Methodological pluralism in environmental impact prediction and significance evaluation: A case for standardization? |
| |
| Institution: | 1. CEG-IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal;2. Public Governance Institute, University of Leuven, Parkstraat 45, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium;3. Aalborg University, Department of Planning, Denmark;1. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80,115, 3508TC, Princetonlaan 8a, Utrecht, The Netherlands;2. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, Wageningen, The Netherlands;3. KENTER, Muizenheuvelstraat 87, Ranst, Belgium;4. Flemish Department of Environmental & Spatial Development (Departement Omgeving), Koning Albert II-laan 20, 1000 Brussels, Belgium;5. Tractebel Sustainable Urban Development, Van Immerseelstraat 66, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium;1. School of Economics, Business Administration & Legal Studies, International Hellenic University,14th km Thessaloniki - N. Moudania, 57001 Thermi, Greece;2. Institute for Bio-Economy and Agri-Technology, Centre for Research and Technology-Hellas, 57001 Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece;3. Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia Street, 546 36 Thessaloniki, Greece;1. The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark;2. The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen, SV, Denmark |
| |
| Abstract: | At the core of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process is the identification, prediction and evaluation of impacts, activities that are profoundly marked by case-specific differences and methodological pluralism. Despite difficulties, policy-makers are occasionally attracted to the idea of standardizing EIA methods. The objective of this study was to understand the merits of standardizing methods for impact prediction and significance evaluations, using Brazil as the empirical context. Based on a content analysis of 49 EIA reports, a survey with 126 practitioners, and a critical evaluation of two standardization initiatives, the study shows that, while generally perceived as beneficial, the standardization of EIA methods is likely to remain a rather challenging task in the foreseeable future. The high degrees of discretion taking place in the selection and implementation of impact prediction and significance evaluations are to a large extent a consequence of the difficulty of finding terminology, metrics, criteria, thresholds, boundaries, and values across different settings. Current standardization initiatives in Brazil are targeting some of the easiest methodological issues related to terminology and process. While relevant to administrative efficiency and process predictability, such issues represent a small piece of the complex puzzle of EIA effectiveness. Findings signal the need for clearer policy priorities, capacity building, and more applied research about the actual, long-term effects of standardization initiatives. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
