A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Geography and Planning, University of Saskatchewan, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5, Canada;2. Department of Geography and Planning, School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5, Canada;3. Department of Geography and Planning, University of Saskatchewan, 117 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5, Canada;4. Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve W., Suite 1255, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada;5. Loyola Sustainability Research Centre, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke W., AD-502, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6, Canada;1. The China-ASEAN Research Institute, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi 530004, China;2. The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9220, Denmark;1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom;2. Integral Sustainability, Australia;3. Murdoch University, Australia;4. Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa;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 Geography and Environmental Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa;2. Stellenbosch University Water Institute, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa;3. Centre for Ecosystem Management, School of Science, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Dr, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia;4. Integral Sustainability, PO Box 79, South Fremantle, WA 6162, Australia;5. Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa;6. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK;2. School of Geo and Spatial Sciences, North-West University, South Africa;3. Integral Sustainability, Australia;4. Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Australia;5. Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Australia;6. Department of Geography and Planning and School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Saskatchewan, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
