Develop a pilot Best Practice Protocol to implement results from the risk ..... was partly funded by the Ministry for the Environment Waste Minimisation Grant Deed.
Up-the-pipe Solutions- a best practice protocol
Tremblay LA, Challenger I, Ataria JM, Horswell J, Baker V
REPORT INFORMATION SHEET REPORT TITLE
Up-the-pipe Solutions- a best practice protocol
AUTHORS
Louis A Tremblay1,2, Ian Challenger1, James M Ataria1, Jacqui Horswell3, Virginia Baker3, 1
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE, NELSON SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND 3 ESR, PORIRUA 2
CIBR PUBLICATION NUMBER
008
SIGNED OFF BY JACQUI HORSWELL DATE
August 2013
CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENT
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
© CIBR ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNLESS PERMITTED BY CONTRACT OR LAW , NO PART OF THIS WORK MAY BE REPRODUCED, STORED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED BIOWASTE RESEARCH.
Disclaimer The opinions provided in the Report have been provided in good faith and on the basis that every endeavour has been made to be accurate and not misleading and to exercise reasonable care, skill and judgment. The Ministry for the Environment does not necessarily endorse or support the content of the publication in any way. This work is copyright. The copying, adaptation, or issuing of this work to the public on a non-profit basis is welcomed. No other use of this work is permitted without the prior consent of the copyright holder(s).
Up-the-pipe Solutions- a best practice protocol Louis A Tremblay1, Ian Challenger1, James M Ataria1, Jacqui Horswell2, Virginia Baker2
Centre for Integrated Biowaste Research (CIBR) 1 Cawthron Institute 98 Halifax Street East Nelson 7010 2 ESR PO Box 50-348 Porirua August 2013
i
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 The Natural Step’s Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development ................................................ 4 3.0 A product sustainability evaluation framework ................................................................................... 9 4.0 Community engagement .................................................................................................................. 12 5.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 12 6.0 Recommendations for future work ................................................................................................... 13 7.0 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ 13 8.0 References ....................................................................................................................................... 14
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Our on-going research on biowaste like biosolids strongly indicates that chemical contaminants continue to accumulate in wastes. One major source of chemical contaminants in sewage effluent originates from products used regularly in a range of house activities. The Up-the-pipe solutions project aims at reducing the level chemical micro-contaminants in waste by characterising the risk of active chemical ingredients found in household products. This approach recognises the importance of engaging the community to raise awareness around the consequences of our household activities and daily behavioural patterns that can lead to the release of persistent contaminants in main waste streams such as kitchen, bathroom and green wastes. This Best Practice Protocol is an attempt to develop a process that will facilitate the uptake of the research outcomes and assist the community to use more sustainable products in their homes.
Objectives The objectives of this study were to:
Develop a pilot Best Practice Protocol to implement results from the risk characterisation of active chemical ingredients in household products; Incorporate aspects of the Natural Step sustainability framework in the development of a process to evaluate the sustainability of household products; Develop science teaching resources and lesson plans to engage school pupils in sustainability and solutions to environmental issues.
Key Results
A pilot product sustainability evaluation framework was developed and tested using hand soap as an example. Science teaching resources and lesson plans based on Up-the-pipe solutions were developed for years 4/6 and 7/8.
Recommendations and Future Work
Continue to characterise the risk of the chemicals commonly found in household products using this framework Maintain a close relationship with communities through programmes such as Para Kore (Marae Zero Waste) and building reference material that can be incorporated into the school curriculum. Seek out partnerships with key industries such as EcoStore, a company dedicated to creating products which are healthier for people and our environment Assist organisations like The New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust to create a labelling system for household products similar to the Star rating for energy and water use that can guide people towards more sustainable products Outreach to the community through multiple media pathways, e.g. web-based sites, public library, schools.
3
1.0 Introduction Chemical contaminant accumulation in biowaste such as biosolids remains problematic according to New Zealand and overseas research. The Up-the-pipe solutions project combines cutting edge biophysical science on persistent micro-contaminants with community engagement approaches to raise awareness around the consequences of our daily activities on the environment. The research aims to make raise the ‘visibility’ of chemical constituents of household products to help reduce the contaminant loadings in domestic waste and ultimately the receiving environment. This is of national significance as the increasing levels of micro-contaminants represent a major impediment to achieve the three main goals of the New Zealand Waste Strategy (MfE 2007) that are to: 1) 2) 3)
Lower the cost and risk of waste to society; Reduce environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste; and Increase economic benefit by using material resources more efficiently.
