Fragmentary provisions for uncertainty disclosure and consideration in EA legislation,regulations and guidelines and the need for improvement

The consideration and disclosure of uncertainties is fundamental to a credible EA process, but little is known about the nature and type of requirements and guidance available to proponents, practitioners and decision makers about how to deal with uncertainties. This paper examines the provisions for considering and disclosing uncertainties in EA. Methods are based on a comparative review of uncertainty provisions in EA legislation, regulations and guidance documents under Canadian federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Results show 10 types of provisions applied at different stages of the EA process with considerable jurisdictional variability and incoherence. The most common provision was that decision makers can request that project proponents provide more information, followed by the preparation of contingency plans, and that practitioners document their assumptions about data reliability. Most of these provisions were found in guidelines, versus legislation or regulations; and most addressed impact management, with very few provisions for addressing uncertainty during EA review and decision making. Current practices of uncertainty (non)disclosure and (non)consideration in EA can be explained, in part, by the superficial nature and limited extent of the requirements and guidance made available to EA practitioners, proponents, and decision makers. The existing requirements placed on proponents and practitioners to disclose and consider uncertainties are necessary, but insufficient. Stronger, more coherent and transparent requirements for those tasked with EA review and decision making to consider uncertainty information when disclosed, and the development of practical guidance on how to do so, are needed.     

Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis

Environmental assessment (EA) aims to enhance environmental awareness and to ensure that environmental values are fully considered in decision-making. In the EA arena, different discourses exist on what EA should aim for and how it functions. We hypothesise that these discourses influence its application in practice as well as its effectiveness in terms of achieving the above goals. For instance, actors who consider EA as a hindrance to fast implementation of their projects will probably apply it as a mandatory checklist, whereas actors who believe that EA can help to develop more environmentally sound decisions will use EIA as a tool to design their initiatives. In this paper we explore discourses on EA in The Netherlands and elaborate on their implications for EA effectiveness. Based on an innovative research design comprising an online survey with 443 respondents and 20 supplementary semi-structured interviews we conclude that the dominant discourse is that EA is mainly a legal requirement; EAs are conducted because they have to be conducted, not because actors choose to do so. EA effectiveness however seems reasonably high, as a majority of respondents perceive that it enhances environmental awareness and contributes to environmental protection. However, the ‘legal requirement’ discourse also results in decision-makers seldom going beyond what is prescribed by EA and environmental law. Despite its mandatory character, the predominant attitude towards EA is quite positive. For most respondents, EA is instrumental in providing transparency of decision-making and in minimising the legal risks of not complying with environmental laws. Differences in discourses seldom reflect extreme opposites. The ‘common ground’ regarding EA provides a good basis for working with EA in terms of meeting legal requirements but at the same time does not stimulate creativity in decision-making or optimisation of environmental values. In countries characterised by less consensual political cultures we may expect more extreme discourses on EA, the consequences of which are reflected upon in this paper.     

A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment

This paper examines uncertainty research in Impact Assessment (IA) and the focus of attention of the IA scholarly literature. We do so by first exploring ‘outside’ the IA literature, identifying three main themes of uncertainty research, and then apply these themes to examine the focus of scholarly research on uncertainty ‘inside’ IA. Based on a search of the database Scopus, we identified 134 journal papers published between 1970 and 2013 that address uncertainty in IA, 75% of which were published since 2005. We found that 90% of IA research addressing uncertainty focused on uncertainty in the practice of IA, including uncertainty in impact predictions, models and managing environmental impacts. Notwithstanding early guidance on uncertainty treatment in IA from the 1980s, we found no common, underlying conceptual framework that was guiding research on uncertainty in IA practice. Considerably less attention, only 9% of papers, focused on uncertainty communication, disclosure and decision-making under uncertain conditions, the majority of which focused on the need to disclose uncertainties as opposed to providing guidance on how to do so and effectively use that information to inform decisions. Finally, research focused on theory building for explaining human behavior with respect to uncertainty avoidance constituted only 1% of the IA published literature. We suggest the need for further conceptual framework development for researchers focused on identifying and addressing uncertainty in IA practice; the need for guidance on how best to communicate uncertainties in practice, versus criticizing practitioners for not doing so; research that explores how best to interpret and use disclosures about uncertainty when making decisions about project approvals, and the implications of doing so; and academic theory building and exploring the utility of existing theories to better understand and explain uncertainty avoidance behavior in IA.     

