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

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 emphasising 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 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.

[1]  W. Thissen,et al.  Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment , 2000 .

[2]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science , 1994 .

[3]  C. Chung,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty factors in biodiversity impact assessment: lessons from a case study , 2003 .

[4]  William R. Sheate,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICY LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: CHALLENGES AND LESSONS FROM RECENT PRACTICE , 2011 .

[5]  Roel Slootweg,et al.  Resilience thinking improves SEA: a discussion paper , 2011 .

[6]  Matthew Asa Cashmore,et al.  The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory , 2004 .

[7]  Martina Zeleňáková,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment—State of the Art , 2017 .

[8]  Tuija Hilding-Rydevik,et al.  Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation , 2007 .

[9]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda , 2013 .

[10]  Ben Dipper,et al.  Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental impact assessment: a review , 1998 .

[11]  Stuart N. Lane,et al.  Coproducing Flood Risk Knowledge: Redistributing Expertise in Critical ‘Participatory Modelling’ , 2011 .

[12]  T E McKone,et al.  Predicting long-range transport: a systematic evaluation of two multimedia transport models. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  Karl I. Gjerstad,et al.  Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency , 2006 .

[14]  Robert V. Bartlett,et al.  The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making , 1999 .

[15]  Arwin van Buuren,et al.  Evaluating strategic environmental assessment in The Netherlands: content, process and procedure as indissoluble criteria for effectiveness , 2009 .

[16]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[17]  Ahjond S Garmestani,et al.  Embracing Panarchy, Building Resilience and Integrating Adaptive Management Through a Rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[18]  J. R. Ravets,et al.  Post-Normal Science , 2006 .

[19]  Kim Putters,et al.  Exploring the relation between evidence and decision-making A political-administrative approach to health impact assessment , 2004 .

[20]  E. Leknes,et al.  The roles of EIA in the decision-making process , 2001 .

[21]  Nuno Videira,et al.  Participatory Modelling in Environmental Decision-Making: The Ria Formosa Natural Park Case Study , 2003 .

[22]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Sustainability assessment : pluralism, practice and progress , 2012 .

[23]  Peter Guthrie,et al.  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT: WHY ARE THEY NEEDED AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? , 2006 .

[24]  Frans Hermans,et al.  A PRINCIPLE-BASED APPROACH FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT , 2006 .

[25]  Ning Lee,et al.  Strategic environmental assessment: an overview , 1992 .

[26]  L. Canter,et al.  Adaptive management with integrated decision making: an emerging tool for cumulative effects management , 2010 .

[27]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment , 2013 .

[28]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science , 1994 .

[29]  Alan Bond Let's not be rational about this: response to Benson , 2003 .

[30]  Alan Bond,et al.  Introduction: The effectiveness of impact assessment instruments , 2009 .

[31]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Re-evaluating sustainability assessment: Aligning the vision and the practice , 2011 .

[32]  Julian Scott Yeomans,et al.  Methods for addressing climate change uncertainties in project environmental impact assessments , 2007 .

[33]  D. Davidson The Applicability of the Concept of Resilience to Social Systems: Some Sources of Optimism and Nagging Doubts , 2010 .

[34]  David P. Lawrence,et al.  The need for EIA theory-building , 1997 .

[35]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Resilience and adaptive cycles , 2002 .

[36]  Ronlyn Duncan,et al.  Opening new institutional spaces for grappling with uncertainty: a constructivist perspective , 2013 .

[37]  C. S. Holling Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems , 1973 .

[38]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Deliberative mapping: a novel analytic-deliberative methodology to support contested science-policy decisions , 2007 .

[39]  A simple urban dispersion model tested with tracer data from Oklahoma City and Manhattan , 2009 .

[40]  David P. Lawrence,et al.  Planning theories and environmental impact assessment , 2000 .

[41]  Alan Bond,et al.  The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory , 2004 .

[42]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , 2002 .

[43]  O. Bina,et al.  Theorising strategic environmental assessment: fresh perspectives and future challenges , 2007 .

[44]  Jill A.E. Gunn,et al.  A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment , 2015 .

[45]  Jon Norberg,et al.  Resilience Management in Social-ecological Systems: a Working Hypothesis for a Participatory Approach , 2002 .

[46]  Bo Elling,et al.  Rationality and effectiveness: does EIA/SEA treat them as synonyms? , 2009 .

[47]  Peter Mooney,et al.  WORKSHOP APPROACH TO DEVELOPING OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND INDICATORS FOR USE IN SEA , 2006 .

[48]  S. Lane,et al.  Doing flood risk science differently: an experiment in radical scientific method , 2011 .

[49]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Towards sustainability assessment follow-up , 2014 .

[50]  Lone Kørnøv,et al.  Avoiding climate change uncertainties in Strategic Environmental Assessment , 2013 .

[51]  J. Weston EIA THEORIES — ALL CHINESE WHISPERS AND NO CRITICAL THEORY , 2010 .

[52]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  EMERGENT COMPLEX SYSTEMS , 1994 .

[53]  Andrew Stirling,et al.  Keep it complex , 2010, Nature.

[54]  Simo Sarkki,et al.  Integrating ecosystem services into environmental impact assessment: An analytic–deliberative approach , 2013 .

[55]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Post-Normal Science in Practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency , 2011, Science, technology & human values.

[56]  Alan Bond,et al.  Learning How to Deal with Values, Frames and Governance in Sustainability Appraisal , 2011 .

[57]  J. Childress A Principle‐based Approach , 2010 .

[58]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[59]  Wangfeng Li,et al.  Application of an uncertainty analysis approach to strategic environmental assessment for urban planning. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[60]  O. Bina,et al.  New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice, and Research , 2004 .

[61]  B. Turner The Organizational and Interorganizational Development of Disasters , 1976 .

[62]  Riki Therivel,et al.  Sustainability-focused impact assessment: English experiences , 2009 .

[63]  Carys Jones,et al.  The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions , 1997 .