Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: Discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Science, Society and Sustainability (3S) Research Group, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;2. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, DK-2450 København SV, Denmark;3. School of Geo and Spatial Sciences, Internal Box 375, North West University (Potchefstroom campus), South Africa;1. Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil;2. Instituto de Geografia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;3. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;4. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPÊ), Nazaré Paulista, Brazil;1. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Namibia, Sam Nujoma Campus, P. O. Box 462, Henties Bay, Namibia;2. Department of Geography, History and Environmental Studies, University of Namibia, P/Bag 13301, Windhoek, Namibia;3. Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Namibia, P/Bag 13301, Windhoek, Namibia;4. School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK;5. Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York YO10 5NG, UK;1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom;2. Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa;3. Ben Cave Associates, United Kingdom;4. Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Australia;5. School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom;6. Impact Assessment and Social Performance, Statoil ASA, Norway;7. School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Canada;8. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, Netherlands;9. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia;1. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, PO Box 2345; 3500 GH, Utrecht, The Netherlands;2. Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;3. Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;4. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | There is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of impact assessment tools, which matters both because of the threat to future practice of the tools which are frequently perceived to be ineffective, and because of the disillusionment that can ensue, and controversy generated, amongst stakeholders in a decision context where opportunities for meaningful debate have not been provided. In this article we regard debate about the meaning of effectiveness in impact assessment as an inevitable consequence of increased participation in environmental decision-making, and therefore frame effectiveness based on an inclusive democracy role to mean the extent to which impact assessment can accommodate civil society discourse. Our aim is to investigate effectiveness based on this framing by looking at one type of impact assessment – environmental impact assessment (EIA) – in two controversial project proposals: the HS2 rail network in England; and the A4DS motorway in the Netherlands. Documentary analysis and interviews held with key civil society stakeholders have been deployed to identify discourses that were mobilised in the cases. EIA was found to be able to accommodate only one out of four discourses that were identified; for the other three it did not provide the space for the arguments that characterised opposition. The conclusion in relation to debate on framings of effectiveness is that EIA will not be considered effective by the majority of stakeholders. EIA was established to support decision-making through a better understanding of impacts, so its ineffectiveness is unsurprising when its role is perceived to be broader. However, there remains a need to map discourses in different decision contexts and to analyse the extent to which the range of discourses are accommodated throughout the decision process, and the role of impact assessment in those processes, before recommendations can be made to either improve impact assessment effectiveness, or whether it is simply perceptions of effectiveness that need to be improved. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