The institutional dynamics behind limited human health considerations in environmental assessments of coal mining projects in New South Wales,Australia

Coal extraction remains supported in many countries despite a global context challenging the industry. A large evidence base links coal with negative consequences for human health. Environmental assessments (EAs) are regulated in nearly every country to assess and set conditions for large industry projects, including coal mines, but tend to exclude health impacts. This study investigated the institutional dynamics surrounding the inclusion of health in coal mining EAs in New South Wales, Australia. Semi-structured interviews with varied stakeholders were supported by a review of legislation, relevant case law and media analysis. Using insights from theories on power and institutions the findings show how EA practice is influenced by the politicization of coal mining that excludes potentially negative narratives surrounding the known human health impacts of coal. Poor EA practice is compounded by legislative ambiguity and lack of conceptual understanding about assessing health. EA's legislative purpose of approving projects undermines confidence that a balanced assessment of impacts has been made. EA is seen as a pro-industry process that disempowers those with dissenting voices. The research explains how the institutional dynamics of a policy process like EA challenge its potential to meaningfully engage with the impact of coal mining on human health.     

Coping with uncertainty in environmental impact assessments: Open techniques

Uncertainty is virtually unavoidable in environmental impact assessments (EIAs). From the literature related to treating and managing uncertainty, we have identified specific techniques for coping with uncertainty in EIAs. Here, we have focused on basic steps in the decision-making process that take place within an EIA setting. More specifically, we have identified uncertainties involved in each decision-making step and discussed the extent to which these can be treated and managed in the context of an activity or project that may have environmental impacts. To further demonstrate the relevance of the techniques identified, we have examined the extent to which the EIA guidelines currently used in Colombia consider and provide guidance on managing the uncertainty involved in these assessments. Some points that should be considered in order to provide greater robustness in impact assessments in Colombia have been identified. These include the management of stakeholder values, the systematic generation of project options, and their associated impacts as well as the associated management actions, and the evaluation of uncertainties and assumptions. We believe that the relevant and specific techniques reported here can be a reference for future evaluations of other EIA guidelines in different countries.     

Avoiding climate change uncertainties in Strategic Environmental Assessment

This article is concerned with how Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice handles climate change uncertainties within the Danish planning system. First, a hypothetical model is set up for how uncertainty is handled and not handled in decision-making. The model incorporates the strategies ‘reduction’ and ‘resilience’, ‘denying’, ‘ignoring’ and ‘postponing’. Second, 151 Danish SEAs are analysed with a focus on the extent to which climate change uncertainties are acknowledged and presented, and the empirical findings are discussed in relation to the model. The findings indicate that despite incentives to do so, climate change uncertainties were systematically avoided or downplayed in all but 5 of the 151 SEAs that were reviewed. Finally, two possible explanatory mechanisms are proposed to explain this: conflict avoidance and a need to quantify uncertainty.     

The effectiveness of environmental assessment in Flanders: An analysis of practitioner perspectives

The extent to which Environmental Assessment (EA) contributes to incorporating environmental values and objectives into decision-making (i.e. the effectiveness of EA) has been subject to much research. Still relatively little is known about how the effectiveness of EA is influenced by the specific features of EA systems and their context. International comparative research can shed more light on these relationships. In this paper we report on a survey of EA in Flanders, taking a similar approach as previous surveys in the Netherlands, UK and Denmark. We observe that the effectiveness of the Flemish project-based EA (EIA) is comparable to that in the other countries, whereas the Flemish plan-based EA (SEA) is more influential than the Dutch one (no data on Denmark and UK). As in the other countries, EA in Flanders has an influence on decision-making both before and after the EIA has been completed. According to respondents to the surveys, in all four countries the legal requirement is the main explanatory factor for EA effectiveness. The mechanisms by which EA characteristics and other factors contribute to EA effectiveness seem rather country-specific, however. Rather than trying to isolate the individual influence of factors we encourage more in-depth, qualitative and case-study based follow-up research in order to better understand the complex interplay between factors related to the EA system itself, how it is applied in practice and influenceds from its specific context.     

