1,721,340 research outputs found
Evolution or revolution? Reflecting on IA effectiveness in Thailand
Full text linkThis paper investigates whether the Thai impact assessment (IA) system should develop through revolution or evolution. A timeline of the Thai IA system is mapped to show its development to date. Aspects of effectiveness (i.e. procedural, substantive, transactive, and legitimacy) are then used as the benchmark against which to evaluate past IA practice in terms of strengths, limitations and challenges. IA practice is analysed both in terms of the people within the IA system and the IA system itself, as both are considered key elements in making IA work. The findings suggest that the ongoing evolution of the IA system has continued to improve its procedural, substantive and transactive effectiveness; therefore, suggesting that continuing evolution is sufficient to deliver these dimensions of effectiveness. However, the findings also indicate that it is the people in the IA system that influence practice and arbitrate legitimacy. Developing the system over time has not significantly improved legitimacy, leading to the conclusion that gaining legitimacy in the IA process might need some elements of revolution
The never ending conundrum of the application of science in EIA
Full text linkThe title of the book pretty much reflects the contents … the authors have attempted to explain just how science is, and should be, used in environmental impact assessment (EIA). In fact, it simplifies this review to quote from the untitled preface: ‘This book charts the history of the application of science in environmental impact assessment (EIA) and provides a conceptual and technical overview of scientific developments associated with EIA since its inception in the early 1970s’. I would agree the book does exactly that, albeit with a somewhat narrower, ecological, scope of EI
Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment in the UK after leaving the European Union
Full text linkThe United Kingdom has voted to leave the European Union and, until the terms of the ‘Brexit’ are negotiated, this has led to considerable uncertainty over the future practice of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in the UK. Here we show that multiple obligations exist outside the scope of the EU which mean that EIA and SEA will continue to be required in the long-term, but that their future compliance with the Directives remains unclear. We consider three scenarios for Brexit and present the implications of each; these are: signing up to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement; membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), but not EEA, or negotiate a separate agreement. The implications of no longer being subjected to the obligations of the Directives under some scenarios are discussed and include opening the door for increasing diversity of application across the regions of the UK, and the probability of raised screening thresholds so as to reduce the burden of assessment on developers
Impact assessment for the twenty-first century–rising to the challenge
Full text linkThe future of impact assessment has to contend with global megatrends, including the Fourth Industrial Revolution, that are set to change the face of the planet, and with the neoliberal economy, and the implications this has for trade-offs in decision-making under the umbrella of ‘sustainable development’. Together these challenges have implications for human health and well-being, and biodiversity. In this letter, we set out these challenges, before moving onto the solutions that are needed to rise to them. These include: formalising technology assessment processes and/or the inclusion of emerging technologies within the scope of legislated IA processes; a move towards legislated substantive outcomes, rather than enforcement of procedure only; and ensuring that the framing of IA goals are based on societal definitions of sustainability
Delivering more inclusive public participation in coastal flood management: a case study in Suffolk, UK
Full text linkOngoing problems achieving local population acceptance of coastal flood strategies threaten their implementation. A lack of meaningful engagement by all elements of potentially affected populations is seen as instrumental in this problem. This research assumes that multiple discourses exist on involvement with flood management, but that most are not engaged in decision-making. The aim is therefore to identify, and develop an approach for engaging with, all discourses related to flood management decision-making. Q methodology and follow-up interviews were used to identify both discourses and issues with current engagement strategies related to involvement in flood management in a case study population, controlled to allow for potential bias subject to the validity of the information deficit model, based in the Alde and Ore Estuary, Suffolk, UK. The five discourses included people who are knowledgeable; politically aware; sceptical and pragmatic; sceptical and locally attuned; and engaged or disengaged; in their perspectives on flood management. A workshop was subsequently held to identify engagement strategies that could engage with all discourses. Involvement of participants representing the range of existing discourses is argued to be necessary to lead to effective recommendations for more inclusive engagement approaches
Chapter 1: Introducing the roots, evolution and effectiveness of sustainability assessment
Full text linkInvestigating the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Thailand
Full text linkStrategic environmental assessment (SEA) was introduced in Thailand in 2005, aiming to direct decision making at the strategic level (policy, programme, plan) towards sustainable development (SD). Given reforms to the SEA requirements in 2018, it is timely to evaluate emerging SEA experience in the Thai context to inform future practice. The effectiveness of 14 SEAs was investigated based on a version of a recently published framework which substitutes ‘legitimacy’ for normative effectiveness and pluralism, modified through the addition of disaggregated sub-criteria associated with each dimension of effectiveness (procedural, substantive, transactive and legitimacy), to facilitate a richer understanding of the effectiveness of practice. This more detailed effectiveness framework enabled a comprehensive evaluation of practice, and should be transferable to other contexts. The findings suggest that SEA in Thailand currently partially achieves procedural, substantive, and transactive effectiveness. Achieving some elements of substantive effectiveness where practice is currently weak is considered to be particularly challenging, and also determinative in the achievement of legitimacy. Consequently, the majority of SEAs evaluated in this study failed to achieve legitimacy
Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: An evaluation of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark certification scheme
Full text linkThe effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems is contingent on a number of control mechanisms: procedural; judicial; evaluative; public and government agency; professional; and development aid agency. If we assume that procedural and judicial controls are guaranteed in developed EIA systems, then progressing effectiveness towards an acceptable level depends on improving the performance of other control mechanisms over time. These other control mechanisms are either absent, or are typically centrally controlled, requiring public finances; this we argue is an unpopular model in times of greater Government austerity. Here we evaluate a market-based mechanism for improving the performance of evaluative and professional control mechanisms, the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments' EIA Quality Mark. We do this by defining dimensions of effectiveness for the purposes of our evaluation, and by identifying international examples of the approaches taken to delivering the other control measures to validate the approach taken in the EIA Quality Mark. We then evaluate the EIA Quality Mark, when used in combination with legal procedures and an active judiciary, against the effectiveness dimensions and use time-series analysis of registrant data to examine its ability to progress practice. We conclude that the EIA Quality Mark has merit as a model for a market-based mechanism, and may prove a more financially palatable approach for delivering effective EIA in mature systems in countries that lack centralised agency oversight. It may, therefore, be of particular interest to some Member States of the European Union for ensuring forthcoming certification requirements stemming from recent amendments to the EIA Directive
- …
