Effectiveness in NEPA decision making: in search of evidence and theory

ABSTRACT The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of proposed actions that could impact the human environment, as well as consult the public before determining whether to proceed. Despite many thousands of environmental reviews over a 50-year history, there remains limited understanding of what NEPA has achieved and the factors that contribute to effective environmental review. While NEPA has been the subject of many empirical studies, this scholarship only rarely makes use of theories that would help scholars predict whether and why environmental impact assessment processes are effective. To aid scholars in the ongoing effort to assess NEPA’s effectiveness, we connect the literature on environmental impact assessment with social science concepts and theories that can improve scholars’ ability to explain whether and why environmental impact assessment practices are effective.

[1]  E. Ostrom.  Institutional Rational Choice , 2019, Theories of the Policy Process.

[2]  H. P. Friesema,et al.  Forecasts and environmental decision making. The content and accuracy of environmental impact statements , 2019 .

[3]  D. Cole,et al.  Institutional analysis for new public governance scholars , 2018, Public Management Review.

[4]  Megan Jones,et al.  Understanding the long-term influence of EIA on organisational learning and transformation , 2017 .

[5]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. An integrated Public Participation Index and its application to the case of the New Beijing Airport , 2017 .

[6]  John Ruple,et al.  NEPA and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Statutory Categorical Exclusions: What Are the Environmental Costs of Expedited Oil and Gas Development? , 2016 .

[7]  John Ruple,et al.  NEPA — Substantive Effectiveness Under a Procedural Mandate: Assessment of Oil and Gas EISs in the Mountain West , 2015 .

[8]  Jeffrey R. Kling,et al.  BEHAVIORAL PUBLIC CHOICE: THE BEHAVIORAL PARADOX OF GOVERNMENT POLICY , 2015 .

[9]  C. Falaster.  Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 2014 .

[10]  M. Stern,et al.  Constraints to public influence in US Forest Service NEPA processes , 2014 .

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

[12]  Alan Bond,et al.  Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes , 2013 .

[13]  Tina Nabatchi,et al.  From Galaxies to Universe , 2013 .

[14]  Jos Arts,et al.  Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis , 2013 .

[15]  Lone Kørnøv,et al.  Critical factors for EIA implementation: literature review and research options. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[16]  W. Ziemba,et al.  Growth-optimal investments and numeraire portfolios under transactions costs , 2013 .

[17]  Tony Chang,et al.  A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments , 2013 .

[18]  Hens Runhaar,et al.  Evaluating the substantive effectiveness of SEA: Towards a better understanding , 2013 .

[19]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice , 2013 .

[20]  Vincent Onyango,et al.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EIA AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE: REFLECTING ON 25 YEARS OF EIA PRACTICE IN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE UK , 2012 .

[21]  Tina Nabatchi,et al.  Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values , 2012 .

[22]  Richard K. Morgan.  Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[23]  Jenny Pope,et al.  The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012 , 2012 .

[24]  M. Stern,et al.  Decision making, procedural compliance, and outcomes definition in U.S. forest service planning processes , 2011 .

[25]  Lars Emmelin,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution , 2010 .

[26]  M. Stern,et al.  From the office to the field: areas of tension and consensus in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act within the US Forest Service. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[27]  Amy L. Stein.  Climate Change Under NEPA: Avoiding Cursory Consideration of Greenhouse Gases , 2010 .

[28]  D. Blahna,et al.  Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related USDA Forest Service NEPA processes , 2009 .

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

[30]  A. L. Brown,et al.  SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of strategic environmental assessment by the planners is the key to its effectiveness , 2009 .

[31]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[32]  Hens Runhaar,et al.  What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making , 2007 .

[33]  Kelly A. Tzoumis,et al.  Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004 , 2007 .

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

[35]  Lois J. Schiffer.  The National Environmental Policy Act Today, With an Emphasis on Its Application Across U.S. Borders , 2004 .

[36]  Douglas Baker,et al.  Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for first nations' participation in mining development , 2003 .

[37]  Zhang Li-hua.  The Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment , 2003 .

[38]  Anne Steinemann,et al.  Integrating environmental impact assessment with master planning: lessons from the US Army , 2002 .

[39]  B. Karkkainen.  Toward a Smarter NEPA: Monitoring and Managing Government's Environmental Performance , 2002 .

[40]  Richard T. Green.  The American Review of Public Administration , 2002 .

[41]  C. Coglianese.  Social Movements, Law, and Society: The Institutionalization of the Environmental Movement , 2001 .

[42]  Douglas C. Baker,et al.  Ambitious and restrictive scoping , 2001 .

[43]  Kelly Tzoumis,et al.  Looking at the quality of draft environmental impact statements over time in the United States , 2000 .

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

[45]  H. Rainey,et al.  Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations , 1999 .

[46]  Larry W. Canter,et al.  Documentation of cumulative impacts in environmental impact statements , 1997 .

[47]  Larry W. Canter,et al.  NEPA Effectiveness — A survey of academics , 1997 .

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

[49]  Tânia Margarete Mezzomo Keinert,et al.  Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector , 1993 .

[50]  G. Brady.  Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action , 1993 .

[51]  Clare Ginger,et al.  The role of data in the EIS process: Evidence from the BLM wilderness review , 1993 .

[52]  D. Osborne,et al.  Reinventing government , 1993, Nature.

[53]  D. Osborne,et al.  Reinventing Government: How the En-trepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector , 1992 .

[54]  Lynton K. Caldwell,et al.  ANALYSIS-ASSESSMENT-DECISION: THE ANATOMY OF RATIONAL POLICYMAKING , 1991 .

[55]  R. Hinde,et al.  Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Collective Action , 2010 .

[56]  David P. McCaffrey,et al.  Making Bureaucracies Think: The Environmental Impact Statement Strategy of Administrative Reform. , 1986 .

[57]  S. Fairfax,et al.  Debate within and debate without: NEPA and the redefinition of the prudent man rule , 1979 .

[58]  Graham Allison,et al.  Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 1972 .

[59]  H. Selznick,et al.  The New Statistics , 2014, Psychological science.

[60]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .