How do we make sense of significance? Indications and reflections on an experiment

Abstract

Determination of significance is widely recognised as an important step in environmental assessment (EA) processes. The prescriptive literature and guidance on significance determination is comprehensive within the field of EA, whereas descriptive and explorative studies of how we go about making sense, or construct meaning, of actions to determine significance are few. This article makes use of sense-making theory to explore how sense-making among EA researchers and practitioners influences significance determination. Focus is on the situation when persons have their first look at information about a strategic choice and as part of this make their initial judgement of significance. An experiment is designed and conducted to investigate how persons make sense of a specific case and determine significance in a screening and scoping context. The experiment indicates patterns in the test persons' sense-making, including important differences in the way individuals screen and scope. These patterns concern what we notice, how fast we frame the choice, and when we are critical about the provided information. The indications provide a basis for reflections on practice and on how to organise EA processes.

The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations

“…The steps described above for reaching significance determinations using the significance spectrum are systematic, clear and consistent with the goals of EIA. The significance spectrum appears to provide some of the additional clarity that Beanlands and Duinker (1983), Sippe (1999), Wood and Becker (2004), Lawrence (2005) and Lyhne and Kornov (2013) have found wanting. The steps provide a reasonable method to use subjective informed judgement to explicitly apply societal values to significance determinations, allowing for a systematic integration of values, as authors like Sippe (1999), Sadar (1996), Sadler (1996), Weston (2000), Gibson et al (2005) and Rowan (2012) have recognized as essential.…”

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

“…Screening and scoping both require judgements to be made on significance, and impact evaluation focusses on significance in context (of the sensitivity of the receiving environment). Thus it is a central concept in EA (Lyhne and Kørnøv, 2013). Significance methodology has been examined over the years (e.g., Thompson, 1990;Wood et al, 2007;Wood, 2008) but no consensus exists given the ambiguous nature of the term.…”

Theorising EIA effectiveness: A contribution based on the Danish system

“…These data on perceptions may not fully correspond to the actual effectiveness of EIA because memories are cognitively filtered and personal beliefs and experiences among the respondents may affect their responses to the survey questions (Lyhne and Kørnøv, 2013). As an example, the study by Arts et al (2012) showed that more experienced stakeholders are more positive about the quality of EIA reports than other respondents.…”