One major source of contaminants into sewage effluent originates from products used regularly in a range of house activities, such as personal care products. Our daily behaviours may lead to the release of persistent contaminants in main waste streams such as kitchen, bathroom and green wastes. For instance, household products often contain inorganic and organic compounds that can end up in municipal wastewater systems and potentially represent a risk to the environment. One of the Up-the-pipe solutions project’s main objective was to develop processes to better inform communities about contaminants in household products that are often overlooked. This project represents an initial step to building viable pathways that increase awareness amongst individuals, whānau, community and local government when deciding on products they use to help ensure the future sustainability of our ecosystems. The ecotoxicological component of the research project assessed the risk associated with the presence of selected active ingredients in commonly used household cleaning products. The results demonstrated that some of those chemicals are toxic and their presence in household waste streams (like grey and black water) can limit beneficial use of domestic wastes as they represent a potential risk to receiving environments. This best practice protocol has been developed to assist communities who have a desire to take ownership and collective responsibility of their wastes. The objective of the framework is to facilitate the evaluation of the options individuals have when selecting products in relation to the active chemical ingredients they contain. Eventually, this should promote the selection of more suitable household products and lead to more sustainable reuse options for the recycling of domestic wastes. To implement the outcomes of the research it is a priority to have a suitable process to engage individuals and communities. The Best Practice Protocol component of the project explores different approaches to engage communities. The Natural Step (TNS) is a process for assisting with the development of a more sustainable society. A TNS-based framework is proposed to implement the results from the toxicology research by assisting the user decision process. Engagement with students at a local primary school was used for raising the awareness of consequences on the environment of our behavioural patterns, i.e. decisions to purchase particular household products. Students are generally more open to new ideas and can easily be engaged through a range of facilitated discussion and activity processes that can influence their purchasing behaviour before they become consumers.
2.0 The Natural Step’s Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development
4
The Natural Step (TNS) was developed by Swedish oncologist Dr Karl-Henrik Robért in response to the increasing seriousness of environmental and social issues facing society (Robért 2002). In the years since Robért began his work the weight of evidence has only increased (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Rockstrom et al. 2009). Robért reasoned that the unsustainable behaviour of humans was due to the lack of a shared framework of what constituted sustainability (Anderson 1998; Robért 2002). From his position as child cancer specialist he witnessed the contradiction between the way parents acted with their willingness to do anything to save their sick child, and the way society as a whole acted doing nothing proactive to prevent such tragedies occurring again (Anderson 1998; Robért 2002). However, two observations led him to believe that it may be possible to develop consensus and consequently the shared understanding he felt was lacking. The first came from his knowledge of cells and cell structure. The cell is not interested in politics or ideology, only in the availability of the necessities of life. Also, if a human cell is compared to those of another animal there is little obvious difference between the two until the molecular level – to the genes themselves. Even at the genetic level the similarities between species are more striking than the differences, for example 98% of the genes of a chimpanzee are identical to those of a human, demonstrating that humans are part of, not separated from, nature (Robért 2002). His second observation was how wonderfully the children’s parents responded in situations where the wellbeing of their children was threatened and how they would do whatever it took to help their children – a response that was universal. Robért wondered if people would react in a similar manner when presented with facts about other crisis situations, such as the environmental situation facing the planet (Robért 2002). The Natural Step’s Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) was developed in response to these observations. It aims to provide a mechanism for knowledge transfer, so society could gain a shared understanding of the issues facing the planet and humanity and a definition of what it is to be sustainable (Robért 2002). The framework’s primary goal is that of informing communities and seeking to change minds and perspectives (Robért et al. 1997), but it goes one step further than this and also provides a process for identifying solutions through collective problem solving and strategy development for a sustainable society (Robért 2000) that can be implemented based on the level of communities interest and ability to respond. In essence, the FSSD is a hierarchy for planning in a complex system (Craig 2004). A useful metaphor for understanding this is a tree (Figure 1). The tree is part of the system and depends on the environment surrounding it for its survival, i.e. the water, the soil, and the sunlight. The tree acts as a hierarchy, ground sourced water does not enter at the leaves but works its way up the tree through the hierarchy of roots, trunk, and branches. So it is with the FSSD, which starts by considering the system as a whole (the tree within its surrounding environment), it then considers principles of what it is to be sustainable (the trees’ trunk), what strategy will enable society to return to sustainability once more (the branches) and finally, the actions and tools that will enable the implementation of the strategy (the leaves) (Robért 2002). On occasion people with a passionate desire to contribute will agree on the need to act then jump straight to actions. Equally people antagonistic to the idea that action is required will attempt to divert attention from the big picture by debating its details. Robért (2002) refers to these instances as hiding among the leaves and argues that this achieves nothing. Instead if we can agree on principles behind the actions and allow the actions to emerge naturally from these then we are more likely to achieve results.
