The role of Health Impact Assessment in the setting of air quality standards: An Australian perspective

The approaches used for setting or reviewing air quality standards vary from country to country. The purpose of this research was to consider the potential to improve decision-making through integration of HIA into the processes to review and set air quality standards used in Australia.To assess the value of HIA in this policy process, its strengths and weaknesses were evaluated aligned with review of international processes for setting air quality standards.Air quality standard setting programmes elsewhere have either used HIA or have amalgamated and incorporated factors normally found within HIA frameworks. They clearly demonstrate the value of a formalised HIA process for setting air quality standards in Australia.The following elements should be taken into consideration when using HIA in standard setting. (a) The adequacy of a mainly technical approach in current standard setting procedures to consider social determinants of health. (b) The importance of risk assessment criteria and information within the HIA process. The assessment of risk should consider equity, the distribution of variations in air quality in different locations and the potential impacts on health. (c) The uncertainties in extrapolating evidence from one population to another or to subpopulations, especially the more vulnerable, due to differing environmental factors and population variables. (d) The significance of communication with all potential stakeholders on issues associated with the management of air quality.In Australia there is also an opportunity for HIA to be used in conjunction with the NEPM to develop local air quality standard measures. The outcomes of this research indicated that the use of HIA for air quality standard setting at the national and local levels would prove advantageous.     

Integrating ecosystem services in spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment: The role of the cascade model

Over the last decade, the ecosystem service (ES) approach has gained increasing attention because it offers important advantages for enhancing decision-making. However, a key and remaining challenge is how to implement this approach in real-world decision problems. This challenge is particularly relevant for governance and policy instruments, such as spatial planning and strategic environmental assessment (SEA), where including the ES approach is recognized as a great opportunity for achieving sustainable development goals. Consequently, this opinion paper proposes the use of the ES cascade model, as the basis to develop a framework that makes explicit the links among development objectives, sustainability goals, and the overall dependency on the ES supply. The main reflections address the need for a collaborative work between policy and science as a cross-cutting aspect for an interactive, participative and transparent research process that allows 1) the development of spatial indicators of ecosystem structures, 2) valuation and spatial modeling of ES, 3) identification of benefits and networks of actors, 4) the definition of values and, 5) generation of scenarios for a trade-off assessment of development alternatives. Finally, in addition to the information and knowledge generation regarding multi-scale relationships of the different components of the ES cascade, real-world evidence is urgently needed.     

Mainstreaming ecosystem services in European policy impact assessment

The concept of ecosystem services as developed for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is currently the most extensive, international, scientific concept dealing with the interaction between the world's ecosystems and human well-being. The fundamental asset is seen in the relevancy of the concept at the science–policy interface. Albeit, the mainstreaming of ecosystem services into policy making requires a framework that allows the transition of the scientific concept into the rationale of policy making. We hypothesize that the procedure of policy impact assessment is a suitable venue for this transition. This brings up two questions: 1) where in the process of policy impact assessment can ecosystem services be mainstreamed? 2) How can the impact on ecosystem services properly be accounted for? In this paper we distinguish two groups of policy cases: explicit cases directly addressing ecosystem services, and implicit cases of policies that follow other purposes but may have unintended impacts on ecosystem services as a side effect. The second group covers a wide range of policies for which we set out a framework for mainstreaming of ecosystem services. The framework is exemplary designed for the instrument of ex-ante impact assessment at European policy making level. We reveal that the two concepts of the MA and of the European policy impact assessment are indeed compatible, which makes the integration of the ecosystem service concept possible. We conclude that the linkage of the scientifically validated concept of ecosystem services with the policy concept of impact assessment has the potential of improving the credibility of the latter.     

