Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 289–295 | Cite as

Benefits of using Integrated Assessment to address sustainability challenges

  • Katie Lund
  • Keely Dinse
  • John Callewaert
  • Donald Scavia


Integrated Assessment (IA) offers an effective way to frame and inform decisions for sustainability problems that often lack a clear cause or solution. IA is designed to use stakeholder input to collectively define problems, incorporate diverse perspectives, use best available information, and establish partnerships to identify options for making positive change. Because IA projects are complex and require dedicated time and resources, it is important for participants to understand their benefits. Through interviews with scientists, nongovernmental organization staff, state and federal agency experts, consultants, and community members who participated in four very different IA projects, we developed a common lexicon of tangible and intangible benefits. These results demonstrate IA works effectively at many geographic scales, increases knowledge and understanding of issues among diverse participants, creates new policy perspectives and processes, helps leverage new resources, and builds coalitions that would not otherwise exist.


Integrated assessment Sustainability Stakeholder participation 


  1. Beierle T, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. CENR (2000) Integrated assessment of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennison WC, Lookingbill TR, Carruthers TJB, Hawkey JM, Carter SL (2007) An eye-opening approach to developing and communicating integrated environmental assessments. Front Ecol Environ 5:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farrell AE, Jager J (eds) (2006) Assessments of regional and global environmental risks. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Gough C, Castells N, Funtowicz S (1998) Integrated assessment: an emerging methodology for complex issues. Environ Model Assess 3:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hisschemoller M, Tol RSJ, Vellinga P (2001) The relevance of participatory approaches in integrated environmental assessment. Integr Assess 2:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kashian DR, Drouillard K, Haffner D, Krause A, Liu Z, Sano L (2010) What are the causes, consequences and correctives of fish contamination in the Detroit River AOC that cause health consumption advisories? Final Report [MICHU-09-206]. Available at: Accessed 11 Jul 2010
  8. Lee N (2006) Bridging the gap between theory and practice in integrated assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lund K, Dinse K (2010) Benefits of integrated assessment: information for decision makers, project leaders, and scientists. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Available at: Accessed 4 Apr 2010
  10. Michigan Sea Grant (2009) Northeast Michigan integrated assessment final report [MICHU-09-207]. Available at:
  11. National Research Council (2007) Analysis of global change assessments—lessons learned. The National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ridder D, Pahl-Wostl C (2005) Participatory integrated assessment in local level planning. Reg Environ Chang 5:188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scavia D, Nassauer J (2007) Policy insights from integrated assessments and alternative futures. In: Nassauer JI, Santlemann MV, Scavia D (eds) From the Corn Belt to the Gulf. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  15. Social-Learning-Group (2001) Learning to manage global environmental risks volume II: a functional analysis of social response to climate change, ozone depletion and acid rain. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Sterrett-Isley E, Steinman A, Thompson K, Vander Molen J, Koches J (2009) Alternative stormwater management practices that address the environmental, social and economic aspects of water resources in the Spring Lake Watershed (MI). Final Report [MICHU-10-202]. Available at: Accessed 15 Jul 2010
  17. Strauss A, Corbin J (1994) Grounded theory methodology. In: Denzin P, Lincoln P (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, pp 273–285Google Scholar
  18. Vaccaro L, Read J, Diana J, Scavia D, Horning A (2009) Tackling wicked problems through integrated assessment. [MICHU-09-506] University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie Lund
    • 1
  • Keely Dinse
    • 2
  • John Callewaert
    • 1
  • Donald Scavia
    • 1
  1. 1.Graham Environmental Sustainability InstituteUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Sea GrantUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations