首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis
Institution:1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom;2. School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom;3. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, Lincoln, United Kingdom;4. Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa;1. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, PO Box 2345; 3500 GH, Utrecht, The Netherlands;2. Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;3. Environmental Governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;4. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands;1. School of Geography, University College Dublin, Ireland;2. Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, United Kingdom
Abstract: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.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号