The community cost of consultation: Characterising the qualitative social impacts of a wind energy development that failed to proceed in Tasmania,Australia

Energy developments affect communities in a range of ways. Impacts on communities can be caused by changes to landscape amenity and access, disruptions to community cohesion, increased or decreased income streams, effects on property values, and population changes. These changes are ideally captured in the social impact assessment (SIA) process, where proponents outline in a formal statement the balance of benefits and burdens on local communities, and measures that will be taken to minimise negative outcomes for the community. In SIA practice there is a tendency toward quantitative socio-economic impacts, such as changes to demographics, income, and land values, with some qualitative assessment of amenity impacts. While the academic literature promotes inclusion of changes to the community itself, such as impacts on community cohesion and social capital, these qualitative changes are not consistently evident in SIA practice. Additionally, SIA practice assesses the impacts of the project, i.e. how the development of wind turbines or other energy infrastructure will affect the community. Because the consultation process around a proposed project typically commences prior to the characterisation and assessment of any associated social impacts and the finalisation of the SIA process, the potential impacts of this consultation are rarely, if ever, evaluated. Here, we examine a case study of an Australian wind energy project that did not proceed to implementation. Through this case study we are able to analyse the anticipatory impacts of the proposal; those stemming from the consultative process rather than the development of the project itself. We present these qualitative social changes, and outline the pathways through which the social changes manifest in two overarching social impacts: a divided community and future development capacity. We discuss the implications of this analysis in the context of good engagement practice and energy governance.     

The role of SEA in integrating and balancing high policy objectives in European cohesion funding programmes

Funding programmes for European cohesion policy are a crucial tool to support the sustainability goals of the European Union and national policies of its member states. All these funding programmes require a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to enhance sustainable development. This article compares five first SEA applications at cohesion policy level to discuss challenges, limitations and benefits of this instrument. In order to support the SEA-process a “Handbook on SEA for Cohesion Policy 2007–13” (GRDP 2006) was developed. The paper examines the special requirements and challenges at the programme level given the special conditions for stakeholder involvement, integration of SEA in the programme development process and strategies to cope with uncertainties to ensure real compatibility with policy goals. Using action research and in-depth interviews with SEA planners and programme managers enabled us to analyse the suitability of the methodology proposed by the handbook. The results show that some recommendations of the handbook should be changed in order to increase the transparency and to enhance the standard and comparability of the SEA-documents.Overall the SEA proved to be a rather successful tool for the integration of sustainability goals at the EU and national policy levels. Its particular strengths emerged as the process makes uncertainties visible and leads to possible redefinitions while maintaining actual policy goals.     

From proposal to decision: Suggestions for tightening up the “NEPA process”

Although the process of documenting compliance with NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) requires no drastic revisions, it can be managed more rigorously. Suggestions for revision can be grouped under five major steps: 1) getting a complete proposal from the applicant; 2) getting the decision-making process onto the right decision-making path; 3) modifying the applicant's proposal 4) going down a shorter path through the EA/FONSI (environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact) or through categorical exclusion review; and 5) going down the longer path through the EIS. Step 2 is perhaps the most critical, because there a decision must be made whether to write an EA/FONSI or an EIS, on the basis of whether the proposal would “significantly affect … the … environment.” In the past, this decision has not always been made promptly or rigorously. Accordingly, we suggest that the agency responsible for NEPA compliance should develop a system (a “black box”), consisting of a core group of specialists working with an interdisciplinary team, using sophisticated techniques for modeling impacts and directing both their research and their writing according to the concept of significance. By determining more efficiently and reliably whether the impacts of a proposal would be significant, such an approach would improve management of the total process.     

The precautionary principle stimulus for solutions- and alternatives-based environmental policy

The precautionary principle is increasingly discussed in debates over appropriate measures to address complex and uncertain risks. The principle has generally been defined as having two main components: preventive action in the face of uncertainty and reversing the burden of proof. In isolation, these two components would suggest that precaution is primarily reactive to potential problems rather than proactive. More recent statements have suggested that thorough assessment of alternatives is critical to the effective implementation of the precautionary principle. Alternatives assessment—also referred to as options analysis and facility planning—redirects environmental science and policy debates from characterizing problems to identifying solutions. In this commentary, we examine the rationale for a focus on alternatives assessment in implementing the precautionary principle. We examine methods and examples of alternatives assessment, as well as opportunities for the principle's integration in environmental policy. We argue that a greater focus on alternatives assessment can enhance the ability of decision makers to make truly precautionary decisions, stimulate innovation toward sustainable production, and more effectively place burdens on to those creating risks. Such a focus forms an essential component of a shift from “problem-based” environmental policy to “solutions-based” policy. This shift requires adequate research resources, tools, and a government commitment to a new paradigm of environmental protection. We conclude that we will only reach the goal of sustainable production if we change our environmental protection focus from figuring out how bad the situation will be to seeking alternatives to problematic activities and designing the conditions for a more sustainable future.     