5
Figure 1: The tree exemplifies a sustainable state. The FSSD defines sustainability as a state of being in which needs are met, without overwhelming the rest of nature and society. Extending on the tree metaphor, a tree is in a sustainable state and remains in that state through its interactions with the surrounding environment. As long as it can do this the tree will continue to function and exist. For society to return to the state of sustainability (Korhonen 2004) four conditions need to be met. These are the sustainability principles that identify what sustainability looks like. In developing these conditions, it occurred to Robért et al (1997) that sustainability had not been an issue until humans had become unsustainable (Robért 2002). In traditional societies it has been shown that their society becomes more sustainable when destructive behaviour has threatened their wellbeing (Anderson 2002; Berkes & Turner 2006). So “If destruction was the problem, well, then we should study the principles for that destruction” (Robért 2002 p. 62). As the conditions describe unsustainability logically if we avoid these four conditions we can move toward sustainability. These conditions are defined in Figure 2.
Figure 2: The four TNS sustainability principles. The problem for nature is not the extraction of materials, the manufacture of manmade material or the destruction of nature themselves. It is the systematic increase of these activities which causes a deterioration of nature and means human needs cannot be met. Also society cannot absorb the 6
systematic increase of poverty, inequality and crime etc without destroying itself. Therefore, the objective is to reduce and ultimately eliminate this systematic increase. For example the TNS framework does not preclude mining per se but instead mining should be conducted so it does not allow a “systematic increase” of compounds such as heavy metals and carbon dioxide. Instead, the compounds of interest could be sourced using alternatives to rare metals and toxic elements or by managing waste more efficiently or, in the case of system condition 3, by harvesting from nature at a rate at which natural regeneration can occur (Robért et al. 1997). These conditions describe a sustainable society and “together with a strategic programme, the four system conditions provide a … compass – pointing the direction to sustainable development” (Robért et al. 1997 p. 88). They also take a holistic quadruple bottom-line approach – economic, environmental, social and cultural aspects of sustainability. Underpinning these principles are the basic laws of nature that allow life on earth to function, that is: thermodynamics; the biogeochemical cycles; the ecological interdependencies of species; the societal exchange with and dependency on ecosystems. Understanding this system and the science underpinning it enables an understanding of why society cannot continue to act unsustainably (Robért et al. 1997; Robért et al. 2002). The process for determining the actions that will lead to a sustainable vision is backcasting (Figure 3). A shared vision of a sustainable future is collectively identified by a community or an organisation and then looking at that vision from today’s unsustainable position the actions that will lead to that sustainable future are devised. This is a process of starting with the end in mind, in a sustainable place and asking “how do we progress to this state”, rather than attempting to adjust an unsustainable process or product to make it “less bad”.
