The mediation of environmental assessment's influence: What role for power?

Cashmore, Matthew Asa; Axelsson, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.008

Cited by 44 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Bartlett and Kurian (1999) have since questioned the validity of the 'information provision' (rational) model of policy making with respect to EIA, and suggested five other models which, if valid, call into question the consistency and fairness of decisions made subsequent to EIA. To provide some examples, Cashmore and Axelsson (2013) find that power is a strong mediating influence over the effect of impact assessment through analysis of World Bank Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Dhaka city. They conclude that such mediation can both enable and constrain the effect (i.e.…”

Section: Consistency and Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact assessment: Eroding benefits through streamlining?

Bond

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2014

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Consistency and Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact assessment: Eroding benefits through streamlining?

Bond

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2014

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theory is that through the application of instrumental rationality 'knowledge speaks to power' (Pope et al, 2013). But Cashmore and Axelsson (2013) argue that knowledge does not necessarily speak to power as power can control the knowledge made available to decision makers (Cashmore et al, 2008) Owens et al (2004, p.1947) argue that the contested decision-making (e.g. where the definition of sustainable development is contested, or the outcomes inequitable) creates decision legitimacy problems: "this brings us to another failure of the technical-rational model: appraisal based on contested judgments or frames loses legitimacy and becomes practically inadequate for delivering reasonably consensual policy outputs".…”

Section: Linking Rationality and Legitimacy Of Ea With Game Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Bond

Pope

Morrison‐Saunders

et al. 2016

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decision maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver 'least worst' outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such 'least worst' decisions in practice. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made.

show abstract

“…(Williams et Dupuy, 2017). Ceci peut ensuite être déterminant sur le contenu et l'efficacité de l'étude d'impact (Cashmore et Axelsson, 2013 ;Cashmore et Richardson, 2013 ;Runhaar et al, 2013).…”

Section: Accompagner Quoi Et Pour Quoi ?unclassified