A window on urban sustainability: Integration of environmental interests in urban planning through ‘decision windows’

Sustainable urban development requires the integration of environmental interests in urban planning. Although various methods of environmental assessment have been developed, plan outcomes are often disappointing due to the complex nature of decision-making in urban planning, which takes place in multiple arenas within multiple policy networks involving diverse stakeholders. We argue that the concept of ‘decision windows’ can structure this seemingly chaotic chain of interrelated decisions. First, explicitly considering the dynamics of the decision-making process, we further conceptualized decision windows as moments in an intricate web of substantively connected deliberative processes where issues are reframed within a decision-making arena, and interests may be linked within and across arenas. Adopting this perspective in two case studies, we then explored how decision windows arise, which factors determine their effectiveness and how their occurrence can be influenced so as to arrive at more sustainable solutions. We conclude that the integration of environmental interests in urban planning is highly dependent on the ability of the professionals involved to recognize and manipulate decision windows. Finally, we explore how decision windows may be opened.     

Social impact assessment and stakeholder engagement in the Russian Federation: Representativeness,deliberativeness and influence

We analyse two approaches to social impact assessment (SIA) – traditional SIA and participatory SIA – in the context of a large project in the Russian Federation. The key difference between these approaches is the level and depth of stakeholder engagement in the impact assessment process and project. Participatory SIA seeks to observe the three principles of participatory democracy: representativeness, deliberativeness and influence. We identify the requirements for stakeholder engagement in the Russian impact assessment process, and analyse implementation practice by reviewing the stakeholder engagement activities undertaken for the South Stream gas pipeline project, according to national requirements and international best practice (e.g. the International Finance Corporation Performance Standards). We conclude that the Russian process reflects traditional SIA. Its main weaknesses are poor stakeholder identification and planning of engagement activities. The Russian SIA/EIA process is not consistent with the principles of representativeness, deliberativeness and influence and does not enable people to adequately participate in or influence decision-making.     

Sustainability assessment framework for scenarios – SAFS

To address current challenges regarding sustainable development and support planning for this form of development, new learning about different possible futures and their potential sustainability implications is needed. One way of facilitating this learning is by combining the futures studies and sustainability assessment (SA) research fields.This paper presents the sustainability assessment framework for scenarios (SAFS), a method developed for assessing the environmental and social risks and opportunities of future scenarios, provides guidelines for its application and demonstrates how the framework can be applied. SAFS suggests assessing environmental and social aspects using a consumption perspective and a life cycle approach, and provides qualitative results. SAFS does not suggest any modelling using precise data, but instead offers guidelines on how to carry out a qualitative assessment, where both the process of assessing and the outcome of the assessment are valuable and can be used as a basis for discussion.The benefits, drawbacks and potential challenges of applying SAFS are also discussed in the paper. SAFS uses systems thinking looking at future societies as a whole, considering both environmental and social consequences. This encourages researchers and decision-makers to consider the whole picture, and not just individual elements, when considering different futures.     

Advancing the practice of health impact assessment in Canada: Obstacles and opportunities

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is recognized as a useful tool that can identify potential health impacts resulting from projects or policy initiatives. Although HIA has become an established practice in some countries, it is not yet an established practice in Canada. In order to enable broader support for HIA, this study provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the peer-reviewed and gray literature on the state of HIA practice. The results of this review revealed that, although there is an abundance of publications relating to HIA, there remains a lack of transparent, consistent and reproducible approaches and methods throughout the process. Findings indicate a need for further research and development on a number of fronts, including: 1) the nature of HIA triggers; 2) consistent scoping and stakeholder engagement approaches; 3) use of evidence and transparency of decision-making; 4) reproducibility of assessment methods; 5) monitoring and evaluation protocols; and, 6) integration within existing regulatory frameworks. Addressing these issues will aid in advancing the more widespread use of HIA in Canada.     

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.     

