. The view from Puerto Rico—Hurricane
R. Valentini, S. Vicuña, A. Villamizar, K. E. Vincent, R. Warren, Maria and its aftermath. New England Journal of Medicine
L. L. White, T. J. Wilbanks, P. P. Wong, and G. W. Yohe. 2014. 377(19): 1801-1803.
Technical summary. Pp. 35-94 in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 158. National Research Council. 2009. Informing Decisions in a
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Changing Climate. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Press; Dittrich, R., A. Wreford, and D. Moran. 2016. A survey
Report. C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. of decision-making approaches for climate change adaptation:
Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, Are robust methods the way forward? Ecological Economics
R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, 122: 79-89; Walker, W. E., M. Haasnoot, and J. H. Kwakkel.
P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, eds. Cambridge, UK, and 2013. Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for
New York: Cambridge University Press. adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 5(3): 955-979.
148. Shiferaw, B., M. Smale, H. Braun, E. Duveiller, M. Reynolds, and G. 159. Matthews, E., C. Amann, S. Bringezu, W. Hüttler, C. Ottke, E.
Muricho. 2013. Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes Rodenburg, D. Rogich, H. Schandl, E. Van, D. Voet, and H.
and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global Weisz. 2000. The Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from
food security. Food Security 5(3): 291-317. Industrial Economies. Washington, DC: World Resources
149. Howden, S. M., J. F. Soussana, F. N. Tubiello, N. Chhetri, M. Institute.
Dunlop, and H. Meinke. 2007. Adapting agriculture to climate 160. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. National Overview:
change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Facts and Figures on Materials, Wastes and Recycling. Trends—
104(50): 19691-19696; Smit, B., and M. W. Skinner. 2002. 1960 to Today.
Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: A 161. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2013. Towards the Circular Economy:
typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition,
7:85-114. Vol. 1.
150. Field, C.B.,V.R. Barros, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, M. van Aalst, 162. Hoornweg, D., and P. Bhada-Tata. 2012. What a Waste: A Global
W.N. Adger, D.J. Arent, J. Barnett, R. Betts,T.E. Bilir, J. Birkmann, J. Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, DC: World
Carmin, D.D. Chadee, A.J. Challinor, M. Chatterjee,W. Cramer, Bank.
D.J. Davidson,Y.O. Estrada, J.-P. Gattuso,Y. Hijioka, O. Hoegh- 163. Hoornweg, D., P. Bhada-Tata, and C. Kennedy. 2013. Environment:
Guldberg, H.-Q. Huang, G.E. Insarov, R.N. Jones, R.S. Kovats, Waste production must peak this century. Nature 503: 615.
P. Romero Lankao, J.N. Larsen, I.J. Losada, J.A. Marengo, R.F. 164. Kharas, H. 2017. The Unprecedented Expansion of the Global
McLean, L.O. Mearns, R. Mechler, J.F. Morton, I. Niang,T. Oki, Middle Class: An Update. Global Economy and Development
J.M. Olwoch, M. Opondo, E.S. Poloczanska, H.-O. Pörtner, M.H. at Brookings. Working Paper 100. Brookings Institution.
Redsteer, A. Reisinger, A. Revi, D.N. Schmidt, M.R. Shaw,W. 165. National Research Council. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface:
Solecki, D.A. Stone, J.M.R. Stone, K.M. Strzepek, A.G. Suarez, Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC:
P.Tschakert, R.Valentini, S.Vicuña, A.Villamizar, K.E.Vincent, R. The National Academies Press.
Warren, L.L.White,T.J.Wilbanks, P.P.Wong, and G.W.Yohe. 166. National Research Council. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface:
2014.Technical Summary. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC:
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. The National Academies Press.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report 167. National Research Council. 2013. Alternatives for Managing the
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., Nation’s Complex Contaminated Groundwater Sites. Washington,
V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,T.E. Bilir, DC: The National Academies Press.
M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, 168. Health Effects Institute. 2015. The Advanced Collaborate
E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. Emissions Study (ACES). Executive Summary. Boston: HEI.;
White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Khalek, I. A., T. L. Bougher, P. M. Merritt, and B. Zielinska. 2011.
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 35-94. Regulated and unregulated emissions from highway heavy-duty
151. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Climate Science diesel engines complying with U.S. Environmental Protection
Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. Agency 2007 emissions standards. Journal of the Air and Waste
D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, Management Association 61(4): 427-442.
B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. Washington, DC: 169. World Water Assessment Programme. 2009. The United Nations
USGCRP. doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6. World Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World.
152. Milman, O. 2017. Atlantic City and Miami Beach: Two takes on Paris: UNESCO, and London: Earthscan, Table 8.1, p. 137.
tackling the rising waters. The Guardian, Mar. 20. 170. International Food Policy Research Institute and VEOLIA. 2015.
153. Katz, C. 2013. To Control Floods, The Dutch Turn to Nature for The Murky Future of Global Water Quality: New Global Study
Inspiration. Yale Environment 360. Projects Rapid Deterioration in Water Quality. White Paper.
154. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. 2017. Washington, DC: IFPRI and Chicago: VEOLIA Water North
Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable America; World Health Organization. 2016. Air Pollution
Coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Levels Rising in Many of the World’s Poorest Cities. News
Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA. Release.
155. Watts, N., M. Amann, S. Ayeb-Karlsson, K. Belesova, T. Bouley, 171. Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G.
M. Boykoff, P. Byass, W. Cai, D. Campbell-Lendrum, J. Stephens, P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, J. Willis, D.
Chambers, and P. M. Cox. 2017. The Lancet countdown on Anderson, S. Doney, R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T.
health and climate change: From 25 years of inaction to a Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville,

