Disparate perceptions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure practices in environmental assessment and opportunities for improvement

The need to better address uncertainties in environmental assessment (EA) is well known, but less known is how those involved in, or affected by, EA processes understand and perceive uncertainties and how uncertainties are considered and disclosed. Based on a survey of 77 Canadian EA practitioners, regulators, and interest groups, this paper explores uncertainties in the EA process, uncertainty consideration and disclosure in EA practice and decision-making, and opportunities for improved disclosure. Nearly 80% of participants indicated that all EAs contain uncertainty; however, uncertainty disclosure was described as poor. Only 15% indicated that uncertainties are sufficiently acknowledged in practice and, when disclosed, considered by decision makers. Perceptions about uncertainty differed significantly between those who conducted EAs compared to those potentially affected by development, suggesting that either communication about uncertainty is poor, or participants' understandings about what is considered ‘good’ practice are very different. Almost half of the participants believe that there is overconfidence in impact predictions and mitigation measures, and the majority indicated that if uncertainties were more openly reported then EA would be a better tool for informing decisions. Most participants did not believe that EAs that openly disclose uncertainties lack credibility; and contrary to proponents' tendencies to limit disclosure, participants perceived limited risk of disclosure in terms of project approval. The majority of participants did not believe that there was sufficient guidance available on how to report uncertainties, or on how to use that information in decision-making. Results indicate a substantial need to better understand how uncertainties are viewed and dealt with in EA; the importance of uncertainty disclosure and consideration in EA; and the risks and benefits of uncertainty disclosure to proponents, decision makers, and the public. We identify several opportunities for improving the practice of uncertainty consideration and disclosure.     

Between ‘best’ and ‘good enough’: How consultants guide quality in environmental assessment

Quality enhancement in environmental assessment tends to be connected to control mechanisms and best-practice guidelines. This paper takes an alternative approach examining quality performance through the lenses of consultants' perceptions of appropriate action, primarily in relation to the scoping phase. The study builds on interviews with Swedish consultants. The interviews are analysed by using a recently published theoretical framework focusing on practitioners' spaces for action. The analysis reveals that quality is highly open for interpretation and that consultants have a strong position for guiding quality performance, partly due to the key knowledge they hold. Their action is strongly guided by how the consultants perceive their responsibility; requiring a balance between maintaining good relationships with their clients through ‘good enough’ performance and maintaining a good professional reputation by undertaking what they themselves perceive as a ‘best’ practice. These findings indicate a need to reconsider the research in this field, promoting a shift of focus away from the dominance of quality enhancement measures and engage with issues of consultants' and other practitioners' perceptions of their responsibility in respect of quality performance.     

Understanding EIA scoping in practice: A pragmatist interpretation of effectiveness

Despite widespread recognition of the need to consider IA effectiveness in terms of practice, the literature is dominated by normative approaches that do little to advance understanding of the causal process that lead to particular outcomes. Focusing upon EIA scoping in England, we examine notions of effectiveness directly from the perspective of key practitioner communities. The ‘received view’ of scoping asserts that effectiveness is constrained by a failure to narrow the assessment focus. Using an alternative, pragmatist interpretation (inspired by American philosophical pragmatism) we analyse the understandings and actions of professional practitioner communities. We find that risk management ‘ends-in-view’ shape the interpretation of the purpose of scoping and hence effective practice. Amongst EIA consultants the ends-in-view emphasise managing the risk of project delays, whilst planning officers seek to minimise the risk of legal challenge, and statutory consultees aim to provide advice that is proportionate to potential environmental risks. Practitioner ends-in-view shape the scoping approaches employed and the opportunities for knowledge formulation and ‘learning in action’. Whilst practitioners demonstrate pragmatism in managing uncertainty and there is some awareness of potential power-play, we find that knowledge formation and learning is predominately instrumental and incremental. Instrumental in serving to refine technical details (rather than co-constructed, drawing on multiple rationalities and types of understanding), and incremental in that over time practitioners learn that the most effective way to achieve their ends-in-view is to include impacts — resulting in a broad, precautionary scoping outcome. Finally, we conclude with reflections on future research directions and the implications for practice given forthcoming changes to the regulatory framework.     

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.     

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.     

Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach

Indigenous-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is often hampered not only by legacies of colonialism and inequality but also disagreement on what the ‘CEA governance problem’ is in the first place. In this paper, we draw on critical theories on dialogue and collaboration to present a novel approach to joint problem analysis between Sami reindeer herders and civil servants in Swedish permitting authorities on mining, wind energy and forestry. We discuss process design choices, insights on CEA governance and ways to tackle these barriers in practice. We argue that indigenous-state collaboration may play a constructive role in improving CEA governance, including the recognition of indigenous peoples' rights. However, this requires a process that carves out new spaces for exploring divergent problem definitions and supports the participants in challenging institutionalized inequalities within their positioned realities.     

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.     

Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding

Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is vital in order to know to what extent the tool fulfills its purposes and produces expected results. However, the studies that have evaluated the substantive effectiveness of SEA produce varying outcomes as regards the tool's contribution to decision-making and have used a variety of approaches to appraise its effectiveness. The aim of this article is to discuss the theoretical concept of SEA substantive effectiveness and to present a new approach that can be applied for evaluation studies. The SEA effectiveness evaluation framework that will be presented is composed of concepts of, and approaches to, SEA effectiveness derived from SEA literature and planning theory. Lessons for evaluation can be learned from planning theory in particular, given its long history of analyzing and understanding how sources of information and decisions affect (subsequent) decision-making. Key concepts of this new approach are ‘conformance’ and ‘performance’. In addition, this article presents a systematic overview of process and context factors that can explain SEA effectiveness, derived from SEA literature. To illustrate the practical value of our framework for the assessment and understanding of substantive effectiveness of SEA, three Dutch SEA case studies are examined. The case studies have confirmed the usefulness of the SEA effectiveness assessment framework. The framework proved helpful in order to describe the cumulative influence of the three SEAs on decision-making and the ultimate plan.     

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.     

Determination of significance in Ecological Impact Assessment: Past change,current practice and future improvements

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is an important tool for conservation and achieving sustainable development. ‘Significant’ impacts are those which disturb or alter the environment to a measurable degree. Significance is a crucial part of EcIA, our understanding of the concept in practice is vital if it is to be effective as a tool. This study employed three methods to assess how the determination of significance has changed through time, what current practice is, and what would lead to future improvements. Three data streams were collected: interviews with expert stakeholders, a review of 30 Environmental Statements and a broad-scale survey of the United Kingdom Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) members.The approach taken in the determination of significance has become more standardised and subjectivity has become constrained through a transparent framework. This has largely been driven by a set of guidelines produced by IEEM in 2006. The significance of impacts is now more clearly justified and the accuracy with which it is determined has improved. However, there are limitations to accuracy and effectiveness of the determination of significance. These are the quality of baseline survey data, our scientific understanding of ecological processes and the lack of monitoring and feedback of results. These in turn are restricted by the limited resources available in consultancies. The most notable recommendations for future practice are the implementation of monitoring and the publication of feedback, the creation of a central database for baseline survey data and the streamlining of guidance.     

Governance in Strategic Environmental Assessment: Lessons from the Portuguese practice

The analysis of governance in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) can help understand why, whether and how strategic decision-making happens. Understanding the governance context is strategic to improve the role and capacity of SEA to stimulate, and legitimate decisions that integrate environmental issues and are sustainability driven. The objective of this paper is to discuss why governance is important in SEA. In the SEA literature governance is mostly addressed in silos (i.e. public participation or decisions transparency or accountability) rather than in an integrated way. In addition few authors adopt a strategic view to address the governance context within which SEA is used. In this paper we address the heuristics of governance in SEA based on theoretical and empirical evidence, suggesting how SEA may incorporate the governance dimension. First a review of the SEA literature in relation to governance sets the context to the analysis on how governance is approached in practice, based on 60 Portuguese SEA cases. This is followed by the presentation of an empirical SEA case conducted in Portugal to illustrate what, in our understanding, can be an example of good practice in considering governance in SEA. Final discussion reflects on the role of governance in SEA in promoting engagement, enabling collaborative action, learning processes and dialogues, concluding on the relevance of governance in creating development contexts that can deal with change.     

