Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems

Abstract

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is a sub-discipline of environmental impact assessment that is concerned with appraising the collective effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment. Aspirations for CEA have been expressed by many authors since 1969, when the foundation of environmental appraisal was laid by the US National Environmental Policy Act. This paper's purposes are (i) to review aspirations for CEA, relative to current practice; and (ii) to fully explain and critique the logic that connects CEA's operational steps and underlying philosophies. A literature review supports the following statements: Some conceptualizations emphasize the delivery of information to support decision making as the key purpose of CEA; others deem collaboration, debate, and learning as most important. Consensus on CEA's operational steps has been reached, but each step requires practitioners to make analytical decisions (e.g., about the scope of issues to include or the time horizon to consider) and objective rules for how to approach those decisions are lacking. Numerical methods for assessing cumulative effects are largely available, meaning that CEA's biggest problems are not scientific. CEA cannot succeed without substantive public engagement, monitoring, and adaptive management. CEA is best undertaken regionally, rather than project-byproject. CEA and planning are complementary, and should be merged. In its most enlightened form, CEA is a useful tool for ensuring that human undertakings ultimately conform to Earth's finite biosphere, but current practice falls short of the ideal, and CEA's logical derivation is not entirely sound. As regards CEA's big problems, sustainability has not been defined clearly enough to make criteria for judging the significance of cumulative effects indisputable; legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks are poorly aligned for CEA; and objective criteria for judging the adequacy of CEA's scope, scale, and thresholds do not exist, which makes the question of how to provide general guidance to practitioners intractable. Recommendations call for sustainability goals to be clearly expressed as measurable targets. Furthermore, precaution in human enterprise should be exercised by avoiding, minimizing, restoring, and offsetting negative cumulative effects. CEA can assist by quantifying and optimizing trade-offs.Key words: environmental impact assessment, planning, environmental management, sustainability, conceptual model, precautionary principle.Résumé : L'évaluation des effets cumulatifs (EEC) est une sous-discipline de l'évaluation de l'impact sur l'environnement qui porte sur l'évaluation des effets collectifs des activités humaines et des processus naturels sur l'environnement. De nombreux auteurs ont exprimé leurs aspirations quant à l'EEC depuis 1969, le moment où les fondements de l'évaluation environnementale ont été jetés par le « National Environmental Policy Act » aux États-Unis. Les buts de cette étude sont (i) d'examiner les aspirations quant à...

Population‐level consequences of seismic surveys on fishes: An interdisciplinary challenge

“…Upscaling from population to community level occurs through disturbing effects on predator‐prey interactions (Shafiei Sabet et al., ) and other inter‐specific effects such as competitive release (Hubert et al., ; Slabbekoorn & Halfwerk, ) or through noise‐induced habitat alterations (Solan et al., ). Habitat‐related stressors and cumulative effects from other factors than sound pollution are the link between communities and ecosystems (Carroll et al., ; Hawkins et al., ; Jones, ) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]…”

Water Quality Monitoring to Support Cumulative Effects Assessment and Decision Making in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories, Canada

“…Supporting CE assessment for freshwater systems requires a level of coordination, collaboration, and science that is well beyond that observed in current practice (Jones 2016;Cronmiller and Noble 2018). Supporting CE assessment for freshwater systems requires a level of coordination, collaboration, and science that is well beyond that observed in current practice (Jones 2016;Cronmiller and Noble 2018).…”

“…Cronmiller and Noble (2018) report that monitoring programs are often less effective than intended for addressing CEs: They do not accommodate the longer term, science-based needs to understand CE pathways (Lindenmayer and Likens 2010;Schindler 2013); they are often led by different actors, each with different objectives (Lott and Jones 2010); the data generated are often incompatible across monitoring efforts (Vörösmarty et al 2010;Dubé and Wilson 2013); and what is monitored and the questions asked do not always align with the needs of those responsible for land use planning and regulatory approvals (Hegmann and Yarranton 2011;GNWT 2015;Jones 2016). Cronmiller and Noble (2018) report that monitoring programs are often less effective than intended for addressing CEs: They do not accommodate the longer term, science-based needs to understand CE pathways (Lindenmayer and Likens 2010;Schindler 2013); they are often led by different actors, each with different objectives (Lott and Jones 2010); the data generated are often incompatible across monitoring efforts (Vörösmarty et al 2010;Dubé and Wilson 2013); and what is monitored and the questions asked do not always align with the needs of those responsible for land use planning and regulatory approvals (Hegmann and Yarranton 2011;GNWT 2015;Jones 2016).…”

Open data and the future of conservation biology

“…Systematic evaluations of cumulative impacts at coarse scales might limit the ability to present the real environmental conditions and the potential problems at finer scales (Guarnieri et al 2016). Regional specificities, idiosyncratic, behavioural, biological and evolutionary attributes of different biotic components could lead to discrepancies between the expected impacts (Jones 2016). Additionally, various types of uncertainty could accompany any such assessment (Regan et al 2002).…”