Figure 3: Sustainable visioning and backcasting using the Up-the-pipe solutions project’s vision to reduce the level of contaminants in septic tank sludge. For the Up-the-pipe solutions project it is the community who collectively define the vision of “a world with less persistent chemicals in household wastes”. Actions, such as identifying the current situation, developing a schools programme, identifying solution etc. were then identified via backcasting to get to that vision. However, the FSSD is just the framework, the FSSD does not define the vision or the actions for getting to that vision; instead it identifies what the constraints are, i.e., sustainability principles, and provides a process for identifying the vision and actions. In addition to providing an overarching process for identifying actions, the FSSD also provides a filter to monitor if the actions are working effectively towards the principles and vision of 7
sustainability. Rather like sheep being sorted in a sheep drafter. The sheep, representing the action enters the draft station, which represents a sustainable society, and when it reaches the gate a decision can be made regarding which sheep are most suitable and the least suitable sheep are rejected. To do this the following three questions are asked:
1. Does the action move us in the right direction towards the sustainability principles? The principles themselves are used to measure and monitor progress along the journey (Robért et al. 1997). Progress and actions can be mapped against the principles and the question asked “are we meeting the principles?” If not behaviour will be adjusted to ensure the principles are met (Robért et al. 2012). 2. Does the action provide a good return on investment? Here inexpensive “low hanging fruit” or the most affordable option for the consumer or responsiveness to incoming regulatory requirements is identified – an action may also pay for the other actions that come up in the future (Robért et al. 2002). 3. Does the action have flexibility? While backcasting may free the mind to consider strategies for a sustainable future, it may still lead to a dead end. Flexibility avoids dead ends by building in escape routes. So instead of an organisation committing themself to a 50 year contract, they might instead invest in a shorter term arrangement, allowing them to investigate alternatives options (Robért et al. 2002). For example, consider the action to identify alternative household products that do not contain persistent chemicals shown in the backcasting process in Figure 3. When considering alternatives these three questions provide a useful filter to assess products, e.g., liquid soaps (Figure 4). This approach can be used to evaluate any action as it provides a wider perspective on the consequences of these actions.
8
Figure 4: Framework to evaluate the sustainability of liquid soap against the four TNS sustainability principles using triclosan as an ingredient.
3.0 A product sustainability evaluation framework The Natural Step provides a process to define a sustainable vision to maintain environment and human health. The model provides objective information to individuals so that they can better evaluate the options when purchasing products. At its core lies the power of individuals to modify their behavioural patterns by making more informed decision when selecting household cleaning products. Our hectic lifestyles in combination with very powerful advertising campaigns by industry have created a culture of ready to use products. The harsh competitive environment for industry has encouraged the introduction of products containing more active and persistent chemicals that when released can contribute additional pressure on the environment. The attractiveness and perceived convenience of the mainstream products make it difficult for individuals to impartially identify the options available and their sustainability. Products contain an increasing number of chemicals to make them more attractive by giving them specific colours and fragrance. The backcasting process identified the need to assess the risk of those chemicals to provide information on their potential impacts on sustainability. A previous report described the approach that was taken to characterise the sustainability of active ingredients by investigating nine chemicals that are commonly found in products used in the house (Table 1). The information behind the colour ranking is based on ecotoxicological studies of the chemicals to evaluate their risk once released into the environment.
9
Table 1: Ranking (weighted scores) of nine chemicals to assist with the selection of more sustainable products (from Tremblay et al. 2013). Category scoring Log P Koc BCF IC50 Benzophenone 3 4 6 8 Bisphenol A 4 4 6 12 Chloroxylenol 3 4 6 16 DEET 3 3 8 4 Diclofenac 5 3 4 8 Octyl-methoxycinnamate 6 5 10 12 2-Phenoxyethanol 2 2 4* 4 2-Phenylphenol 3 5 6 8 Triclosan 5 5 6 12 Chemical
Ranking 21 26 29 18 20 33 12 22 28
*No data available, intermediate value applied
To address the challenge of selecting less harmful products facing modern communities, a sustainable evaluation framework is proposed to assist with the selection of the options and identify the better ones. The framework consists of a series of steps leading to a sustainable ranking of the options as illustrated in Figure 5. The first step consists of defining the function required as there are plenty of activities requiring a range of products around the house. Then the product options for that particular function are identified that can be commercially available but also home-made. The next step is to evaluate the sustainability of the products by looking at the list of ingredients and the evaluation of their risk. Once the products have been evaluated, they are assigned a ranking. An example of how the framework can be used is provided in Figure 6.
Figure 5: Schematic representation of the steps of the evaluation framework to assist individuals to make more sustainable choices when selecting a product.
