The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory

Cashmore, Matthew Asa; Gwilliam, Richard; Morgan, Richard; Cobb, Dick; Bond, Alan

doi:10.3152/147154604781765860

Cited by 243 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Early impact assessment research and literature focused necessarily but almost exclusively on ongoing issues with basic procedural steps (Retief 2010, Cashmore et al, 2004. This was at least partly attributed to judicial interpretations of NEPA focusing on procedural rather than substantive aspects (Ortolano and Shepherd, 1995).…”

Section: Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

Pope

Bond

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Self Cite

215

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact assessment has been in place for over 40 years and is now practised in some form in all but two of the world's nations. In this paper we reflect on the state of the art of impact assessment theory and practice, focusing on six well-established forms: EIA, SEA, policy assessment, SIA, HIA and sustainability assessment. We note that although the fundamentals of impact assessment have their roots in the US National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA) each branch of the field is distinct in also drawing on other theoretical and conceptual bases that in turn shape the prevailing discourse in each case, generating increasing degrees of specialisation within each sub-field. Against this backdrop, we consider the strengths and weaknesses of collective impact assessment practice, concluding that although there are substantial strengths, the plethora of specialist branches is generating a somewhat confusing picture and lack of clarity regarding how the pieces of the impact assessment jigsaw puzzle fit together. We use this 2 review to suggest an overarching research agenda that will enable impact assessment to evolve in line with changing expectations for what it should deliver.

show abstract

Section: Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

Pope

Bond

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Self Cite

215

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of EA evaluation studies have overwhelmingly focused on procedural effectiveness (Cashmore et al, 2004). When the procedural effectiveness of SEA is assessed, one evaluates whether the SEA is undertaken in line with established procedures and criteria (Cashmore et al, 2004;Sadler, 1996). Yet, while the evaluation of procedural effectiveness can provide insights into the quality of the SEA report and process, it does not contribute to an understanding of the influence of the tool, and accordingly its success in contributing to environmentally friendly planning and decisions remains elusive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding

Doren

Driessen

Schijf

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oEvaluating the substantive effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is vital in order to know to what extent the tool fulfills its purposes and produces expected results. However, the studies that have evaluated the substantive effectiveness of SEA produce varying outcomes as regards the tool's contribution to decision-making and have used a variety of approaches to appraise its effectiveness. The aim of this article is to discuss the theoretical concept of SEA substantive effectiveness and to present a new approach that can be applied for evaluation studies. The SEA effectiveness evaluation framework that will be presented is composed of concepts of, and approaches to, SEA effectiveness derived from SEA literature and planning theory. Lessons for evaluation can be learned from planning theory in particular, given its long history of analyzing and understanding how sources of information and decisions affect (subsequent) decision-making. Key concepts of this new approach are 'conformance' and 'performance'. In addition, this article presents a systematic overview of process and context factors that can explain SEA effectiveness, derived from SEA literature. To illustrate the practical value of our framework for the assessment and understanding of substantive effectiveness of SEA, three Dutch SEA case studies are examined. The case studies have confirmed the usefulness of the SEA effectiveness assessment framework. The framework proved helpful in order to describe the cumulative influence of the three SEAs on decision-making and the ultimate plan.

show abstract

“…uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance are assumed to be limited or non-existent). Taking the first of these assumptions, the evidence that objective information is transferred via IA into policy is somewhat limited (Wood and Jones, 1997;Cashmore et al, 2004;Cashmore et al, 2009;Elling, 2009;Van Buuren and Nooteboom, 2009;Eales and Sheate, 2011). More and more authors argue that decision-making is not rational and that IA, for example, has considerably more roles than simply information provision (see, for example, Lawrence, 2000;Leknes, 2001;Bond, 2003;Bekker et al, 2004;Cashmore, 2004;Owens et al, 2004).…”

Section: Impact Assessment Theory and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

Bond

Morrison‐Saunders

Gunn

et al. 2015

Journal of Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of continuing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment (IA) prediction, the case is made that existing IA processes are based on false 'normal' assumptions that science can solve problems and transfer knowledge into policy. Instead, a 'post-normal science' approach is needed that acknowledges the limits of current levels of scientific understanding. We argue that this can be achieved through embedding evolutionary resilience into IA; using participatory workshops; and emphasizing adaptive management. The goal is an IA process capable of informing policy choices in the face of uncertain influences acting on socio-ecological systems. We propose a specific set of process steps to operationalise this post-normal science approach which draws on work undertaken by the Resilience Alliance. This process differs significantly from current models of IA, as it has a far greater focus on avoidance of, or adaptation to (through incorporating adaptive management subsequent to decisions), unwanted future scenarios rather than a focus on the identification of the implications of a single preferred vision. Implementing such a process * corresponding author 2 would represent a culture change in IA practice as a lack of knowledge is assumed and explicit, and forms the basis of future planning activity, rather than being ignored.

show abstract

The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory

Cited by 243 publications

References 53 publications

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About