The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory

Abstract Increasing emphasis has been placed in recent years on development of the theory of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), primarily as a consequence of increasing recognition that the theoretical basis of ‘state-of-the-art’ EIA is inadequately developed and detailed. This study reviews consideration given in the research literature to the role of science in EIA in order to identify implicit theories. It is suggested that there are two main interpretations of the role of science in EIA (EIA as applied science and EIA as civic science) and five distinct models are identified within these paradigms. These models appear to be based predominantly on existing philosophies of science (such as positivism or relativism) and simplistic and ill-defined conceptions of the purposes of EIA. A broad model is proposed for the advancement of theory regarding the role of science in EIA which emphasises conceptual consideration and empirical investigation of the purposes, and hence outcomes, of EIA and the causal processes utilised to achieve these purposes. The model necessitates a reorientation of the research agenda, away from process and procedure to focus on substantive purposes, and this will require more integrative and connective research than has been commonplace in the past. The EIA research agenda must evolve and mature if this globally significant decision tool is to fulfil its potential.

[1]  Valerie Hobbs,et al.  A proposed framework and database for EIA auditing , 1990 .

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

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

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

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

[6]  APPLICATION OF SCIENCE TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN BOREAL FOREST MANAGEMENT: THE SASKATCHEWAN EXAMPLE , 1995 .

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

[8]  Peter N. Duinker,et al.  An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment , 1984 .

[9]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  International Principles For Social Impact Assessment , 2003 .

[10]  W. Thissen,et al.  Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment , 2000 .

[11]  Richard C. Hill,et al.  Decision Scoping: Making EA Learn How the Design Process Works , 1995 .

[12]  David Parkinson,et al.  Risk: Analysis, perception and management. report of a Royal Society Study Group: Pp 201. The Royal Society. 1992. Paperback £15.50 ISBN 0 85403 467 6 , 1993 .

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

[14]  D. P. Lawrence.  Designing and adapting the EIA planning process , 1994 .

[15]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Dynamic models and large scale field experiments in environmental impact assessment and management , 1993 .

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

[17]  P. Wathern,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice , 1998 .

[18]  Robert C. Nichols,et al.  Combining Facts and Values in Environmental Impact Assessment , 1988 .

[19]  Alvin M. Weinberg,et al.  Science and trans-science. , 1972 .

[20]  J. Berliner,et al.  Planning and Management , 2019, Higher Education Abstracts.

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

[22]  D.V.J. Bell,et al.  The politics of sustainability , 1995, Proceedings 1995 Interdisciplinary Conference: Knowledge Tools for a Sustainable Civilization. Fourth Canadian Conference on Foundations and Applications of General Science Theory.

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

[24]  M. Leach,et al.  Editorial: Environmental Governance in an Uncertain World , 2001 .

[25]  Tracey Nitz,et al.  SEA MUST LEARN HOW POLICY MAKING WORKS , 2001 .

[26]  Mpl Smith,et al.  Environmental impact assessment : the roles of predicting and monitoring the extent of impacts , 1991 .

[27]  Joe Weston,et al.  Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Practice , 1997 .

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

[29]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Deliberative Policy Analysis: Contents , 2003 .

[30]  D. Morrisey.  Environmental impact assessment—A review of its aims and recent developments , 1993 .

[31]  T. Hellström,et al.  Uncertainty and values: The case of environmental impact assessment , 1996 .

[32]  H Roberts,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , 1994 .

[33]  Norman Lee,et al.  The role of environmental assessment in the planning and authorisation of extractive industry projects , 1993 .

[34]  W. Dickerson,et al.  Substantive scientific and technical guidance for NEPA analysis: Pitfalls in the real world , 1993 .

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

[36]  D. Schindler.  The impact statement boondoggle. , 1976, Science.

[37]  J. Petts.  Environmental impact assessment : process, methods and potential , 1999 .

[38]  K. G. Willis.  Judging Development Control Decisions , 1995 .

[39]  J. F. Benson,et al.  What is the alternative? Impact assessment tools and sustainable planning , 2003 .

[40]  Carys Jones,et al.  Auditing the Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of Planning Projects , 2000 .

[41]  A. J. Underwood,et al.  Experiments in ecology and management: Their logics, functions and interpretations , 1990 .

[42]  Jacques Teller,et al.  Review of present European environmental policies and legislation involving cultural heritage , 2002 .

[43]  Peter Duinker,et al.  Forecasting Environmental Impacts: Better Quantitative and Wrong Than Qualitative and Untestable , 1985 .

[44]  Brian Wynne,et al.  How science fails the environment. , 1993 .

[45]  R. B. McLean,et al.  Reasons and strategies for more effective NEPA implementation , 1993 .

[46]  Peter N. Duinker,et al.  AN ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN CANADA. , 1983 .

[47]  Alan Bond,et al.  Harmonising environmental impact assessment processes for geological repositories for nuclear waste in the European Union , 2001 .

[48]  W. Sewell,et al.  Project appraisal and policy review , 1982 .

[49]  David M. Rosenberg,et al.  Recent Trends in Environmental Impact Assessment , 1981 .

[50]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction , 1993 .

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

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

[53]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Pitfalls of environmental baseline and process studies , 1981 .

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

[55]  Ernst ten Heuvelhof,et al.  The effects of environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands , 1997 .

[56]  R. Turner.  Sustainable environmental economics and management : principles and practice , 1993 .

[57]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[58]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Environmental science for environmental management , 1995 .

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

[60]  R. Bhaskar,et al.  The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences , 1979 .

[61]  J. Habermas.  Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[62]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

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

[64]  S. Hart.  Improving Impact Assessment , 1986 .

[65]  R. Tarnas.  The passion of the Western mind : understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view , 1991 .

[66]  Alan Bond.  Let's not be rational about this: response to Benson , 2003 .

[67]  A. Porter,et al.  Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century , 1998 .