The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation.

Environmental assessment is an intriguing policy phenomenon: it is employed in an ever-increasing range of contexts the world-over, yet research indicates it rarely efficiently or effectively achieves its principal purpose of promoting sustainable development. Increasingly, practical limitations in the effectiveness of environmental assessment are attributed to its theoretical shortcomings, particularly in relation to the conception of causation. This research advanced debate on environmental assessment by examining the theoretical implications of an empirical analysis of its causal operation in purposefully selected cases. The causal models derived from the research data illustrate the diversity of mechanisms through which environmental assessment can contribute to sustainability, and provide an insight into the complexity and contextuality of causation in the empirical realm. The research findings also highlight a multiplicity of societal expectations concerning environmental assessment's contribution to sustainable development. It is concluded that the interplay of non-rational variables (such as power, agency, experiences and expectations) necessitates the pursuit of a reflexive accommodation of purposes, methods and context in environmental assessment practices.

[1]  Peter M. Haas,et al.  Science and Decisionmaking , 1998 .

[2]  Joe Weston,et al.  EIA, Decision-making Theory and Screening and Scoping in UK Practice , 2000 .

[3]  P. Sabatier.  An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[4]  Anne Steinemann,et al.  Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment , 2001 .

[5]  Dick Cobb,et al.  The quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece , 2002 .

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

[7]  Judith Petts,et al.  Environmental impact assessment in practice : impact and limitations , 1999 .

[8]  Grant Mccracken.  The long interview , 1988 .

[9]  Thomas Fischer,et al.  What is Wrong with EIA and SEA anyway , 2006 .

[10]  S. Hills.  Falling through the Cracks: Limits to an Instrumental Rational Role for Environmental Information in Planning , 2005 .

[11]  J. Petts,et al.  Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Volume 1: environmental impact assessment: process, methods and potential. , 1999 .

[12]  Lawrence Pratchett,et al.  Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the ‘New Localism’ , 2004 .

[13]  Larry W. Canter,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment , 1995 .

[14]  William R. Sheate,et al.  Road Developments in the UK: An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997 , 2000 .

[15]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[16]  A. Sayer,et al.  Realism and Social Science , 1999 .

[17]  H. Arksey,et al.  Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory Resource with Examples , 1999 .

[18]  D. Kolb,et al.  Planning in the Face of Power. , 1988 .

[19]  Douglas Torgerson,et al.  Managing Leviathan: Environmental politics and the administrative state , 1991 .

[20]  M. Ritter,et al.  Democracy Without Enemies , 1998 .

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

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

[23]  Patricia Fitzpatrick,et al.  Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[24]  Lex Brown,et al.  Going beyond environmental impact assessment: Environmental input to planning and design , 1995 .

[25]  R. Bhaskar.  A realist theory of science , 1976 .

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

[27]  John Glasson,et al.  Introduction to environmental impact assessment : principles and procedures, process, practice and prospects , 1994 .

[28]  Richard Cowell,et al.  Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process , 2001 .

[29]  T. Webler,et al.  Public Participation in Impact Assess-ment: A Social Learning Perspective , 1995 .

[30]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

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

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

[33]  Lars Emmelin,et al.  Evaluating environmental impact assessment systems ‐ part 1: Theoretical and methodological considerations , 1998 .

[34]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[35]  Fred Phillips,et al.  The distortion of criteria after decision-making , 2002 .

[36]  Brian Wynne,et al.  The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA energy study , 1984 .

[37]  Daniel Bongardt,et al.  Analytical strategic environmental assessment (ANSEA) developing a new approach to SEA , 2004 .

[38]  John Glasson,et al.  Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[39]  John T. Chirban,et al.  Interviewing in Depth: The Interactive-Relational Approach , 1996 .

[40]  Colin Robson,et al.  Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers , 1993 .

[41]  B. Wynne.  Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out? , 2002 .

[42]  B. Flyvbjerg.  RATIONALITY AND POWER: DEMOCRACY IN PRACTICE , 1999 .

[43]  Holger Dalkmann,et al.  DECISION MAKING AND STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT , 2001 .

[44]  D. Silverman.  Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction , 1994 .

[45]  Richard K. Morgan.  Environmental impact assessment : a methodological perspective , 1998 .

[46]  S. Jasanoff.  Science and citizenship: a new synergy , 2004 .

[47]  J. Holder.  Environmental Assessment: The Regulation of Decision Making , 2005 .

[48]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Applying sustainability assessment models , 2005 .

[49]  P Ekins,et al.  Human Choice and Climate Change, Volumes 1-4 - Rayner, S. & Malone, E. Eds., Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio (Review) , 1999 .

[50]  Judith Petts,et al.  Barriers to Deliberative Participation in EIA: Learning from Waste Policies, Plans and Projects , 2003 .

[51]  Andrew Sayer,et al.  Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach , 1984 .

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

[53]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  Coordinated European Governance: Self-Organizing or Centrally Steered? , 2005 .

[54]  Andrew Jordan,et al.  Gearing-up governance for sustainable development: Patterns of policy appraisal in UK central government , 2007 .

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

[56]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect , 2007 .

[57]  David P. Lawrence,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems , 2003 .

[58]  Anne Shepherd,et al.  Beyond the Requirements: Improving Public Participation in EIA , 1997 .

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

[60]  Joel Novek,et al.  Environmental impact assessment and sustainable development: Case studies of environmental conflict , 1995 .

[61]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review , 1995 .

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

[63]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2004, Perspectives on Politics.

[64]  John Boyle,et al.  Cultural influences on implementing environmental impact assessment: insights from thailand, indonesia, and malaysia , 1998 .

[65]  C. Whitbeck,et al.  A Realist Theory of Science. , 1977 .

[66]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition , 2003 .

[67]  L. O'toole.  The Theory-Practice Issue in Policy Implementation Research , 2004 .

[68]  D. B. Dalal-Clayton,et al.  Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience , 2005 .

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

[70]  J. A. de Bruijn,et al.  Scientific expertise in complex decision-making processes , 1999 .

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

[72]  L. Levidow.  Democratizing technology—or technologizing democracy? Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Europe , 1998 .

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