Life cycle assessment as an analytical tool in strategic environmental assessment. Lessons learned from a case study on municipal energy planning in Sweden

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is explored as an analytical tool in strategic environmental assessment (SEA), illustrated by case where a previously developed SEA process was applied to municipal energy planning in Sweden. The process integrated decision-making tools for scenario planning, public participation and environmental assessment. This article describes the use of LCA for environmental assessment in this context, with focus on methodology and practical experiences. While LCA provides a systematic framework for the environmental assessment and a wider systems perspective than what is required in SEA, LCA cannot address all aspects of environmental impact required, and therefore needs to be complemented by other tools. The integration of LCA with tools for public participation and scenario planning posed certain methodological challenges, but provided an innovative approach to designing the scope of the environmental assessment and defining and assessing alternatives.     

The significance of structural power in Strategic Environmental Assessment

This article presents a study of how power dynamics enables and constrains the influence of actors upon decision-making and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Based on structuration theory, a model for studying power dynamics in strategic decision-making processes is developed. The model is used to map and analyse key decision arenas in the decision process of aluminium production in Greenland. The analysis shows that communication lines are an important resource through which actors exercise power and influence decision-making on the location of the aluminium production. The SEA process involved not only reproduction of formal communication and decision competence but also production of alternative informal communication structures in which the SEA had capability to influence.It is concluded, that actors influence strategic decision making, and attention needs to be on not only the formal interactions between SEA process and strategic decision-making process but also on informal interaction and communication between actors as the informal structures, which can be crucial to the outcome of the decision-making process. This article is meant as a supplement to the understanding of power dynamics influence in IA processes and as a contribution to the IA research field with a method to analyse power dynamics in strategic decision-making processes. The article also brings reflections of strengths and weaknesses of using the structuration theory as an approach to power analysis.     

Integrating community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment in Nigeria

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992 aimed to make the environment a central theme in development in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the extent of engagement with local cultures in the Nigerian EIA process is not statutorily guaranteed. While most EIAs in Nigeria have been for oil and gas projects in the Niger Delta, and have focused strongly on the biophysical environment, socio-economic and cultural aspects have remained marginal. The palpable neglect of community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment (SIA) in this region prone to conflict has tended to alienate the people in the decision-making process. Thus, despite claims to compliance with regulatory requirements for EIAs, and numerous purported sustainable development initiatives by international oil companies (IOCs), the region continues to face multiple sustainability challenges. This paper situates local perceptions and cultural diversity in participatory development and canvasses the integration of community perceptions and cultural diversity into SIA in the Niger Delta region. It is argued that doing this would be critical to ensuring acceptance and success of development actions within the context of local culture while also contributing to sustainable development policy in the region.     

Deciding over nature: Corruption and environmental impact assessments

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are an important analytic tool for identifying and potentially mitigating project risks and negative environmental and societal impacts. Their usefulness, however, depends on how they are implemented and on whether findings are used in public decision-making. Given the notorious vulnerability of public-private interactions to corrupt practices, we examine potential and actual corruption risks across four stages of a generic EIA process. Combined with case analysis of the EIA process in Albania, a Southeastern European context experiencing serious governance challenges, we reflect on the vulnerabilities of EIAs to various forms of corruption from a principal-agent perspective. We concur with earlier research suggesting that the fundamentally rationalist approach behind EIAs do not necessarily match the empirical realities of public environmental decision-making, particularly in less mature EIA systems. We conclude with suggestions for framing a future research agenda in this area and touch on tentative policy remedies.     

Review of present European environmental policies and legislation involving cultural heritage

Cultural heritage is being addressed by a number of charters and conventions and it is clear that its consideration within decision-making processes is progressively becoming a real challenge, both for developers and public authorities. Against this background, this paper reviews the environmental assessment framework developed by the European Community, as this should increasingly influence decision making about cultural heritage in an urban setting. The legislative framework for access to environmental information is also reviewed because of its relevance to the decision-making process.The Directives on Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment both require a consideration of cultural heritage in decision making. This requirement can go some way to addressing the paradox in the European Community's position whereby the community wishes to conserve and enhance its own cultural identity whilst, at the same time, cultural heritage is usually defined at a local level. The present paper suggests that, given their flexibility, the two European Community directives on environmental assessment constitute a promising opportunity to address this seeming paradox, but that there is a significant gap between legal obligations and the methodological tools to meet them.     

