An experiential approach to improving the integration of knowledge during EIA in transport planning

The integration of knowledge from stakeholders and the public at large is seen as one of the biggest process-related barriers during the scoping phase of EIA application in transport planning. While the academic literature offers abundant analyses, discussions and suggestions how to overcome this problem, the proposed solutions are yet to be adequately tested in practice. In order to address this gap, we test the effectiveness of a set of interventions and trigger mechanisms for improving different aspects of knowledge integration. The interventions are tested in an experiential study with two sequential cases, representing “close-to-real-life” conditions, in the context of two cities in Andalusia, Spain. In general terms, the participants perceived that the integration of knowledge improved during the simulation of the EIA scoping phase. Certain shortcomings were also discussed, fundamentally related to how the time spent during the scoping phase was crucial to lead an effective learning process between the involved people. The study concludes with a reflection on the effectiveness of the tested interventions according to similarities and differences obtained from the two experiential case studies, as well as with a discussion of the potential to generate new knowledge through the use of experiential studies in EIA practice.

[1]  Paul Pfaffenbichler.  Modelling with Systems Dynamics as a Method to Bridge the Gap between Politics, Planning and Science? Lessons Learnt from the Development of the Land Use and Transport Model MARS , 2011 .

[2]  LUIS A. BOJÓRQUEZ-TAPIA,et al.  Integrating Fuzzy Logic, Optimization, and GIS for Ecological Impact Assessments , 2002, Environmental management.

[3]  Julio A. Soria-Lara,et al.  Environmental impact assessment in urban transport planning: Exploring process-related barriers in Spanish practice , 2015 .

[4]  R Ramanathan,et al.  A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. , 2001, Journal of environmental management.

[5]  Julio Alberto Soria Lara.  Modelo de umbrales para la evaluación ambiental de la movilidad urbana , 2012 .

[6]  David P. Lawrence.  Impact significance determination—Designing an approach , 2007 .

[7]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics , 2005 .

[8]  Tim Richardson,et al.  Parallel public participation: An answer to inertia in decision-making , 1998 .

[9]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners , 2008 .

[10]  L. Bertolini,et al.  An assessment of interventions for improving communication and trust in cost benefit analysis processes , 2015 .

[11]  Incorporating social groups' responses in a descriptive model for second- and higher-order impact identification , 2010 .

[12]  J. Aken.  Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules , 2004 .

[13]  Alan J. Kennedy,et al.  An approach to integrate impact scoping with environmental impact assessment , 1992 .

[14]  Graham Wood,et al.  Fuzzy Sets and Simulated Environmental Change: Evaluating and Communicating Impact Significance in Environmental Impact Assessment , 2007 .

[15]  C. O’faircheallaigh.  Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making , 2010 .

[16]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning , 2010 .

[17]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  COST Action TU1002 - Assessing usability of accessibility instruments , 2014 .

[18]  D. Tranfield,et al.  Developing Design Propositions through Research Synthesis , 2008 .

[19]  Heli Saarikoski,et al.  Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process , 2000 .

[20]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Performance of Planning Support Systems: What is it, and how do we report on it? , 2013, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

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

[22]  Gary Higgs,et al.  Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and challenges , 2008 .

[23]  Ta-Kang Liu,et al.  Environmental impact assessment of seawater desalination plant under the framework of integrated coastal management , 2013 .

[24]  N Voulvoulis,et al.  The Appropriateness of Multicriteria Analysis in Environmental Decision-Making Problems , 2005, Environmental technology.

[25]  Rien Kolkman,et al.  Controversies in water management: Frames and mental models , 2005 .

[26]  Julio A. Soria-Lara,et al.  Towards a more effective EIA in transport planning: a literature review to derive interventions and mechanisms to improve knowledge integration , 2017 .

[27]  P. Driessen,et al.  Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? , 2013 .

[28]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Transport Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden: Public Involvement or Exclusion? , 2000 .

[29]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Urban Transportation Planning in Transition , 2008 .

[30]  T. Fischer.  Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times , 2003 .

[31]  Carey Curtis.  Integrating Land Use with Public Transport: The Use of a Discursive Accessibility Tool to Inform Metropolitan Spatial Planning in Perth , 2011 .

[32]  Norman Lee,et al.  Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in Integrated Assessment , 2006 .

[33]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Using cost benefit analysis as a learning process: identifying interventions for improving communication and trust , 2014 .

[34]  R. Willson.  Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm , 2001 .

[35]  L. Bertolini,et al.  Towards market-conscious planning in Amsterdam: A portfolio approach , 2006 .