Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in Integrated Assessment

There is growing support for the use of integrated assessments (IAs)/sustainability impact assessments (SIAs), at different government levels and geographic scales of policy-making and planning, both nationally and internationally. However, delivering good quality IAs/SIAs, in the near future, could be challenging. This paper mainly focuses upon one area of concern, differences between research and other technical contributions intended to strengthen assessment methodologies and the types of assessment methods considered usable by practitioners. To help in addressing this concern, the development of a common assessment framework is proposed, which is based on a shared, practitioner-researcher-stakeholder understanding of what constitutes a satisfactory integrated/sustainability impact assessment. The paper outlines a possible structure for this framework, which contains three interconnected elements - the planning context in which the assessment is to be carried out; the process by which the assessment is to be undertaken and its findings used; and the methods, technical and consultative, by which impacts are to be assessed. It concludes with suggested "next steps", addressed to researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders, by which the assessment framework might be tested and improved, and its subsequent use supported.

[1]  Clive George,et al.  Assessing global impacts at sector and project levels , 1997 .

[2]  J. Rotmans Methods for IA: The challenges and opportunities ahead , 1998 .

[3]  Eric Johnson Environmental Assessment Yearbook 2001 , 2002 .

[4]  Norman C Dalkey,et al.  Games and Simulations , 1964, Working Wonders.

[5]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis , 1997 .

[6]  Norman Lee,et al.  METHODOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS OF PROPOSALS FOR NEW TRADE AGREEMENTS , 2001 .

[7]  Patsy Healey,et al.  City region 2020: integrated planning for a sustainable environment , 2001 .

[8]  W. Parsons,et al.  Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis , 1996 .

[9]  Joe Ravetz,et al.  Integrated assessment models - from global to local , 1998 .

[10]  Norman Lee,et al.  Integrated Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development: A Case Study Approach , 2001 .

[11]  Joe Ravetz,et al.  City-Region 2020: integrated planning for a sustainable environment (with forward by Secretary of State for the Environment) , 2000 .

[12]  Ferenc L. Toth,et al.  Integrated environmental assessment methods: Evolution and applications , 1998 .

[13]  Morris Hill,et al.  A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans , 1968 .

[14]  C. S. Holling Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management , 2005 .

[15]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment , 1998 .

[16]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change. Volume 3: The tools for policy analysis , 1997 .

[17]  Ernst ten Heuvelhof,et al.  Policy analysis and decision making in a network: how to improve the quality of analysis and the impact on decision making , 2002 .

[18]  Nathaniel Lichfield,et al.  Community impact evaluation , 1994 .

[19]  Nuclear Safety A handbook on environmental assessment of regional development plans and EU structural funds programmes : final report , 1999 .

[20]  Carys Jones,et al.  Report from the Commission of the European Communities of the Implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment , 1993 .

[21]  Holger Dalkmann,et al.  Analysing strategic environmental assessment : towards better decision-making , 2004 .

[22]  L. Winters,et al.  Trade Liberalization and Poverty: A Handbook , 2002 .

[23]  Norman Lee,et al.  A Pilot Study of the Quality of European Commission Extended Impact Assessment , 2004 .