A decision-support system for sustainable urban metabolism in Europe

Urban metabolism components define the energy and material exchanges within a city and, therefore, can provide valuable information on the environmental quality of urban areas. Assessing the potential impact of urban planning alternatives on urban metabolism components (such as energy, water, carbon and pollutants fluxes) can provide a quantitative estimation of their sustainability performance. Urban metabolism impact assessment can, therefore, contribute to the identification of sustainable urban structures with regards, for example, to building types, materials and layout, as well as to location and capacity of transportation and infrastructural developments. In this way, it enables the formulation of planning and policy recommendations to promote efficient use of resources and enhance environmental quality in urban areas.The European FP7 project BRIDGE (sustainaBle uRban plannIng Decision support accountinG for urban mEtabolism) has developed a decision-support system (DSS) that systematically integrates urban metabolism components into impact assessment processes with the aim of accurately quantifying the potential effects of proposed planning interventions. The DSS enables integration of multiple spatial and non-spatial datasets (e.g. physical flows of energy and material with variables of social and economic change) in a systematic manner to obtain spatially defined assessment results and to thus inform planners and decision-makers. This multi-criteria approach also enables incorporation of stakeholders' perceptions in order to prioritise decisive assessment criteria. This paper describes the methodological framework used to develop the DSS and critically examines the results of its practical application in five European cities.     

The mediation of environmental assessment's influence: What role for power?

Considerable empirical research has been conducted on why policy tools such as environmental assessment (EA) often appear to have ‘little effect’ (after Weiss) on policy decisions. This article revisits this debate but looks at a mediating factor that has received limited attention to-date in the context of EA — political power. Using a tripartite analytical framework, a comparative analysis of the influence and significance of power in mediating environmental policy integration is undertaken. Power is analysed, albeit partially, through an exploration of institutions that underpin social order. Empirically, the research examines the case of a new approach to policy-level EA (essentially a form of Strategic Environmental Assessment) developed by the World Bank and its trial application to urban environmental governance and planning in Dhaka mega-city, Bangladesh. The research results demonstrate that power was intimately involved in mediating the influence of the policy EA approach, in both positive (enabling) and negative (constraining) ways. It is suggested that the policy EA approach was ultimately a manifestation of a corporate strategy to maintain the powerful position of the World Bank as a leading authority on international development which focuses on knowledge generation. Furthermore, as constitutive of an institution and reflecting the worldviews of its proponents, the development of a new approach to EA also represents a significant power play. This leads us to, firstly, emphasise the concepts of strategy and intentionality in theorising how and why EA tools are employed, succeed and fail; and secondly, reflect on the reasons why power has received such limited attention to-date in EA scholarship.     

Biodiversity and ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment: An evaluation of six Australian cases

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) aims to provide a sound theoretical basis on which to plan for biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES). With the multi-purpose and increasing use of SEA worldwide, it is timely to evaluate the effectiveness of SEA practice in integrating biodiversity and ES considerations. Here, we derive criteria from the International Best Practice Principles on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment to evaluate six Australian SEAs conducted for urban development plans. We use qualitative and quantitative content analysis to examine the endorsed SEA reports. We identify and analyse text references related to the evaluation criteria and use word counting of keywords to supplement and cross-check the validity of our findings. Four significant results emerge from our analysis. First, while goals to achieve no net loss (NNL) or net gain outcomes for biodiversity are mentioned in all case studies, their poor specification may limit their effectiveness. Second, there is limited integration of ES considerations into the SEA reports, limiting the potential advantages that such an approach could provide. Third, offsetting is the most documented type of mitigation measure, potentially signalling a lack of evidence in implementing early steps of the mitigation hierarchy, including avoidance. This could be explained by the low level of integration of biodiversity and ES considerations from the early stages in the planning process, where there is more flexibility to apply such steps. Fourth, biodiversity management systems and follow-up activities lack detailed information to judge whether they will be useful to demonstrate NNL outcomes. Based on these findings, we present recommendations for enhancing the integration of biodiversity and ES considerations in SEAs. Our approach provides a general framework that can be applied to evaluate SEAs elsewhere in the world from a biodiversity and ES conservation perspective.