Opening new institutional spaces for grappling with uncertainty: A constructivist perspective

In the context of an increasing reliance on predictive computer simulation models to calculate potential project impacts, it has become common practice in impact assessment (IA) to call on proponents to disclose uncertainties in assumptions and conclusions assembled in support of a development project. Understandably, it is assumed that such disclosures lead to greater scrutiny and better policy decisions. This paper questions this assumption. Drawing on constructivist theories of knowledge and an analysis of the role of narratives in managing uncertainty, I argue that the disclosure of uncertainty can obscure as much as it reveals about the impacts of a development project. It is proposed that the opening up of institutional spaces that can facilitate the negotiation and deliberation of foundational assumptions and parameters that feed into predictive models could engender greater legitimacy and credibility for IA outcomes.     

Evaluation of a real-time monitoring system for river quality — a trade-off between risk attitudes,costs, and uncertainty

Uncertainty is definitely one of the key topics in environmental assessment and management. Typically, attempts to reduce uncertainty are subject to expenses. But how to compare and trade-off expenses and the reduced uncertainty? They only seldom allow the use of a single unit. Instead, the whole analysis and decision procedure is very subjective. This paper presents one approach to handle such problems, namely the combined use of Bayesian influence diagrams, and probabilistic risk attitude analysis. The approach was used in the evaluation of three alternatives for a real time river water quality forecasting system. A trade-off analysis of risk attitudes, costs and uncertainty indicated the levels of socioeconomic utility required for investments in the respective systems, and accordingly illuminated the impact of the uncertainties involved on inference and decision-making with various risk attitudes and discount rates.     

Accounting for Uncertainty in Value Judgements when Applying Multi-Attribute Value Theory

In environmental decisions, analysts commonly face substantial uncertainties around stakeholders’ values judgments. Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), a family of multi-criteria decision analysis techniques, is applied in participative settings to articulate stakeholders’ values in decision-making. In MAVT, value judgments represent the intensity of individuals’ preferences in a set of objectives, which are operationalized as scaling factors or weights. Different sets of weights may express variation in people’s preferences or value judgments. Unfortunately, there are still important methodological gaps regarding how to incorporate uncertainty and the substantial variation commonly encountered in stakeholders’ preferences. This article presents a model of uncertainty that encompasses the dispersion of value judgments in MAVT. To achieve this goal, we draw on info-gap theory, which provides a mathematically grounded method for exploring sensitivity to preference weights when there are relatively high levels of uncertainties. We experimentally tested the uncertainty model in an environmental decision problem. We found that MAVT can use info-gap analysis to deal with multiple value judgments, avoiding exclusive reliance on nominal expected values to inform decisions. We explored a mechanism to explicitly consider the trade-offs between the performance of alternatives and the level of uncertainty that in any specified context a decision maker is willing to accept. Findings emphasize the potential of MAVT to support environmental management decisions, particularly in situations where multiple stakeholders and their contested value judgments have to be considered simultaneously to explore uncertainties around value trade-offs.     

Who cares? Don't underestimate the values of SEA monitoring!

Until now, monitoring of large-scale regional funding programmes has been rare, although their large scope and abstract planning targets generally involve high levels of uncertainty. This study applies and examines a newly developed methodological approach for monitoring such programmes. It also critically reflects to what extent the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) contributes to a better consideration of environmental sustainability and to a learning effect among the stakeholders as well as within the decision-making process. The interviews conducted during the SEA monitoring revealed a very low recognition of the SEA, and its content, among project applicants of the transnational regional funding programme. They further show that more information on the SEA and its recommendations to mitigate negative environmental impacts would be beneficial in the future. Overall, the monitoring confirmed, however, that the institutions responsible for the programme were aware of the benefits of considering environmental sustainability. The long-term application of SEA in an iterative process provided positive learning effects on environmental sustainability and awareness for environmental aspects. This study also shows how SEA monitoring can serve as a tool to enhance visibility and foster communication among decision makers and applicants.     

Reconceptualizing public participation in environmental assessment as EA civics

Notwithstanding the considerable attention placed on creating meaningful opportunities for public participation in environmental assessment (EA), many participants and those who have reviewed participation processes often find practice sorely wanting. This reality stands in stark juxtaposition to future environmental governance needs, which will require increased openness, deliberation and transdisciplinary knowledge in order to deal with environmental change that is ever more uncertain, complex and conflictual. In this paper, our purpose was to consider how to meet those needs through reconceptualizing public participation as EA civics, founded on an active citizen base, deliberative in nature and orientated toward learning. We do this through developing a new conceptual model of next generation participation processes that is relevant at multiple spatial scales and institutional levels, is applicable to the entire assessment cycle and spans temporal scales through feedback loops. Our EA civics model builds on the “civics approach” to environmental governance and “action civics” by extending their core ideas to participation in EA. We did this by conducting an integrative literature review (including numerous papers we have contributed over the years) and reflecting on our own experiences as EA participants. We apply current thinking on public participation design to our EA civics conceptualization and highlight important design features that have received scant attention. We conclude that EA civics holds promise for fairer and more robust participation processes if all aspects of the model are considered and the actions related to each are implemented.     