Linking the UN SDGs and environmental assessment: Towards a conceptual framework

Linking UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Environmental Assessment (EA)—for mutual benefit—is an emerging topic within research and practice. Thus, knowledge and models of how to make the link are rather undiscovered and novel. This article aims to contribute to the understanding of linkages between the SDGs and EA in theory and practice. The output of the article is a framework for determining the level of integration of the SDGs and EA. In the framework, three main forms of integration are distinguished: non-integration, partial integration, and radical integration, and covering six levels of integration. A research agenda is proposed to strengthen the framework and to explore potentials and implications of the integration of the two concepts.     

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.     

Reflecting on mainstreaming through environmental appraisal in times of financial crisis — From ‘greening’ to ‘pricing’?

The issue of mainstreaming has witnessed a revival over the last few years, not least because the latest financial crisis has triggered a renewed enthusiasm and a remarkable comeback amongst policy-making and environmental appraisal (EA) communities. Traditionally, environmental mainstreaming is linked to ideas of (environmental) integration and to the ‘greening’ of public policies. Yet, more recent mainstreaming efforts are building on the idea that the achievement of economic growth and of social well-being is not only dependent upon the protection of the environment, but on the fact that the environment should be valued as a source of goods and a provider of services, as well. In this context and despite the many shortcomings that EA has experienced as a mainstreaming tool over the last two decades, calls for EA to engage with ecosystem services and incorporate pricing valuations in its approach to mainstreaming are emerging, raising questions about the role and purpose of EA as an environmental mainstreaming tool.This paper aims to reflect on the role of EA as a mainstreaming tool, in terms of the extent to which it is mainstreaming the environment into policies for sustainable development and changing ‘the mainstream’ by breaking down the false dichotomy of environment and (economic) development. If mainstreaming through EA was to incorporate both greening and pricing logics, could EA be more effective in reframing the environment and development as correlated variables rather than competing variables?     

The social impacts of dams: A new framework for scholarly analysis

No commonly used framework exists in the scholarly study of the social impacts of dams. This hinders comparisons of analyses and thus the accumulation of knowledge. The aim of this paper is to unify scholarly understanding of dams' social impacts via the analysis and aggregation of the various frameworks currently used in the scholarly literature. For this purpose, we have systematically analyzed and aggregated 27 frameworks employed by academics analyzing dams' social impacts (found in a set of 217 articles). A key finding of the analysis is that currently used frameworks are often not specific to dams and thus omit key impacts associated with them. The result of our analysis and aggregation is a new framework for scholarly analysis (which we call ‘matrix framework’) specifically on dams' social impacts, with space, time and value as its key dimensions as well as infrastructure, community and livelihood as its key components. Building on the scholarly understanding of this topic enables us to conceptualize the inherently complex and multidimensional issues of dams' social impacts in a holistic manner. If commonly employed in academia (and possibly in practice), this framework would enable more transparent assessment and comparison of projects.     

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.     

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.     

Use of sustainability appraisal by English planning inspectors and judges

This article considers how sustainability appraisals (SA — an English form of SEA that also considers social and economic issues) are treated at the end of the plan-making process: by planning inspectors who review plans before they are adopted, and by judges in the case of legal challenge to plans and their SAs. It briefly describes the role of inspectors and judges, and how their decisions influence SA. It presents the conclusions of 81 planning inspectors' reports about local authority development plans and their SAs, including three cases where inspectors required further SA information and reasons given by inspectors for not challenging the legal adequacy of other SAs. The three main successful English legal challenges to SA are then summarised. Planning inspectors seemed prone, until recently, to not challenge even quite poor quality SAs. This seems to be changing in the wake of recent court judgements, and in turn is affecting planners' SA practice. However it is unclear whether these changes will affect only the procedural aspects of SA or also planners' and inspectors' ‘hearts and minds’.     

Integrating SDGs in environmental assessment: Unfolding SDG functions in emerging practices

Debates concerning the relation between Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and environmental assessment (EA) have long suggested their integration in some form. The purpose of this paper is to go beyond conceptual debates to explore practices of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in terms of how they change in response to the Agenda 2030. A thorough web search for EA reports integrating SDGs resulted in 45 cases from five continents, which were then analyzed using a framework on levels of integration to examine and reflect on practice. The results show that in the majority of reports, SDGs are merely mentioned with no further function, that there is a trend towards focusing on positive impacts and that there is a high variation in how contributions to SDGs are assessed and displayed. The paper concludes by identifying key directions for further research, such as ways to further understand practices and to close the gap between theoretical considerations and EA practice.