2014:Our changing climate. Pp. 19-67 in Climate Change Comment, June. Available at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate toxprofiles/tp200.pdf.
Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, 187. China Council for International Cooperation on Environment
eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program. doi:10.7930/ and Development. 2014. Special Policy Study on Soil Pollution
J0KW5CXT. Management. Available at http://environmental-partnership.
172. Lindstrom, A. B., M. J. Strynar, and E. L. Libelo. 2011. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPS-on-Soil-Pollution-
Polyfluorinated compounds: Past, present, and future. Management.pdf.
Environmental Science & Technology 45(19): 7954-7961. 188. Hu, Y., X. Liu, J. Bai, K. Shih, E. Y. Zeng, and H. Cheng. 2013.
173. Roser, M. 2018. Life Expectancy. Our World in Data. Available at Assessing heavy metal pollution in the surface soils of a region
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy. that had undergone three decades of intense industrialization
174. GBD 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators. 2017. Global, regional, and urbanization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, 20(9): 6150-6159.
environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or cluster 189. Hu, Y., H. Cheng, and S. Tao. 2016. The challenges and solutions
of risks, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global for cadmium-contaminated rice in China: A critical review.
Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet 390(10100): Environment International 92–93: 515-532.
1345-1422. 190. Coulon, F. K. Jones, H. Li, Q. Hu, J. Gao, F. Li, M. Chen, Y.-G. Zhu,
175. GBD 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators. 2017. Global, regional, R. Liu, M. Liu, K. Canning, N. Harries, P. Bardos, P. Nathanail,
and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, R. Sweeney, D. Middleton, M. Charnley, J. Randall, M. Richell,
environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or cluster T. Howard, I. Martin, S. Spooner, J. Weeks, M. Cave, F. Yu, F.
of risks, 1990-2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden Zhang, Y. Jiang, P. Longhurst, G. Prpich, R. Bewley, J. Abra, and
of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet 390(10100): 1345-1422. S. Pollard. 2016. China’s soil and groundwater management
176. Health Effects Institute. 2018. State of Global Air. Available at: challenges: Lessons from the UK’s experience and opportunities
www.stateofglobalair.org. for China. Environment International, 91: 196-200.
177. Landrigan, P. J., R. Fuller, N. J. Acosta, O. Adeyi, R. Arnold, A. B. 191. Song, Y., D. Hou, J. Zhang, D. O’Connor, G. Li, Q. Gu, S. Li, and
Baldé, R. Bertollini, S. Bose-O’Reilly, J. I. Boufford, P. N. Breysse, P. Liu. 2018. Environmental and socio-economic sustainability
T. Chiles, C. Mahidol, A. M. Coll-Seck, M. L. Cropper, J. Fobil, appraisal of contaminated land remediation strategies: A case
V. Fuster, M. Greenstone, and M. Zhong. 2017. The Lancet study at a mega-site in China. Science of The Total Environment
Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet 391(10119): 610-611: 391-401.
462-512. 192. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Tetrachloroethylene
178. Cunningham, V. L., M. Buzby, T. Hutchinson, F. Mastrocco, N. (Perchloroethylene). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/
Parke, and N. Roden. 2006. Effects of human pharmaceuticals production/files/2016-09/documents/tetrachloroethylene.pdf.
on aquatic life: Next steps. Environmental Science & Technology 193. http://zwia.org/.
40(11):3456-3462; Iwanowicz, L. R., V. S. Blazer, A. E. Pinkney, 194. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Achieving Clean Air
C. P. Guy, A. M. Major, K. Munney, S. Mierzykowski, S. and Clean Water: Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates
Lingenfelser, A. Secord, K. Patnode, T. J. Kubiak, C. Stern, in Gasoline. EPA420-R-99-021.
C. M. Hahn, D. D. Iwanowicz, H. L. Walsh, and A. Sperry. 195. Landrigan, P. J., R. Fuller, N. J. R. Acosta, O. Adeyi, R. Arnold, N.
2016. Evidence of estrogenic endocrine disruption in Basu, A. B. Baldé, R. Bertollini, S. Bose-O’Reilly, J. I. Boufford,
smallmouth and largemouth bass inhabiting Northeast U.S. P. N. Breysse, T. Chiles, C. Mahidol, A. M. Coll-Seck, M. L.
national wildlife refuge waters: A reconnaissance study. Cropper, J. Fobil, V. Fuster, M. Greenstone, A. Haines, D.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 124: 50-59. Hanrahan, D. Hunter, M. Khare, A. Krupnick, B. Lanphear,
179. Jambeck, J. R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. B. Lohani, K. Martin, K. V. Mathiasen, M. A. McTeer, C. J. L.
Andrady, R. Narayan, and K. L. Law. 2015. Plastic waste inputs Murray, J. D. Ndahimananjara, F. Perera, J. Potočnik, A. S.
from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223): 768-771. Preker, J. Ramesh, J. Rockström, C. Salinas, L. D. Samson, K.
180. Tosetto, L., C. Brown, and J. E. Williamson. 2016. Microplastics Sandilya, P. D. Sly, K. R. Smith, A. Steiner, R. B. Stewart, W. A.
on beaches: Ingestion and behavioural consequences for Suk, O. C. P. van Schayck, G. N. Yadama, K. Yumkella, and M.
beachhoppers. Marine Biology 163(10): 199; Nelms, S. E., Zhong. 2018. The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health.
T. S., Galloway, B. J. Godley, D. S. Jarvis, and P. K. Lindeque. The Lancet 391(10119): 462-512.
2018. Investigating microplastic trophic transfer in marine 196. Zeng, X., J. A. Mathews, and J. Li. 2018. Urban mining of
top predators. Environmental Pollution 238: 999-1007; World e-waste is becoming more cost-effective than virgin mining.
Economic Forum. 2016. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking Environmental Science & Technology 52(8): 4835-4841; Nguyen,
the Future of Plastics. Geneva, Switzerland. R. T., L. A. Diaz, D. D. Imholte, and T. E. Lister. 2017. Economic
181. Anderson, D. M., P. M. Glibert, and J. M. Burkholder. 2002. assessment for recycling critical metals from hard disk drives
Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, using a comprehensive recovery process. JOM 69(9):
composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25(4): 704-726. 1546-1552.
182. Michalak, A. M. 2016. Study role of climate change in extreme 197. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
threats to water quality. Nature 535(7612): 349-352. 2018. Gaseous Carbon Waste Streams Utilization: Status and
183. Mueller, R., and V. Yingling. 2017. History and Use of Per- and Research Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Fact Sheet. Interstate Press.
Technology Regulatory Council. November. 198. Deublein, D., and A. Steinhauser, eds. 2011. Biogas from Waste
184. Mueller, R., and V. Yingling. 2018. Environmental Fate and and Renewable Resources: An Introduction. Weinheim, Germany:
Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Fact Sheet. Wiley VCH Verlag.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. March. 199. McCarty, P. L., J. Bae, and J. Kim. 2011. Domestic wastewater
185. National Ground Water Association. 2018. PFAS: Top 10 Facts. treatment as a net energy producer—Can this be achieved?
Available at https://www.ngwa.org/docs/default-source/default- Environmental Science & Technology 45(17): 7100-7106.
document-library/pfas/pfastop-10.pdf?sfvrsn=8c8ef98b_2. 200. Water Environment Research Foundation. 2012. Barriers to
186. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2018. Biogas Use for Renewable Energy. Report OWSO 11C10.
Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls: Draft for Public Alexandria, VA: WERF.

