Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was originally tailored for restructuring rules and values regarding environmental protection, through interdisciplinary work. EIA has developed as a tool for decision-making for the implementation of projects which potentially pose significant environmental impacts. This paper reviews the sustainability and interdisciplinarity assumptions inherent in EIA. It illustrates through a case study of a proposed landfill extension in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, that these principles can arise more from informal knowledge processes than from legal ones. It can be shown that interdisciplinarity is often misunderstood as multidisciplinarity or simple knowledge clustering, and sustainability has no common definition amongst EIA practitioners, but that there predominates an understanding which delivers weak sustainability, driven primarily by social and economic goals. The conclusion is that EIA cannot achieve the original vision set out in the world's first legislation adopted in 1970 unless a learning-organization approach is taken whereby: the critical role of informal knowledge is recognized; informal knowledge is properly managed by EIA teams to engender a common understanding of sustainable development goals; interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary working practices are adopted.

[1]  E. Wilson,et al.  Strategic Environmental Assessment , 1992 .

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

[3]  D. P. Lawrence,et al.  PROFILE: Integrating Sustainability and Environmental Impact Assessment , 1997, Environmental management.

[4]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory , 2006 .

[5]  Gerard P.J. Dijkema,et al.  Eia’s contribution to environmental decision-making on large chemical plants , 1998 .

[6]  Matthew Asa Cashmore,et al.  DECISION-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ITS THEORY AND METHODS , 2006 .

[7]  Stephen Morse,et al.  Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the immeasurable (2nd ed) , 2008 .

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

[9]  Lynton K. Caldwell,et al.  Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA): Origins, Evolution, and Future Directions , 1988 .

[10]  V. Ambrosini,et al.  Tacit Knowledge: Some Suggestions for Operationalization , 2001 .

[11]  Alan Bond,et al.  The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[12]  S. Nooteboom.  Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: A complexity theory perspective , 2007 .

[13]  Jamie Mackee,et al.  Towards SEA for the developing nations of Asia , 2003 .

[14]  Miriam Laila Absy.  Avaliação de impacto ambiental: agentes sociais, procedimentos e ferramentas , 1995 .

[15]  G. Krogh,et al.  Future Research into Knowledge Management , 1998 .

[16]  Jill Kidwell,et al.  Applying Corporate Knowledge Management Practices in Higher Education. , 2000 .

[17]  Kathleen Shearer,et al.  Understanding knowledge management and information management: the need for an empirical perspective , 2002, Inf. Res..

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

[19]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[20]  Luis A. Bojórquez-Tapia,et al.  Building Consensus in Environmental Impact Assessment Through Multicriteria Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis , 2005, Environmental management.

[21]  M. El-Haram,et al.  A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability , 2008 .

[22]  S. K Goyal,et al.  Comparison of weight assignment procedures in evaluation of environmental impacts , 2001 .

[23]  Maria Rosário Partidário,et al.  Elements of an SEA framework— improving the added-value of SEA , 2000 .

[24]  Riki Therivel,et al.  The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment , 1996 .

[25]  Jian-Bo Yang,et al.  Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Peter Hardi,et al.  Assessing sustainable development : principles in practice , 1997 .

[27]  Philippe Vincke,et al.  Implementing the European SEA Directive: the Member States' margin of discretion , 2003 .

[28]  Cun-kuan Bao,et al.  Framework and operational procedure for implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment in China , 2004 .

[29]  Maria Rosário Partidário,et al.  Scales and associated data — What is enough for SEA needs? , 2007 .

[30]  G. Krogh,et al.  Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing, and Measuring Knowledge , 1999 .

[31]  Jay Liebowitz,et al.  Knowledge Management Handbook , 1999 .

[32]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects—a case study using input–output analysis , 2003 .

[33]  Graham Wood,et al.  Is what you see what you get , 2000 .

[34]  Patricia Fitzpatrick,et al.  IN IT TOGETHER: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT , 2005 .

[35]  Harriet Bulkeley,et al.  Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments , 2008 .

[36]  John Glasson,et al.  EIA in Brazil , 2000 .

[37]  Brent Doberstein,et al.  EIA models and capacity building in Viet Nam: an analysis of development aid programs , 2004 .

[38]  Judith Petts,et al.  Handbook of environmental impact assessment , 1999 .

[39]  Jinhu Wang,et al.  Strategic Environmental Assessment and its development in China , 2002 .

[40]  Seth Appiah-Opoku,et al.  Environmental impact assessment in developing countries: the case of Ghana , 2001 .

[41]  F. Wickson,et al.  Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality , 2006 .

[42]  Monica Ferreira do Amaral Porto,et al.  Introdução à Engenharia Ambiental , 2002 .

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

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

[45]  Hans Kastenholz,et al.  Transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: Diffusion conditions of an institutional innovation , 2005 .

[46]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[47]  O. Bina.  A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment , 2007 .

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

[49]  Grete Swensen,et al.  Assessing environmental vulnerability in EIA—The content and context of the vulnerability concept in an alternative approach to standard EIA procedure , 2006 .

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

[51]  Walter Leal Filho,et al.  Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability , 2000 .

[52]  James W. Cortada,et al.  The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000-2001 , 2000 .

[53]  Olivia Bina.  Strategic Environmental Assessment , 2008 .

[54]  S. Bell,et al.  Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable? , 1999 .

[55]  R. Beattie,et al.  Everything you already know about EIA (but don't often admit) , 1995 .

[56]  K. Ruddle,et al.  Systems of Knowledge: Dialogue, Relationships and Process , 2000 .

[57]  Ytsen Deelstra,et al.  Using knowledge for decision-making purposes in the context of large projects in The Netherlands , 2003 .