A multicriteria analytical framework for sustainability evaluation under methodological uncertainties

Multicriteria analysis is widely used to perform sustainability evaluation for purposes such as decision making or progress assessment following a chosen sustainable development concept. The stages of multicriteria analysis include indicator selection, data characterization, normalization, weighting, and aggregation. However, due to the various framings of sustainability, non-equivalent approaches could be adopted at each stage, introducing methodological uncertainty. Consequently, depending on the methods chosen, divergent and conflicting conclusions or decisions may result. This paper addresses the issue of methodological uncertainties in sustainability evaluation by analyzing how methodological uncertainties arise during multicriteria analysis, then proposing an analytical framework that employs uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to quantify and manage the effects of methodological uncertainties. The consideration of methodological uncertainties in the structure of multicriteria sustainability evaluation shifts the analysis from deterministic to probabilistic, which is advantageous to arrive at robust and homogenized sustainability conclusions or decisions.     

Inclusion of uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessment in Greenland

Uncertainty is an inherent part of impact assessment (IA), and can vary in type and source. However, according to previous research, uncertainty is rarely explicitly acknowledged and handled in IA, indicating that it is a challenging issue in practice. This paper adds to the current research body a study of EIA in Greenland, which includes a document study of EIA reports as well as white papers and summaries from public hearings. The study findings are in line with previous results, finding a limited explicit acknowledgement of uncertainty, although uncertainty is indicated through implicit language use. The study also finds that various tools are applied, which could be used for handling uncertainty, including sensitivity analysis, monitoring and worst-case estimates. However, often these tools are not used systematically, and it is not transparent whether they are targeted at handling uncertainty. Regarding the examination of materials from hearing processes, there is little evidence that uncertainty is part of the discussions. These results initiate discussions of how choices of whether and how to acknowledge and handle uncertainty are made, and how consciously participants in the process make these choices.     

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

This paper addresses the future of environmental assessment (EA) practice in light of a rapidly changing world. We apply a literature review-based methodology to firstly identify key global megatrends and then reflect upon the implications for EA practice based on some known challenges. The key megatrends identified are synthesised into six categories: i) demographics, ii) urbanization, iii) technological innovation, iv) power shifts, v) resource scarcity and vi) climate change. We then discuss the implications of these megatrends for EA practice against four known EA challenges namely: dealing with i) complexity and uncertainty, ii) efficiency, iii) significance and iv) communication and participation. Our analysis suggests important implications for EA practice such as: increased difficulties with accuracy of prediction; the need for facilitative adaptation; an increase in the occurrence of unexpected events; higher expectations for procedural efficiency; challenges with information and communication management; dealing with significance judgements; and mitigation amidst resource scarcity and increasing pressures on earth systems. The megatrends underscore the need for continued evolution of EA thinking and practice, especially moving away from seeking a predictable single future or outcome towards the possibility of multiple scenarios with associated adaptability and enhanced system resilience capable of responding to rapid change.     

Looking up,down, and sideways: Reconceiving cumulative effects assessment as a mindset

Despite all the effort that has gone into defining, researching and establishing best practices for cumulative effects assessment (CEA), understanding remains weak and practice wanting. At one extreme of implementation, CEA can be described as merely an irritant to the completion of a project-specific environmental assessment (EA). At the other extreme, the conceptual view is that all effects in EA should be deemed cumulative unless demonstrated otherwise. Our purpose here is to consider how we might reconceive CEA as a mindset that is at the heart of absolutely every assessment of valued ecosystem component (VEC) to ensure that we understand the relative contributions of various stressors and can decide when cumulative effects may foreclose future activities due to impacts on VECs. Conceptually, we ground the CEA mindset in the context of three lenses that must all be functioning and working together for the mindset to be operative: a technical lens; a law and policy lens; and a participatory lens. Our arguments are based on a review of the CEA, strategic effects assessment (SEA) and regional effects assessment literatures, an examination and consideration of Canadian EA and SEA case practice, and our combined professional experiences. Through using the Bay of Fundy in Canada as a case example, we establish the concept of the CEA mindset and an approach for moving forward with implementation.     

Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

One of the defining characteristics of sustainability assessment as a form of impact assessment is that it provides a forum for the explicit consideration of the trade-offs that are inherent in complex decision-making processes. Few sustainability assessments have achieved this goal though, and none has considered trade-offs in a holistic fashion throughout the process. Recent contributions such as the Gibson trade-off rules have significantly progressed thinking in this area by suggesting appropriate acceptability criteria for evaluating substantive trade-offs arising from proposed development, as well as process rules for how evaluations of acceptability should occur. However, there has been negligible uptake of these rules in practice. Overall, we argue that there is inadequate consideration of trade-offs, both process and substantive, throughout the sustainability assessment process, and insufficient considerations of how process decisions and compromises influence substantive outcomes. This paper presents a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical sustainability assessment process. The framework draws together previously published literature and offers case studies that illustrate aspects of the practical application of the framework. The framing and design of sustainability assessment are vitally important, as process compromises or trade-offs can have substantive consequences in terms of sustainability outcomes delivered, with the choice of alternatives considered being a particularly significant determinant of substantive outcomes. The demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable impacts is a key aspect of managing trade-offs. Offsets can be considered as a form of trade-off within a category of sustainability that are utilised to enhance preferred alternatives once conditions of impact acceptability have been met. In this way they may enable net gains to be delivered; another imperative for progress to sustainability. Understanding the nature and implications of trade-offs within sustainability assessment is essential to improving practice.     

Underwater noise modelling for environmental impact assessment

Assessment of underwater noise is increasingly required by regulators of development projects in marine and freshwater habitats, and noise pollution can be a constraining factor in the consenting process. Noise levels arising from the proposed activity are modelled and the potential impact on species of interest within the affected area is then evaluated. Although there is considerable uncertainty in the relationship between noise levels and impacts on aquatic species, the science underlying noise modelling is well understood. Nevertheless, many environmental impact assessments (EIAs) do not reflect best practice, and stakeholders and decision makers in the EIA process are often unfamiliar with the concepts and terminology that are integral to interpreting noise exposure predictions. In this paper, we review the process of underwater noise modelling and explore the factors affecting predictions of noise exposure. Finally, we illustrate the consequences of errors and uncertainties in noise modelling, and discuss future research needs to reduce uncertainty in noise assessments.     

An inquiry into the potential of scenario analysis for dealing with uncertainty in strategic environmental assessment in China

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) inherently needs to address greater levels of uncertainty in the formulation and implementation processes of strategic decisions, compared with project environmental impact assessment. The range of uncertainties includes internal and external factors of the complex system that is concerned in the strategy. Scenario analysis is increasingly being used to cope with uncertainty in SEA. Following a brief introduction of scenarios and scenario analysis, this paper examines the rationale for scenario analysis in SEA in the context of China. The state of the art associated with scenario analysis applied to SEA in China was reviewed through four SEA case analyses. Lessons learned from these cases indicated the word “scenario” appears to be abused and the scenario-based methods appear to be misused due to the lack of understanding of an uncertain future and scenario analysis. However, good experiences were also drawn on, regarding how to integrate scenario analysis into the SEA process in China, how to cope with driving forces including uncertainties, how to combine qualitative scenario storylines with quantitative impact predictions, and how to conduct assessments and propose recommendations based on scenarios. Additionally, the ways to improve the application of this tool in SEA were suggested. We concluded by calling for further methodological research on this issue and more practices.     

How Certain Are Salmon Recovery Forecasts? A Watershed-scale Sensitivity Analysis

Complex relationships between landscape and aquatic habitat conditions and salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) populations make science-based management decisions both difficult and essential. Due to a paucity of empirical data, models characterizing these relationships are often used to forecast future conditions. We evaluated uncertainties in a suite of models that predict possible future habitat conditions and fish responses in the Lewis River Basin, Washington, USA. We evaluated sensitivities of predictions to uncertainty in model parameters. Results were sensitive to 60% of model parameters but substantially so (|partial regression coefficients| >0.5) to <10%. We also estimated accuracy of several predictions using field surveys. Observations mostly fell within predicted ranges for riparian shade and fine-sediment deposition, but large woody debris estimates matched only half the time. We provide suggestions to modelers for improving model accountability, and describe how managers can incorporate prediction uncertainty into decision-making, thereby improving the odds of successful salmon habitat recovery.