Eia Within Democratic Politics: Contradiction in Terms or Emerging Paradigm?

Boggs, James

doi:10.1080/07349165.1991.9725714

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proponents of this line of analysis argue that public participation should give voice to social groups with environmental interests and values (Caldwell, 1991;Caldwell, 1998;Yap, 1990;Boggs, 1991). Open debate should provide an opportunity for transformative learning for all parties engaged in the assessment process (Webler et al, 1995;Sinclair and Diduck, 2001;Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 2003).…”

Section: Explanations Of Ea Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions

Devlin¹,

Yap²

2008

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental assessment (EA) is now institutionalized in over 100 countries but is widely criticized by practitioners and analysts for failing to convince decision-makers. Environmental sustainability is still not placed high on the list of criteria influencing project and programme approvals. This paper suggests that the failure of EA reflects the politically contested domain of EA. A framework for the analysis of public participation in EA based on the study of contentious politics is introduced. Public participation is a crucially important condition for influencing decision makers to pursue sustainability objectives, but the effectiveness of public participation is conditional upon characteristics of the coalitions created by diverse stakeholders. The importance of coalitions between local stakeholders and intellectuals is highlighted and exemplified through four cases in the Philippines, Brazil, South Africa and Taiwan where public participation in EA processes is associated with the blockage of large-scale development projects.

show abstract

Section: Explanations Of Ea Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions

Devlin¹,

Yap²

2008

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By addressing impacts separately, there is no obvious or statutory way to bring them together under the concept of “sustainable and balanced ecosystems” (Boggs, 1991, p. 5, see also Lawrence, 2000, p. 613). An ecosystem emphasizes inextricable links between the natural and human environments, as well as among the components of the natural environment, for example, how pollution runoff affects fish populations.…”

Section: How the Text Addresses Rhetorical Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dayton also suggests that we look at discussions “within and between discourse communities in law, policy studies, public administration, environmental studies, and interdisciplinary studies, most notably the growing international community of impact-assessment professionals” (p. 357). The latter, which have informed my study, focus less often on language and structure, and more on social and political contexts, such as the role of citizen participation and potential for democratic decision-making in the process (Boggs, 1991; Glucker, Driessen, Kolhoff, & Runhaar, 2013; Jay, Jones, Slinn, & Wood, 2007). Other impact-assessment studies address current concerns of environmental and ecological theory and practice, an “ecosystems approach.” Morgan in 2012 discusses cumulative impacts that go beyond the narrow time window defined by an EIS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Impact Communication: Cape Wind EIS, 2001–2015

Ross

2017

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Cape Wind” is a proposed wind-energy project off the Massachusetts coast. Its environmental effects are detailed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Writers of an EIS must address rhetorical challenges posed by the complexity of how the “environment” is characterized by many statutes and regulations. These requirements include guidance on the document’s style, and because the text is hundreds of pages long, they also include rules on its arrangement (its genre), and its online delivery. Partly as a result, the writer’s stance is that of an impersonal, corporate author. The EIS is required to address multiple audiences that include decision makers and elected officials; public participation in the process is encouraged. Evidence about the actual audience shows that the public finds out about the project through media reports, web sites, and press releases, rather than studying the EIS. Finally, sustained opposition by a fossil-fuel lobbying group has led to the project’s apparent demise.

show abstract

“…Australia now has considerable experience in resource and environmental assessment. Both resource and environmental assessment processes have proven to be the forum for much of the debate and conflict over decisions about the allocation and use of natural resources (Boggs, 1991). The literature on resource assessment in Australia is a diffuse one.…”

Section: Resource Assessment: Lessons From Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other critics, in a related argument, suggest that the posturing of advocates of 'scientific', 'rational' assessment and planning promote undemocratic processes. According to this argument, questions about resource use and management are left to a technocratic elite (Boggs, 1991). Others argue that an over-reliance on scientific rationality can hide the value-based dimensions of environmental conflict and, in so doing, discourage members of the public from participating (Ozawa, 1991, 72).…”

Section: Resource Assessment: Lessons From Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Regional Forest Agreements: Resolving Resource Conflicts or Managing Resource Politics?

Lane

1999

Australian Geographical Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) are the latest institutional response to conflict over the allocation, use and management of forests in Australia. RFAs involve a process of resource assessment leading to a long‐term agreement between federal and state governments. This paper examines the approach to assessment being used in RFAs with reference to the literature on the practice of resource and environmental assessment and the changing shape of intergovernmental relations in Australia. It concludes that RFAs have not succeeded in resolving conflict over forestry, as was intended, but have successfully managed forest politics, both between governments and in the broader policy community.

show abstract

Eia Within Democratic Politics: Contradiction in Terms or Emerging Paradigm?

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions

Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions

Environmental Impact Communication: Cape Wind EIS, 2001–2015

Regional Forest Agreements: Resolving Resource Conflicts or Managing Resource Politics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About