201. Smith, A. L., L. B. Stadler, L. Cao, N. G. Love, L. Raskin, and 219. Ezeh, A., O. Oyebade, D. Satterthwaite, Y. F. Chen, R. Ndugwa,
S. J. Skerlos. 2014. Navigating wastewater energy recovery J. Sartori, B. Mberu, G. J. Melendez-Torres, T. Haregu, S. I.
strategies: A life cycle comparison of anaerobic membrane Watson, and W. Caiaffa. 2017. The history, geography, and
bioreactor and conventional treatment systems with sociology of slums and the health problems of people who
anaerobic digestion. Environmental Science & Technology live in slums. The Lancet 389(10068): 547-558; Landrigan, P.
48(10): 5972-5981. J., R. Fuller, N. J. Acosta, O. Adeyi, R. Arnold, A. B. Baldé, R.
202. Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, Bertollini, S. Bose-O’Reilly, J. I. Boufford, P. N. Breysse, and T.
E. M. Bennett, R. Biggs, S. R. Carpenter, W. De Vries, C. A. De Chiles, C. Mahidol, A. M. Coll-Seck, M. L. Cropper, J. Fobil, V.
Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke, G. M. Mace, L. M. Persson, Fuster, M. Greenstone, A. Haines, D. Hanrahan, D. Hunter,
V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin. 2015. Planetary M. Khare, A. Krupnick, B. Lanphear, B. Lohani, K. Martin, K. V.
boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Mathiasen, M. A. McTeer, C. J. L. Murray, J. D. Ndahimananjara,
Science 347(6223): 1259855. F. Perera, J. Potočnik, A. S. Preker, J. Ramesh, J. Rockström,
203. Jasinski, S. M. 2017. Phosphate rock. Mineral Commodity C. Salinas, L. D. Samson, K. Sandilya, P. D. Sly, K. R. Smith, A.
Summaries. U.S. Geological Survey. Steiner, R. B. Stewart, W. A. Suk, O. C. P. van Schayck, G.
204. Mihelcic, J. R., L. M. Fry, and R. Shaw. 2011. Global potential N. Yadama, K. Yumkella, and M. Zhong. 2018. The Lancet
of phosphorus recovery from human urine and feces. Commission on Pollution and Health. The Lancet 391(10119):
Chemosphere 84(6): 832-839. 462-512.
205. Larsen, T. A., A. C. Alder, R. I. L. Eggen, M. Maurer, and J. Lienert. 220. Morse, S. S., J. A. K. Mazet, M. Woolhouse, C. R. Parrish, D.
2009. Source separation: Will we see a paradigm shift in Carroll, W. B. Karesh, C. Zimbrana-Torrelio, W. I. Lipkin,
wastewater handling? Environmental Science & Technology and P. Daszak. 2012. Prediction and prevention of the next
43(16): 6121-6125. zoonosis. The Lancet 380(9857):1956-1965.
206. International Fertilizer Industry Association. 2009. Energy 221. Revi, A., D. E. Satterthwaite, F. Aragón-Durand, J. Corfee-Morlot,
Efficiency and CO2 Emissions in Ammonia Production: 2008-2009 R. B. R. Kiunsi, M. Pelling, D. C. Roberts, and W. Soleck. 2014.
Summary Report. Paris: IFIA. Urban areas. Pp. 535-612 in Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
207. National Academy of Engineering. 1997. The Industrial Green Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Game: Implications for Environmental Design and Management. Contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. Report. C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D.
208. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Advancing Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada,
Sustainable Materials Management: 2014. Fact Sheet. R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken,
209. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, eds. Cambridge, UK, and
2015. Environment at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators. Paris: New York: Cambridge University Press.
OECD Publishing. 222. American Society of Civil Engineers; Engineers. 2017. 2017
210. Baldé, C. P., V. Forti, V. Gray, R. Kuehr, and P. Stegmann. Infrastructure Report Card: A Comprehensive Assessment of
2017. The Global E-waste Monitor 2017: Quantities, Flows, American’s Infrastructure.
and Resources. Bonn, Geneva, and Vienna. United Nations 223. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
University, International Telecommunication Union, and 2007. Infrastructure to 2030, Vol.2: Mapping Policy for Electricity,
International Solid Waste Association. Water and Transport. Paris: OECD Publishing.
211. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Evaluation Report: 224. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Multiple Actions Taken to Address Electronic Waste, but EPA 2016. Pathways to Urban Sustainability: Challenges and
Needs to Provide Clear National Direction. Office of the Opportunities for the United States. Washington, DC: The
Inspector General, Report No. 2004-P-00028. National Academies Press; Ramaswami, A., A. Russell, P.
212. Hansen, T. L., J. la Cour Jansen, Å. Davidsson, and T. H. Culligan, K. Sharma, and E. Kumar. 2016. Meta-principles
Christensen. 2007. Effects of pre-treatment technologies on for developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science
quantity and quality of source-sorted municipal organic waste 352(6288): 940-943.
for biogas recovery. Waste Management 27(3): 398-405. 225. Jeong, H., O. A. Broesicke, B. Drew, D. Li, and J. C. Crittenden.
213. Lewis, J. J., and S. K. Pattanayak. 2012. Who adopts improved 2016. Life cycle assessment of low impact development
fuels and cookstoves? A systematic review. Environmental technologies combined with conventional centralized water
Health Perspectives 120(5): 637-645. systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Environmental Science
214. World Bank Group. 2017. Populations Estimates and Projections. and Engineering 10(6): 1-13.
Available at https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/population- 226. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
projection-tables. New York City Water Supply. Available at: www.dec.ny.gov/
215. UN Habitat. 2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging lands/25599.html.
Futures. World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi, Kenya: United 227. Zanella, A., N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi.
Nations Human Settlements Programme. 2014. Internet of Things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things
216. UN Habitat. 2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Journal 1(1): 22-32.
Futures. World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi, Kenya: United 228. Debnath, A. K., H. C. Chin, M. M. Haque, and B. Yuen. 2014. A
Nations Human Settlements Programme. methodological framework for benchmarking smart transport
217. United Nations Environment Programme. 2012. Global Initiative cities. Cities 37: 47-56.
for Resource Efficient Cities: Engine to Sustainability; UN Habitat. 229. Ramaprasad, A., A. Sánchez-Ortiz, and T. Syn. 2017. A unified
2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. World definition of a smart city. Pp. 13-24 in Electronic Government.
Cities Report 2016. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human M. Janssen, K. Axelsson, O. Glassey, B. Klievink, R. Krimmer, I.
Settlements Programme. Lindgren, P. Parycek, H. J. Scholl, and D. Trutnev, eds. Springer,
218. Editorial. 2016. A missed opportunity for urban health. The Cham.
Lancet 388(10056): 2057. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16) 230. World Economic Forum. 2018. Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for
32056-6; Editorial. 2017. Health in slums: Understanding the the Earth.
unseen. The Lancet 389(10068): 478-479. doi:10.1016/S0140- 231. Palca, J. 2018. Betting on artificial intelligence to guide earthquake
6736(17)30266-0. response. NPR, April 20. Available at: https://www.npr.org/

2018/04/20/595564470/betting-on-artificial-intelligence-to- 252. C40 Cities. 2015. Cities100: Copenhagen—Creating a Climate