10
Figure 6: Schematic representation of how the framework can be used and provides a ranking to assist with the decision process. In this example, the function is washing hands of which there are four soap product options. Washing hands is a major activity repeated on multiple occasions on a daily basis in the house and can contribute a significant proportion of the waste. In the Figure 6 example, four potential soap product options were identified ranging from the basic unscented bar of pure soap to the antibacterial liquid soap. Only comparing the list of ingredients without knowing the associated toxicity is a good starting point to provide insight into the potential risk of those products once disposed from the house. When looking at the ingredients in more detail, our research has identified triclosan as being quite toxic which led to the associated product being ranked last (Tremblay et al. 2013). The presence of other anti-microbial chemicals in the second liquid soap placed the second liquid soap just below the triclosan-containing product. Then the presence of fragrances and colouring chemicals makes the difference between the two bars of soap. The ranking provides a good guide to assist with the selection of the least risky products. However, the first step of defining the intended function is critical to identify the product options. If the function requires the soap product to contain anti-microbial activity such as in situations like for a medical doctor’s office or a hospital, the final decision may end up being the soap product containing triclosan. The decision framework must have flexibility and be used to assist make the most suitable choices even when they may not be the most sustainable options. Washing hands is a major activity repeated on multiple occasions on a daily basis in the house and can contribute a significant proportion of the waste. In the Figure 6 example, four potential soap product options were identified ranging from the basic unscented bar of pure soap to the antibacterial liquid soap. Only comparing the list of ingredients without knowing the associated toxicity is a good starting point to provide insight into the potential risk of those products once disposed from the house. When looking at the ingredients in more details, our research has identified triclosan as being quite toxic which led to the associated product being ranked last 11
(Tremblay et al. 2013). As shown in figure 6, we ranked these four soaps from 1 to 4, with 1 being the most favourable. The ranking provides a good guide to assist with the selection of the least risky products: 1. The soap ranked one is a totally natural soap with no additives. 2. For the soap ranked second, the presence of fragrances and colouring chemicals makes the difference between the two bars of soap. 3. The presence of other anti-microbial chemicals in the liquid soap products resulted in their lower ranking with the presence of triclosan resulting in the least suitable option. However, the first step of defining the intended function is critical to identify the product options. If the function requires the soap product to contain anti-microbial activity such as in situations like for a medical doctor’s office or a hospital, the final decision may end up being the soap product containing triclosan. The decision framework must have flexibility and be used to assist make the most suitable choices even when they may not be the most sustainable options. More research and development is required to incorporate those concepts and facilitate discussions.
4.0 Community engagement One key aspect for implementing the Best Practice Protocol is to have in place processes to engage the wider community as defined in the backcasting process. To ensure the uptake of the research output and the sustainability framework it is a priority to involve individuals. For some consumers sustainability may not rank highly and behaviour change will more likely occur when some cost/health benefit can be demonstrated to them or their family. If positive sustainable outcomes are to be achieved, individuals must change their current behavioural patterns. The team has recognised that a good approach is to involve the community as early as possible and school processes involving have been developed (Baker 2012; Baker and Horswell 2012). Another report from this project highlights the uptake of the school process.
