The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory

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

“…Impact assessment can be, and traditionally has been, framed in the context of rational decision making whereby better information leads to better decisions (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999;Cashmore, 2004). Inherent in this 'positivist' theory of decision making are the assumptions that: 1) decision makers behave rationally; and 2) IAs practice 'normal' science whereby the level of system understanding is sufficient to associate cause and effect (i.e.…”

“…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). Bartlett and Kurian (1999) detail six separate models explaining the role of environmental impact assessment in decision-making, in which the information processing (rational) model is just one end of the spectrum of influence; other models include the symbolic politics model, the political economy model, the organisational politics model, the pluralist politics model and the institutionalist model.…”

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

“…Similarly, the scientific model underpinning EIA has evolved as a consequence of the dominance of certain philosophies of science amongst individuals who contribute to the literature (Cashmore, 2004). The needs of decision-makers have received minimal attention in the development of process, procedures and methods, and the resultant theory of EIA is unlikely to be particularly efficient or effective at contributing to decision processes.…”

“…Implicit in this statement is an assertion that a comprehensive understanding of the purposes of EIA, and the causal processes that can be utilised to achieve these purposes, are prerequisites to effective practice (Doyle and Sadler, 1996;Cashmore, 2004). It is also important to recognise the inherent limitations of 'state-of-the-art' EIA: it is unrealistic to expect EIA to act as a tool for sustainable development unless its role within this concept has been comprehensively considered and incorporated into its theoretical foundations.…”

Integrating a Triple Bottom-Line Approach into the Management System: A Framework for Institutions and Businesses Alike

“…(Bond and Morrison-Saunders 2011;Bell and Morse 2008) This approach has been criticized for neglecting the relationship between variables that contribute to a well-functioning system. (Cashmore 2004) Alternatively, holism believes that some systems cannot be fully understood by breaking them down to components -a practice that limits understanding of how units interact or will interact as a whole system. (Bond and Morrison-Saunders 2011;Bell and Morse 2008) Further, indicators can be qualitative or quantitative; they result from attributed values of the organization and can also be used to instill new values.…”