guide-earthquake-response. Resilient Neighborhood. Available at: http://www.c40.org/
232. Laursen, L. 2014. Barcelona’s smart city ecosystem. MIT case_studies/cities100-copenhagen-creating-a-climate-resilient-
Technology Review, Nov. 18. neighborhood.
233. Amsterdam Smart City. Smartphone app for citizens to manage 253. Zhang, W., S. Guhathakurta, J. Fang, and G. Zhang. 2015.
street lighting. Available at: https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/ Exploring the impact of shared autonomous vehicles on
products/amsterdam-offers-smartphone-app-for-cityzens-to- urban parking demand: An agent-based simulation approach.
manage-street-lighting. Sustainable Cities and Society 19: 34-45.
234. Korkali, M., J. G. Veneman, B. F. Tivnan, J. P. Bagrow, and P. D. 254. UN Habitat. 2016. Urbanization and Development: Emerging
Hines. 2017. Reducing cascading failure risk by increasing Futures. World Cities Report 2016. Nairobi, Kenya: United
infrastructure network interdependence. Scientific Reports Nations Human Settlements Programme.
7(44499). 255. Jeong, H., O. A. Broesicke, B. Drew, and J. C. Crittenden. 2018.
235. Examples are Ecube Lab’ (https://www.ecubelabs.com/ Life cycle assessment of small-scale greywater reclamation
solution); Bigbelly (http://bigbelly.com); and IBM. 2015. IBM systems combined with conventional centralized water systems
Intelligent Waste Management Platform. White Paper. for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Journal of Cleaner Production
Available at: https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ 174: 333-342.
ssialias?htmlfid=GVW03059USEN. 256. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Catalog of CHP
236. World Bank. 2015. How an open traffic platform is helping Asian Technologies. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/chp/catalog-
cities mitigate congestion, pollution. News. chp-technologies.
237. CrimeRadar. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https:// 257. James, J.-A., V. M. Thomas, A. Pandit, D. Li, and J. C. Crittenden.
rio.crimeradar.org/faq. 2016. Water, air emissions, and cost impacts of air-cooled
238. Sidewalk Labs. 2017. Vision Sections of RFP Submission. RFP No. microturbines for combined cooling, heating, and power
2017-13. systems: A case study in the Atlanta region. Engineering
239. Woyke, E. 2018. A smarter smart city. MIT Technology Review, 2(4):470-480; James, J.-A., S. Sung, H. Jeong, O. A. Broesicke,
Feb. 21. S. P. French, D. Li, and J. C. Crittenden. 2017. Impacts of
240. Sidewalk Labs. 2017. Vision Sections of RFP Submission. RFP No. combined cooling, heating, and power systems and rainwater
2017-13. harvesting on water demand, carbon dioxide and NOx
241. World Economic Forum. 2018. Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for emissions for Atlanta. Environmental Science & Technology
the Earth. 52:3-10.
242. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 258. MacKerron, G., and S. Mourato. 2013. Happiness is greater in
2016. Building Smart Communities for the Future: Proceedings of a natural environments. Global Environmental Change 23(5):
Workshop–in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies 992-1000.
Press. 259. Guerry, A., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.
243. Klepeis, N. E., W. C. Nelson, W. R. Ott, J. P. Robinson, A. M. C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. H. Ruckelshaus, I. J. Bateman, A.
Tsang, P. Switzer, J. V. Behar, S. C. Hern, and W. H. Engelmann. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M. W. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra,
2001. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): P. Kareiva, B. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Reyers,
A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. T. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira. 2015. Natural
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology capital informing decisions: From promise to practice.
11(3): 231-252. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:
244. Dai, D., A. J. Prussin II, L. C. Marr, P. J. Vikesland, M. A. Edwards, 7348-7355.
and A. Pruden. 2017. Factors shaping the human exposome in 260. Lemos, M. C., C. J. Kirchhoff, and V. Ramprasad. 2012. Narrowing
the built environment: Opportunities for engineering control. the climate information usability gap. Nature Climate Change
Environmental Science & Technology 51(14): 7759-7774. 2(11): 789-794.
245. Jones, K. E., N. G. Patel, M. A. Levy, A. Storeygard, D. Balk, J. L. 261. Rizwan, A. M, D. Y. C. Leung, and C. Liu. 2008. A review on the
Gittleman, and P. Daszak. 2008. Global trends in emerging generation, determination and mitigation of urban heat island.
infectious diseases. Nature 451(7181): 990-993. Journal of Environmental Sciences 20: 120-128; Phelan, P. E., K.
246. Lerner, H., and C. Berg. 2017. A comparison of three holistic Kaloush, M. Miner, J. Golden, B. Phelan, H. Silva III, and R. A.
approaches to health: One Health, EcoHealth, and Planetary Taylor. 2015. Urban heat island: Mechanisms, implications, and
Health. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4(163); Centers for possible remedies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. One Health Basics. 40: 285-307.
Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics. 262. Carpenter, S. R., N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth,
247. Vikesland, P. J., A. Pruden, P. J. J. Alvarez, D. Aga, H. Burgmann, A. N. Sharpley, and V. H. Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution
X. Li, C. M. Manaia, I. Nambi, K. Wigginton, T. Zhang, and of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological
Y. Zhu. 2017. Toward a comprehensive strategy to mitigate Applications 8(3): 559-568.
dissemination of environmental sources of antibiotic 263. Hill, J., S. Polasky, E. Nelson, D. Tilman, H. Huo, L. Ludwig, J.
resistance. Environmental Science & Technology 51(22): Neumann, H. Zheng, and D. Bonta. 2009. Climate change
13061-13069. and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline.
248. Omira, A. 2016. Kibagare Haki Zetu Bio-Centre: A Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(6):
Transformation Story. Umande Trust, Aug. 8. Available 2077-2082.
at: http://umande.org/kibagare-haki-zetu-bio-centre-a- 264. National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services:
transformation-story. Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. Washington,
249. P.L. 109-58; P.L. 111-364. DC: The National Academies Press; Millennium Ecosystem
250. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Environmental Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Justice FY2017 Progress Report. 240-R1-8001. Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; Díaz, S., U. Pascual,
251. Maintenance and Management Oversight Committee. Muddy M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R.
River Restoration Project: Flood Control Improvement. Hill, K. M. A. Chan, I. A. Baste, K. A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A.
Available at: http://www.muddyrivermmoc.org/flood-control. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Larigauderie, P. W. Leadley, A. P. E.

