Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’?

Wood, Graham

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.003

Cited by 78 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some useful approaches were identified in the EAs, including the use of conservative estimates, sensitivity analysis, and precautionary approaches. However, there is a need for improved guidance and reporting standards to assess and address uncertainties in EA practice (Wood 2008), so as to "enhance transparency and improve handling of uncertainties" in EA (Karlson, M€ ortberg, and Balfors 2014, 17). For example, the use of separate sections or tables to disclose uncertainties is helpful and appropriate, but uncertainties also need to be discussed in depth and more explicitly addressed, for each step of the EA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is unclear whether uncertainty was intentionally hidden in the proponent's EIS (see Wood 2008), or whether proponents or practitioners thought it was too difficult or not necessary to disclose uncertainties. It may be, according to Duncan (2008), that proponents simply have a vested interest in making their EISs appear defensible and politically palatable, resulting in practices that systematically seek to minimize uncertainty disclosure.…”

Section: Good and Poor Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Uncertainty disclosure in EA promotes greater consideration and communication of the potential risks associated with a proposed development project, helps ensure the accountability of the proponent and decision makers, and promotes transparency and openness throughout the project evaluation process (Tennøy, Kvaerner, and Gjerstad 2006;Wardekker et al 2008). However, notwithstanding consistent messages about the need for better consideration and disclosure of uncertainties in EA (e.g., De Jongh 1988;Wood, Dipper, and Jones 2000;Tennøy, Kvaerner, and Gjerstad 2006;Wood 2008;Leung et al 2015), how uncertainties are considered and disclosed in EA practice has received little to no attention. There is a need to understand the practice of how uncertainties are considered in EA, and the procedures in place to deal with them, before current uncertainty communication practices may be improved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research has shown that uncertainties in EA often are not given sufficient attention (Wood 2008;Tennøy, Kvaerner, and Gjerstad 2006). Several scholars have thus urged for better consideration of uncertainties in EA since, arguably, the cost of restoring *Corresponding author.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

Lees

Jaeger

Gunn

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying and communicating uncertainty is core to effective environmental assessment (EA). This study evaluates the extent to which uncertainties are considered and addressed in Canadian EA practice. We reviewed the environmental protection plans, follow-up programs, and panel reports (where applicable) of 12 EAs between 1995 and 2012. The types of uncertainties and levels of disclosure varied greatly. When uncertainties were acknowledged, practitioners adopted five different approaches to address them. However, uncertainties were never discussed or addressed in depth. We found a lack of suitable terminology and consistency in how uncertainties are disclosed, reflecting the need for explicit guidance, and we present recommendations for improvement. Canadian Environmental Impact Statements are not as transparent with respect to uncertainties as they should be, and uncertainties in EA need to be better considered and communicated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Good and Poor Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

Lees

Jaeger

Gunn

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However it remains a misunderstood component of the EIA process and a cause of conflict with the meaning of significance varying throughout the various phases of the EIA process (Kjellenup 1999;Lawrence 2007;Wood 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making sense of significance in environmental impact assessment

Jones

Morrison‐Saunders

2016

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact significance determination lies at the heart of environmental impact assessment (EIA) but conflict and misunderstanding around the concept is common. This paper attempts to make sense of impact significance in EIA based on four essential components of significance synthesised from the literature to ensure that: (1) a clear operational framework for significance determination applies throughout EIA, (2) attention focuses only on significant issues, (3) the term significance is specified and applied consistently, and (4) significance determinations are transparent to all EIA stakeholders. To provide a practical perspective, the extent to which EIA institutional provisions in Western Australia uphold these significance determination components is reviewed. Overall the Western Australian approach generally meets all four components, but areas for improvement include: better guidance encouraging proponents to adopt a more consultative approach to determining relevant environmental factors and objectives to better focus EIA, and distinguishing between terms used for significance within EIA documentation. A new significance framework approach in Western Australia represents a clear attempt to uplift practice, but opportunity exists to improve the way impact significance determinations are presented to stakeholders. EIA practitioners may benefit from mapping and making sense of impact significance in their own jurisdiction using the four components presented.

show abstract

References

2013

Impact Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’?

Cited by 78 publications

References 15 publications

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: an empirical study of Canadian EA practice

Making sense of significance in environmental impact assessment

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About