5.0 Conclusions Overall, it is obvious that the products containing the least number of chemical additives are likely to be more sustainable. However, product design and marketing targets convenience without compromising health or effectiveness – persuasive arguments for people living in today’s lifestyles. For instance, commercially available liquid soaps are convenient and easy to use but it comes at a cost as they require the presence of anti-microbial chemical additives to ensure safety and longterm shelf life. To counteract the strong marketing push alternative processes to assist communities make informed choices in purchasing household products are needed. The Natural Step framework is a powerful tool to develop a sustainable vision for the community and underpin development of strategies to achieve them through the backcasting process. This pilot best practice protocol is an attempt at using TNS framework to assist individuals make more sustainable choices using household products as a case study. More work is required to further develop the methodologies and to make it available to as many people as possible through a range of communication means. There are already a range of on-going initiatives to reduce and take responsibility for our wastes. Some are driven by regional authorities such as the Far North District Council’s “Let’s talk crap” programme that engages the community to take part in the decision of what waste treatment technologies and infrastructures should be considered. One of the options targets personal responsibility. The Waikato-based Para Kore programme led by Jacqui Forbes (Para Kore Project Manager) has a defined vision to reach zero waste on all New Zealand marae by 2020. Para Kore offers a very “hands on” approach through waste wānanga where attendees participate to workshop 12
on various aspects of waste. There are also industry-based initiatives. Environment First 2010 Ltd is a Manawatū District Council licensed septic tank cleaning enterprise. They recognised the importance of suitable “up-the-pipe” behaviour to ensure the optimum conditions are maintained in the systems and offer guidance through a document they have developed: “The septic tank Ten Commandments”. This document is available on the Environment First 2010 web site. Methanex New Zealand Ltd. is committed to the Responsible Care chemical industry initiative to protect human health and the environment. The Responsible Care programme provides a framework to the industry to dedicate their technology and business practices to sustainability for the betterment of society, the environment and the economy. Those are all great and complementary initiatives that can contribute to achieve society’s sustainable vision. The Up-the-pipe solutions project was focussed on a few specific chemicals found in household products and on septic tank sludge as a case study. There are numerous chemicals that require assessment so that the information can be included in the ranking process. The community must continue to be engaged and empowered, with the ultimate goal that consumers have the ability to dictate the industry to provide the products they want. It is encouraging that there are already some strong community initiatives being developed. The worldwide Transition Network initiated by Rob Hopkins in the UK to respond to climate change issues in particular is rapidly gaining momentum. In New Zealand, the Para Kore programme has been designed to support marae with the vision to reach zero waste by 2020 (www.parakore.maori.nz). Community must realise the consequences of their daily activities to reduce their ecological footprint. We all have a responsibility and must have ownership of the wastes to achieve the shared sustainable vision.
6.0 Recommendations for future work
Continue to characterise the risk of the chemicals commonly found in household products using this framework Maintain a close relationship with communities through programmes such as Para Kore (Marae Zero Waste) and building reference material that can be incorporated into the school curriculum. Seek out partnerships with key industries such as EcoStore, a company dedicated to creating products which are healthier for people and our environment Assist organisations like The New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust to create a labelling system for house products similar to the Star rating for energy and water use that can guide people towards more sustainable products Outreach to the community through multiple media pathways, e.g. web-based sites, public library, schools. Continue to work with school children as they will influence their parents who are the purchasers and they are more likely to adapt more sustainable habits.
7.0 Acknowledgments This research was partly funded by the Ministry for the Environment Waste Minimisation Grant Deed Number 14250 and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) funding.
13
8.0 References Anderson A 2002. A fragile plenty: Pre-European Maori and the New Zealand environment. In: Pawson E, Brooking E ed. Environmental Histories of New Zealand. Oxford, Auckland. Anderson R 1998. Mid Course Correction Towards a Sustainable Enterprise: The Interface Model. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, White River Junction, VT. Berkes F, Turner N 2006. Knowledge, Learning and the Evolution of Conservation Practise for Social-Ecolgical Systems Resilience. Human Ecology 34 (4): 479-494. Craig J 2004. Science and sustainable development in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 34 (1): 9-22. Korhonen J 2004. Industrial Ecology in the strategic sustainable development model: strategic applications of industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production 12: 809-823. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current Trends: Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group. Island Press. Robért KH, Daly H, Hawken P, Holmberg J 1997. A Compass for Sustainable Development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4: 79-92. Robért KH 2000. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development and to each other? Journal of Cleaner Production 8: 243-254. Robért KH 2002. The Natural Step Story: Seeding a Quiet Revolution. New Catalyst Books, Gabriola Island. BC; Canada. Robért KH, Schmidt-Bleek B, de-Larderel A, Basile G, Jansen JL, Kuehr R, Price Thomas P, Suzuki M, Hawken P, Wackernagel M 2002. Strategic sustainable development - selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 197-214. Robért KH, Oldmark J, Broman G, Basile G, Waldron D, Haraldsson H, Ny H, MacDonald J, Byggeth S, Moore B, Cook D, Connell T, Johansson L, Missimer M 2012. Sustainability Handbook. Studentlitteratur AB, Stockholm. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K 2009. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2). Tremblay LA, Champeau O, Biessy L, Bowater J, Northcott GL. 2013. Risk assessment of chemicals in household products. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. CIBR Report No 4. 42 p.
14