van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter, S. Lavorel, Y. 281. Allcott, H. 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. Journal
Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, of Public Economics 95: 1082-1095; Schultz, P. W., J. M. Nolan,
G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. A. Guerra, C. L. Hewitt, H. Keune, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. Griskevicius. 2007. The
S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. An inclusive approach to constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social
assess nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: norms. Psychological Science 18: 429-434.
270-272. 282. Larrick, R. P., and J. B. Soll. 2008. Economics. The MPG illusion.
265. Scheffer, M., S. R. Carpenter, J. A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Science 320: 1593-1594.
Walker. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: 283. Thaler, R. H., and C. R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions
591-596; Lenton, T., H. Held, E. Kriegler, J. W. Hall, W. Lucht, about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale
S. Rahmstorf, and H. J. Schellnhuber. 2008. Tipping elements in University Press.
the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the National Academy 284. Vandenbergh, M. P., P. C. Stern, G. T. Gardner, T. Dietz, and J. M.
of Sciences 105: 1786-1793. Gilligan. 2010. Implementing the behavioral wedge: Designing
266. Natural Capital Project. Available at: https://www.naturalcapital and adopting effective carbon emissions reduction programs.
project.org. Environmental Law Reporter 40: 10547-10554.
267. Goldstein, J. G. Caldarone, T. K. Duarte, D. Ennaanay, N. Hannahs, G. 285. Johnson E. J., and D. Goldstein. 2003. Do defaults save lives?
Mendoza, S. Polasky, S. Wolny, and G. C. Daily. 2012. Integrating Science 302(5649): 1338-1339.
ecosystem service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of 286. Beshears, J., J. J. Choi, D. Laibson, and B. C. Madrian. 2009.
the National Academy of Sciences 109(19): 7565-7570. The importance of default options for retirement saving
268. Schenk, R., and P. White, eds. 2014. Environmental Life Cycle outcomes: Evidence from the United States. Pp. 167-195
Assessment: Measuring the Environmental Performance of in Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment. Chicago:
Products. Vashon Island, WA: American Center for Life Cycle University of Chicago Press; Halpern, S. D., P. A. Ubel, and D.
Assessment. A. Asch. 2007. Harnessing the Power Of Default Options To
269. Freeman, A. M. III, J. Herriges, and C. L. Kling. 2014. The Improve Health Care. New England Journal of Medicine 357:
Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and 1340-1344; Ebeling, F., and S. Lotz. 2015. Domestic uptake
Methods, 3rd Ed. New York: Resources for the Future Press. of green energy promoted by opt-out tariffs. Nature Climate
270. Johnston, R. J., J. Rolfe, R. S. Rosenberger, and R. Brouwer, eds. Change 5(9): 868.
2015. Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: 287. Thaler, R. H., and C. R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving
A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners. Dordrecht, The Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven,
Netherlands: Springer. CT: Yale University Press.
271. Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 288. Waissbein, O., Y. Glemarec, H. Bayraktar, and T. S. Schmidt.
21st Century Business. Oxford, UK: Capstone. 2013. Derisking Renewable Energy Investment. A Framework to
272. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Safer Choice: Support Policymakers in Selecting Public Instruments to Promote
Design for the Environment: Programs, Initiatives, and Projects. Renewable Energy Investment In Developing Countries. New
273. National Research Council. 2014. Sustainability Concepts in York: United Nations Development Programme.
Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the U.S. Environmental 289. Smith, J. 2014-2015. Sunshine: India’s new cash crop. International
Protection Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Water Management Institute.
Press. 290. Litke, D. W. 1999. Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in
274. Dilling, L., and M. C. Lemos. 2011. Creating usable science: the United States and Their Effects on Water Quality. Water-
Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use Resources Investigations Report 99-4007. Denver, CO: U.S.
and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Geological Survey.
Change 21(2): 680-689. 291. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. 2017. Criteria for
275. Bucchi, M., and B. Trench. 2008. Handbook of Public Accrediting Engineering Programs. Available at: http://www.
Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge. Available abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/E001-18-19-EAC-
at: https://moodle.ufsc.br/pluginfile.php/1485212/mod_ Criteria-11-29-17.pdf.
resource/content/1/Handbook-of-Public-Communication-of- 292. Department for Professional Engineers. 2014. Professionals
Science-and-Technology.pdf [accessed April 2, 2018]. in the Workplace: Engineers. Available at: http://dpeaflcio.
276 Nisbet, M. C., and D. A. Scheufele, 2009. What’s next for science org/programs-publications/professionals-in-the-workplace/
communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. scientists-and-engineers.
American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1767-1778. Available at: 293. Examples include Olin College, Dartmouth College, Texas
http://www.amjbot.org/content/96/10/1767.full. A&M University, the University of Michigan, and Smith
277. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. American Community Survey Public College.
Use Microdata Sample; Blaney, L., J. Perlinger, S. Bartelt-Hunt, 294. National Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Engineer of 2020:
R. Kandiah, and J. Ducoste. 2017. Another grand challenge: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. Washington, DC: The
Diversity in environmental engineering. Environmental National Academies Press.
Engineering Science 35(6):568-572. 295. Grand Scholars Program. National Academies of Engineering.
278. Herring, C. 2009. Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the Available at: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/
business case for diversity. American Sociological Review 74(2): GrandChallengeScholarsProgram.aspx.
208-224; Hunt, V., D. Layton, and S. Prince. 2014. Diversity 296. Duderstadt, J. 2009. Engineering for a Changing World, Pp.
Matters. London: McKinsey & Co. 17-26 in Holistic Engineering Education: Beyond Technology. D.
279. Baumol, W. J., and W. E. Oates. 1988. The Theory of Environmental Grasso and M. Burkins, eds. New York: Springer.
Policy, 2nd Ed. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge 297. National Research Council. 2012. Research Universities and
University Press; Sterner, T. 2003. Policy Instruments for the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our
Environmental and Natural Resource Management. Washington, Nation’s Prosperity and Security. Washington, DC: The National
DC: Resources for the Future. Academies Press; President’s Council of Advisors on Science
280. Weiss, J. A., and M. Tschirhart. 1994. Public information and Technology. 2012. Transformation and Opportunity: The
campaigns as policy instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Future of the U.S. Research Enterprise. Executive Office of the
Management 13(1): 82-119. President.

298. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of

Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2005. Facilitating
Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press; American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
2013. ARISE 2: Unleashing America’s Research & Innovation
Enterprise. Cambridge, MA.
299. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
and Institute of Medicine. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary
Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
300. National Research Council. 2014. Convergence: Facilitating
Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences,
Engineering, and Beyond. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press; National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing
the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
301. Pollack, M., and M. Snir. 2008. Best Practices Memo: Promotion
and Tenure of Interdisciplinary Faculty. Computing Research
Association; University of Southern California. 2011.
Guidelines for Assigning Authorship and for Attributing
Contributions to Research Products and Creative Works.
302. Pittman, J., H. Tiessen, and E. Montaña. 2016. The evolution of
interdisciplinarity over 20 years of global change research by
the IAI. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19: 87-93.
303. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
2017. A New Vision for Center-Based Engineering Research.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
304. Palmer, M. A., J. G. Kramer, J. Boyd, and D. Hawthorne. 2016.
Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: The
National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC).
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19: 111-122.

FIGURE SOURCES figure 2-4 Gasparrini, A., Y. Guo, F. Sera, A. M.

Vicedo-Cabrera, V. Huber, S. Tong, M.
de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coelho, P. H.
Nascimento Saldiva, E. Lavigne, P. Matus
Correa, N. Valdes Ortega, H. Kan, S. Osorio,
Grand Challenge 1 J. Kyselý, A. Urban, J. J. K. Jaakkola, N. R. I.
Ryti, M. Pascal, P. G. Goodman, A. Zeka, P.
figure 1-1 FAO Aquastat database, http://www.fao. Michelozzi, M. Scortichini, M. Hashizume, Y.
org/nr/water/aquastat/tables/WorldData- Honda, M. Hurtado-Diaz, J. C. Cruz, X. Seposo,
Withdrawal_eng.pdf. H. Kim, A. Tobias, C. Iñiguez, B. Forsberg, D. O.
figure 1-2 Priya Shyamsundar. The Nature
Åström, M. S. Ragettli, Y. L. Guo, C.-F. Wu, A.
Conservancy. Zanobetti, J. Schwartz, M. L. Bell, T. N. Dang,
figure 1-3 iStock/shirnosov.
D. D. Van, C. Heaviside, S. Vardoulakis, S. Hajat,
figure 1-4 Adapted from High Level Panel of Experts.
A. Haines, and B. Armstrong. 2017. Projections
2014. Food Losses and Waste in the Context of temperature-related excess mortality under
of Sustainable Food Systems. A Report by the climate change scenarios, The Lancet Planetary
High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security Health 1(9).
and Nutrition of the Committee on World
Food Security. Rome: FAO. Grand Challenge 3
figure 1-5 Adapted from Organisation for Economic
box 3-1 Hoornweg, D., and P. Bhada-Tata. 2012.
Co-operation and Development. 2012.
What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid
OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The
Waste Management. Washington, DC:
Consequences of Inaction.
World Bank.
figure 1-6 Gassert, F., M. Luck, M. Landis, P. Reig, and
figure 3-2 Data from GBD 2016 Risk Factors
T. Shiao. 2015. Aqueduct Global Maps 2.1:
Collaborators. 2017. Global, regional, and
Constructing Decision-Relevant Global Water
national comparative risk assessment of 84
Risk Indicators. Working Paper. Washington,
behavioural, environmental and occupational,
DC: World Resources Institute.
and metabolic risks or cluster of risks, 1990-
figure 1-7 Courtesy of Liang Dong, Iowa State
2016: A systematic analysis for the Global
University.
Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet
sidebox figure Pamela Burroff-Murr, Purdue
390(10100): 1345-1422.
University in Gençer, E., C. Miskin, X. Sun, M. R.
figure 3-3 Adapted from Procurement Opportunities
Khan, P. Bermel, M. A. Alam, and R. Agrawal.
in the Circular Economy. Anthesis News
2017. Directing solar photons to sustainably
+ Insights [blog]. Available at: https://blog.
meet food, energy, and water needs. Scientific
anthesisgroup.com/procurement-in-circular-
Reports 7: 3133.
economy.
figure 1-8 National Research Council. 2010. Electricity
from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Grand Challenge 4
Impediments. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. figure 4-1 ©Nic Lehoux for the Bullitt Center.
box 4-2 Sidewalk Labs.
Grand Challenge 2
Grand Challenge 5
figure 2-1 Berkeley Earth. 2018. Global Temperature
Report for 2017. Available at: http:// box 5-1 Goldstein, J., G. Caldarone, T. K. Duarte,
berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017. D. Ennaanay, N. Hannahs, G. Mendoza, S.
figure 2-2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polasky, S. Wolny, and G. C. Daily. 2012.
2018. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Integrating ecosystem service tradeoffs into
and Sinks: 1990-2016. Available at https://www. land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National
epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse- Academy of Sciences 109(19): 7565-7570.
gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016. figure 5-1 Adapted from Moss, R., P. L. Scarlett,
figure 2-3 U.S. Global Change Research Program. M. A. Kenney, H. Kunreuther, R. Lempert,
2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth J. Manning, B. K. Williams, J. W. Boyd, E. T.
National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1. D. J. Cloyd, L. Kaatz, and L. Patton. 2014. Decision
Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. support: Connecting science, risk perception,
Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock, eds. and decisions. Pp 620-647 in Climate Change
Washington, DC: USGCRP. Impacts in the United States: The Third National
Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, T. C.
Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, eds. U.S. Global
Change Research Program. Available at: https://
nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/response-
strategies/decision-support.
figure 5-2 Wikimedia Commons.
box (on incentivizing water conservation
with smart solar pumps): Prashanth
Vishwanathan/IMWI.

APPENDIX A
STATEMENT OF TASK
An ad hoc committee of the Water Science and Technology Board of the

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will undertake a
study to identify high-priority challenges and opportunities for the broad field of
environmental engineering for the next several decades. Given the current and
emerging environmental challenges of the 21st century, a study that describes how
the field of environmental engineering and its aligned sciences might evolve to
better address these needs could serve as a guide to the community and help frame
research priorities. These should be significant societal challenges that will require
the expertise of environmental engineering and its aligned sciences to resolve or
manage. For each challenge, the committee will:
• Discuss the relevance of the challenge, its magnitude, and implications;

• Identify the key questions or issues related to the challenge that require the
expertise of environmental engineering to address;
• Discuss the state of knowledge and practice in environmental engineering and
aligned sciences relevant to these questions and issues; and
• Identify areas where knowledge and practice need to advance to address these
challenges.
Appendix A | 101

APPENDIX B
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Domenico Grasso, Chair, is chancellor at the University of Michigan–Dearborn.

Previously, he was provost of the University of Delaware, Dean of Engineering
and Mathematical Sciences, Vice President for Research at the University of
Vermont, Founding Director of the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College,
and Department Head of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of
Connecticut. Dr. Grasso has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of California,
Berkeley, a NATO Fellow, and an Invited Technical Expert to the United Nations
in Vienna, Austria. He is currently editor-in-chief of the journal Environmental
Engineering Science, and has served as vice chair of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, and president of the Association of
Environmental Engineering & Science Professors. Dr. Grasso’s research has focused
on the ultimate fate of contaminants in the environment with primary emphasis
on colloidal and interfacial processes and environmental chemistry. He has also
been active in engineering education reform and views the field of engineering as
well poised to serve as a bridge between science and humanity. Dr. Grasso has a
B.Sc. from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, an M.S.C.E. from Purdue University, and
Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.
Craig H. Benson (NAE) is dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
and the Janet Scott Hamilton and John Downman Hamilton Professor of Civil
Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the
University of Virginia. His research focus areas include engineered barriers
for waste containment systems, engineering for sustainability and life-cycle
analysis, sustainable infrastructure, and beneficial use of industrial by-products
in infrastructure. He has more than 300 research publications and three U.S.
patents. Prior to his position at the University of Virginia, Dr. Benson served at
the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he chaired the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering and the Department of Geological Engineering,
co-directed the Office of Sustainability, and served as director of Sustainability
Research and Education for the university. Dr. Benson is a member of the National
Academy of Engineering, a fellow of ASTM International and the American Society
of Civil Engineers, and a Diplomate of Geotechnical Engineering in the Academy
of Geo-Professionals. Dr. Benson received a B.S. in civil engineering from Lehigh
University and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in civil engineering and geoenvironmental
engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

Amanda Carrico an assistant professor of Environmental Studies at the University

of Colorado, Boulder. She is an interdisciplinary environmental social scientist.
Her work draws on the fields of psychology (her home discipline), sociology, and
economics to examine how individuals make environmentally relevant decisions.
Her research focuses on the adoption of behaviors and innovations in response
to environmental stress, and the beliefs and perceptions that underpin decision
making. She has examined these questions within the context of household and
neighborhood decision making in the United States and small-holding agriculture
in South Asia. Dr. Carrico received a B.A. from Transylvania University, a Ph.D.
in social psychology from Vanderbilt University, and completed a postdoctoral
fellowship at the Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment.
Kartik Chandran is a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental

Engineering and the Henry Krumb School of Mines at Columbia University. Dr.
Chandran’s research focuses on environmental microbiology and biotechnology,
reengineering the global nitrogen cycle, sustainable sanitation and wastewater
treatment, and microbial platforms for resource recovery. His laboratory employs
multidisciplinary strategies to study microbial communities in natural and
engineered systems to better understand these communities and their ability to be
harnessed for environmental and public health objectives such as waste treatment
and improved approaches to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene. Dr. Chandran
was awarded a MacArthur fellowship in 2015 for his work on converting pollutants
and waste streams to high-value resources. He has a B.S. in chemical engineering
from the Indian Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in environmental engineering
from the University of Connecticut.
G. Wayne Clough (NAE) is secretary emeritus of the Smithsonian Institution, and

president emeritus of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Clough served as
president of the Georgia Institute of Technology from 1994 to 2008 and as the
secretary of the Smithsonian Institution from 2008 to 2014. He previously held faculty
appointments at Duke University, Stanford University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, where he also served as chair of the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering and Dean of the College of Engineering. He was provost
and vice president of the University of Washington just before coming to Georgia
Tech. Dr. Clough’s research interests include higher education, civil engineering
design and construction, digital learning communities, engineering solutions around
climate change, biodiversity conservation, and geotechnical engineering. Dr. Clough
earned a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in
geotechnical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
John C. Crittenden (NAE) is Hightower Chair and Georgia Research Alliance Eminent
Scholar in Environmental Technologies in the School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering and director of the Brooks Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems at the
Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Crittenden’s research interests include pollution
prevention, physiochemical treatment processes, groundwater transport of organic
chemicals, and modeling of water treatment processes. Dr. Crittenden’s current
research focus is working with other academics and institutions on the challenge of
sustainable urban infrastructure systems, including sustainable materials, advanced
modeling of urban systems, and sustainable engineering pedagogy. He is a member
of the National Academy of Engineering and the Chinese Academy of Engineering.
He has a B.S.E. in chemical engineering and an M.S.E. and a Ph.D. in environmental
engineering from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Appendix B | 103

