Deciding over nature: Corruption and environmental impact assessments |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark;2. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;3. Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden;4. Forest and Nature Conservation Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands;1. Institute of Biological and Health Sciences, Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil;2. Instituto de Geografia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;3. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK;4. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPÊ), Nazaré Paulista, Brazil;1. Department of Earth & Environment, Franklin & Marshall College, 415 Harrisburg Ave., Lancaster, PA 17603, United States;2. World Bank Group, United States;1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom;2. Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa;3. Ben Cave Associates, United Kingdom;4. Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Australia;5. School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom;6. Impact Assessment and Social Performance, Statoil ASA, Norway;7. School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Canada;8. Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, Netherlands;9. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia;1. Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Australia;2. Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Australia, Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