Daniel S. Greenbaum is president and chief executive officer of the Health

Effects Institute (HEI). Mr. Greenbaum leads HEI’s efforts to provide public and
private decision makers—in the United States, Asia, Europe, and Latin America—
with high-quality, relevant, and credible science about the health effects of air
pollution to inform air quality decisions in the developed and developing world.
Mr. Greenbaum has over three decades of governmental and nongovernmental
experience in environmental health. Prior to coming to HEI, he served as
commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, where
he was responsible for the Commonwealth’s response to the Clean Air Act, as well
as its efforts on pollution prevention, water pollution, and solid and hazardous
waste. Mr. Greenbaum has been a member of the U.S. National Academies’
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology and vice chair of its Committee
for Air Quality Management in the United States. He served on the Committee on
the Hidden Costs of Energy and on their Committee on Science for EPA’s Future.
In 2010, Mr. Greenbaum received the Thomas W. Zosel Outstanding Individual
Achievement Award from the U.S. EPA for his contributions to advancing clean air.
Mr. Greenbaum holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in city planning from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Steven P. Hamburg is chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

where he oversees and ensures the scientific integrity of the EDF’s positions
and programs and facilitates collaborations with researchers from a diversity of
institutions and countries. He also helps identify emerging science relevant to
EDF’s mission. Dr. Hamburg plays a leading role in EDF’s research efforts, including
work on quantifying methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain and
the use of emerging sensor technologies in improving our understanding of air
pollution and related impacts on human health. He has been actively involved
in biogeochemistry and forest ecology research for more than 35 years, and has
published more than 100 scientific papers. Prior to joining EDF, Dr. Hamburg spent
25 years on the faculties at the University of Kansas and Brown University. While
at Brown he founded and directed the Global Environment Program at the Watson
Institute for International Studies. He also started one of the first university-wide
sustainability programs in 1990 at the University of Kansas. Dr. Hamburg has been
the recipient of several awards, including recognition by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change as contributing to its award of the 2007 Nobel
Peace Prize. He is currently a member of the National Academies’ Board on
Environmental Studies and Toxicology. He earned a B.A. from Vassar College and
an M.S. and a Ph.D. in forest ecology from Yale University.
Thomas C. Harmon is a professor and chair of the Department of Civil &

Environmental Engineering and a founding faculty member at the University of
California (UC), Merced. Prior to joining the faculty at UC Merced, he served
on the faculty of the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering at the
University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Harmon’s research focuses on measuring
and modeling flow and transport in natural and engineered systems, including
soil, groundwater, and surface water systems. He is the U.S. principal investigator
on a Pan-American research project to monitor freshwater ecosystems throughout
Central and South America to assess impacts and risks from climate change and
local human activities. He has a B.S. in civil engineering from Johns Hopkins
University and an M.S. and a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Stanford
University.

James M. Hughes (NAM) is professor emeritus of Medicine (Infectious Diseases),

having previously served as professor of Medicine and Public Health with joint
appointments in the School of Medicine and the Rollins School of Public Health at
Emory University and co-director of the Emory Antibiotic Resistance Center. Prior
to joining Emory University in 2005, Dr. Hughes worked at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, serving as director of the National Center for Infectious
Diseases and as a rear admiral and an assistant surgeon general in the U.S. Public
Health Service. Dr. Hughes’ research interests focus on emerging and reemerging
infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, health care–associated infections,
vectorborne and zoonotic diseases, foodborne and waterborne diseases, vaccine-
preventable diseases, rapid detection of and response to infectious diseases and
bioterrorism, and strategies for strengthening public health capacity at the local,
national, and global levels. He is a member of the National Academy of Medicine
(NAM) and a fellow of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, the American Academy of Microbiology,
and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He previously
served as president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. He has served on
the Health and Medicine Division/NAM Forum on Microbial Threats from 1996 to
2017 and as vice chair of the Forum from 2009 to 2017. Dr. Hughes received his
B.A. and M.D. from Stanford University.
Kimberly L. Jones is professor and chair of the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at Howard University and acting associate dean for
Research and Graduate Education in the College of Engineering and Architecture.
Dr. Jones’ research interests include development of membrane processes for
environmental applications, physical-chemical processes for water and wastewater
treatment, remediation of emerging contaminants, drinking water quality, and
environmental nanotechnology. Dr. Jones currently serves on the Science Advisory
Board of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and as chair of the Drinking
Water Committee of the Science Advisory Board. She has served on the Water
Science and Technology Board and several committees of the National Academies.
She served as the deputy director of the Keck Center for Nanoscale Materials for
Molecular Recognition at Howard University. Dr. Jones has received a Top Women
in Science award from the National Technical Association, a National Science
Foundation CAREER award, and Top Women Achievers award from Essence
Magazine. She also served as an associate editor of the Journal of Environmental
Engineering (ASCE). She received her B.S. in civil engineering from Howard
University, her M.S. in civil and environmental engineering from the University
of Illinois, and her Ph.D. in environmental engineering from the Johns Hopkins
University.
Linsey C. Marr is the Charles P. Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Dr. Marr’s research
interests include characterizing the emissions, fate, and transport of air pollutants
in order to provide the scientific basis for improving air quality and health. She
also conducts research on the environmental fate of nanomaterials and airborne
transmission of infectious diseases. She received the New Innovator Award from the
director of the National Institutes of Health in 2013. Dr. Marr received a B.S. degree
in engineering science from Harvard University and a Ph.D. degree in civil and
environmental engineering from University of California, Berkeley.
Appendix B | 105

Robert Perciasepe is president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,
which is widely recognized in the United States and internationally as a leading,
independent voice for practical policy and action to address the challenges of
energy and climate change. Mr. Perciasepe has been an environmental policy
leader in and outside government for more than 30 years, most recently as deputy
administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He is a respected
expert on environmental stewardship, natural resource management, and public
policy, and has built a reputation for bringing stakeholders together to solve issues.
While Mr. Perciasepe served as deputy administrator from 2009 to 2014, EPA set
stricter auto emission and mileage standards, increased protections for the nation’s
streams and rivers, and developed carbon emission standards for power plants.
Mr. Perciasepe was previously assistant administrator for both the agency’s water
and clean air programs, leading efforts to improve the safety of America’s drinking
water and lower sulfur levels in gasoline to reduce smog. He is a member of the
National Academies’ Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, the National
Petroleum Council, and the North American Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance
Steering Committee. Mr. Perciasepe holds a master’s degree in planning and public
administration from Syracuse University and a B.S. in natural resources from
Cornell University.
Stephen Polasky (NAS) is the Regents Professor and Fesler-Lampert Professor of

Ecological and Environmental Economics at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
His research focuses on issues at the intersection of ecology and economics and
includes the impacts of land use and land management on the provision and value
of ecosystem services and natural capital, biodiversity conservation, sustainability,
environmental regulation, renewable energy, and common property resources. Dr.
Polasky is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he is also a fellow
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and the Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists. He has a B.A. from Williams College and a Ph.D. in economics from
the University of Michigan.
Maxine L. Savitz (NAE) is a retired general manager of Technology/Partnerships at

Honeywell, Inc. (formerly Allied Signal). She is a member and served two terms as
vice president of the National Academy of Engineering (2006-2014). Dr. Savitz was
appointed to the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology in 2009
and served through 2017; she served as vice co-chair (2010-2017). Dr. Savitz was
employed at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies (1974-
1983) and served as the deputy assistant secretary for conservation. Dr. Savitz serves
on the advisory bodies for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Sandia National
Laboratories. She serves on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology visiting committee
for sponsored research activities. Past board memberships include the American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, National Science
Board, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Defense Science Board, Electric Power
Research Institute, Draper Laboratories, and the Energy Foundation. Dr. Savitz’s awards
and honors include elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in
2013; C3E Lifetime Achievement Award in 2013; the Orton Memorial Lecturer Award
(American Ceramic Society) in 1998; the DOE Outstanding Service Medal in 1981;

the President’s Meritorious Rank Award in 1980; recognition by the Engineering News
Record for Contribution to the Construction Industry in 1979 and 1975; and the MERDC
Commander Award for Scientific Excellence in 1967. She is the author of about 20
publications. Dr. Savitz has served on numerous National Research Council committees
and has participated in multiple National Academies’ activities. She is a member of
the Division Committee on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Dr. Savitz received a
B.A. in chemistry from Bryn Mawr College and a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Norman R. Scott (NAE) is professor emeritus in the Department of Biological and

Environmental Engineering at Cornell University in the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences (CALS) and College of Engineering. He retired in 2011 after serving
the university for over 40 years, dedicating 14 years as director for research for
the Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station and vice president for
research and advanced studies. His early research on thermoregulation in animals
was crucial in defining the broad set of biological engineering topics that remain
important today. His recent research interests include development of sustainable
communities with emphasis on renewable energies, including biologically derived
fuels, managed ecosystems, and industrial ecology. Dr. Scott is a member of the
National Academy of Engineering and served as chair of the National Academies’
Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources from 2009 to 2015. Dr. Scott earned a
B.S. in agricultural engineering from Washington State University and a Ph.D. from
Cornell University.
R. Rhodes Trussell (NAE) is the founder and chairman of Trussell Technologies,

Inc., a niche firm focused on process and water quality. Dr. Trussell is an authority
on the criteria for water quality and the methods for achieving them. He has
worked on the design for numerous water treatment plants, ranging in capacity
from less than 1 gallon per minute to nearly 1 billion gallons per day. Dr. Trussell
has a special interest in emerging water sources, particularly wastewater reuse,
seawater desalination, and recovery of contaminated groundwater. Before founding
Trussell Technologies, Inc., he spent 33 years with MWH Global Inc. as it grew
from a 50-person California firm to a 6,800-person multinational operating in
40 countries. While at MWH, he rose to become director of Applied Technology
and director of Corporate Development as well as a member of both the Board of
Directors and the Executive Committee. Dr. Trussell served for more than 10 years
on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board, on 11
committees for the National Academies as well as chair of the Water Science and
Technology Board. For the International Water Association, Dr. Trussell served on
the Scientific and Technical Council, on two editorial boards, and on the Program
Committee for five World Congresses. Dr. Trussell has B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees
in environmental engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
Appendix B | 107

Julie Zimmerman is an internationally recognized engineer whose work is focused

on advancing innovations in sustainable technologies. Dr. Zimmerman is jointly
appointed as a professor in the Department of Chemical and Environmental
Engineering and School of Forestry and Environmental Studies (FES) at Yale
University. She also serves as the senior associate dean for Academic Affairs at FES.
Her pioneering work established the fundamental framework for her field with her
seminal publications on the “Twelve Principles of Green Engineering” in 2003. The
manifestation of this framework is taking place in her research group and includes
breakthroughs on the integrated biorefinery, designing safer chemicals and materials,
novel materials for water purification, and analyses of the water-energy nexus. Prior
to coming to Yale University, Dr. Zimmerman was a program manager at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency where she established the national sustainable
design competition, P3 (People, Prosperity, and Planet), which has engaged design
teams from hundreds of universities across the United States. Professor Zimmerman
is the coauthor of the textbook, Environmental Engineering: Fundamentals,
Sustainability, Design, that is used in the engineering programs at leading universities.
Dr. Zimmerman earned her B.S. from the University of Virginia and her Ph.D. from
the University of Michigan jointly from the School of Engineering and the School
of Natural Resources and Environment. In addition, Dr. Zimmerman is an associate
editor of the journal Environmental Science & Technology, and is a member of the
Connecticut Academy of Sciences.

Environmental Engineering For The 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Engineering For The 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Engineering For The 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Engineering for the 21st Century: Addressing Grand Challenges

COMMITTEE ON THE GRAND CHALLENGES AND

Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

A Consensus Study Report of

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47652-2

Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was established in 1863 by an Act of

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE)was established in 1964 under the

The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) formerly the Institute of Medicine)

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences,

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences,

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COMMITTEE ON GRAND CHALLENGES AND

Domenico Grasso, Chair, University of Michigan, Dearborn

NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a

Rather than focusing on specific environmental engineering challenges, the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Grand Challenge 1: Sustainably Supply Food, Water, and Energy / 8

Grand Challenge 2: Curb Climate Change and Adapt to Its Impacts / 26

Grand Challenge 3: Design a Future Without Pollution or Waste / 44

Grand Challenge 4: Create Efficient, Healthy, Resilient Cities / 54

Grand Challenge 5: Foster Informed Decisions and Actions / 66

The Ultimate Challenge for Environmental Engineering:

Endnotes and Figure Sources / 90

A Statement of Task / 101

B Biographical Sketches of Committee Members / 102

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

This study, authored by 18 of the nation’s leading environmental engineers,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Since the dawn of civilization, humans have transformed the environment

The field of environmental engineering emerged to support human and

What Is Environmental Engineering?

To support these activities, many environmental engineers have acquired expertise

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

areas in industry, government, nonprofits,

The discipline of environmental engineering

New Pressures in the 21st Century

BUILDING ON A REMARKABLE LEGACY

2 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Most environmental engineering expertise is concentrated in developed countries,

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

of environmental problems that wealthier countries have

A New Vision for Environmental Engineering

4 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

2 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

4 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

6 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

8 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

10 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

12 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

14 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

16 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES

18 | ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADDRESSING GRAND CHALLENGES