1,721,209 research outputs found
Towards environmental planning: opportunities to improve environmental planning in Western Australia
Full text linkThe present system for assessing development proposals in WA requires a proponent to satisfy the requirements of at least two Acts of Parliament (Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Town Planning and Development Act 1929) and several statutory authorities. These assessments are separate and their intent and requirements may sometimes conflict. This can create unnecessary delays and duplication of effort in the assessment and approval of development projects
Chapter 3: Challenges in determining the effectiveness of sustainability assessment
Full text linkConsidering the environment (including the place of human beings in it), and how best it might be managed, is really thinking about environmental governance. As an approach to environmental governance sustainable development is just one of many ‘discourses’ which exist and we have previously made the point that it reflects a view that socio-economic development and environmental conservation are, to an extent, compatible goals and that socio-economic development is necessary (Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2009). Not everyone shares this view and it is important to bear in mind that whilst this book assumes sustainable development is a good thing, proponents of ‘deep ecology’ (as just one example) would argue that sustainable development inappropriately favours an anthropocentric view of the world in which humans have a right to dominate nature (Grey, 1993; Jacob, 1994; Williams and Millington, 2004).
Sustainability assessment is based on an implicit premise that sustainable development is the appropriate discourse on environmental governance. The fact that there are other discourses on environmental governance has implications for whether sustainability assessment can ever be considered 'effective' as it is promoting a governance view which is not universally held. That said, Sustainable Development “has become the dominant rhetorical device of environmental governance” (Adger et al., 2003, p.1095) and, therefore, could be argued to be the dominant discourse in environmental decision-making in most jurisdictions at present. In this context, sustainability assessment needs to be contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, and it is based on this assumption that this chapter and the overall book is written
Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice
Full text linkThe aim of this chapter is to develop a framework to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of sustainability assessment practice in different jurisdictions. To do this, it is important to clarify what is meant by effectiveness. Chapter 3 set out a typology of effectiveness criteria derived from the academic literature and identified that effective sustainability assessment involves procedural, substantive, transactive and normative elements. The key message from Chapter 3 is that effectiveness is difficult to measure in absolute terms because of the diverse and even divergent reference points against which effectiveness might be judged. Consequently, in comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment in different places, the way that the ecological, social, political and cultural pluralism that provides the context in which the work of sustainability assessment is done must be recognised and accommodated as a central point of any comparative discussion.
The framework outlined in this chapter considers how this emerging field of practice integrates learning and knowledge into continuous improvement (Boothroyd et al., 1995; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009). Figure 8.1 depicts the four categories of effectiveness introduced in chapter 3, and incorporates the critical influences of pluralism, and knowledge and learning, into a typology that provides a coherent framework for comparative evaluation of sustainability assessment across different jurisdictions, times and approaches in terms of methods and data availability. We recognise that sustainability assessment is a relatively new practice, and that like any field of professional practice, it needs constant review, development and improvement within the community of practice. Therefore it is inappropriate to attempt to create here a single hard-and-fast set of criteria to compare and evaluate effectiveness. Rather, this section explores how both the formally prescribed operation of sustainability assessment (equivalent to external sustainability assessment as defined in chapter 7), and the less formal cultures of professional practice (equivalent to internal sustainability assessment as defined in chapter 7) are evolving in different places, and what that experience brings to the task of improving future sustainability assessments
Exploring the dimensions of EIA follow-up
Full text linkThere is growing interest in EIA follow-up both within government and industry. Follow-up includes EIA projects and SEA plans, programs or policies and there is increasing regulatory requirement for EIA follow-up around the world. Additionally industry often makes an important contribution to follow-up through self-regulation undertakings. This paper presents an overview of current insights in EIA follow-up based on recent experience from around the world. It reviews the theoretical foundation of EIA follow-up and provides answers to these questions:
• What is EIA follow-up?
• Why is follow-up important?
• Who is involved in EIA follow-up? And
• What factors determine EIA follow-up outcomes in practice?
The paper also considers the different levels at which follow-up can be conceptualised: micro (or project) level, macro (or EIA system) level and the meta (overall practice of EIA internationally) level. The theoretical framework is illustrated with best practice examples from around the world. The paper concludes with some challenges and future directions for EIA follow-up
Tackling trade-offs and offsets in EIA decision-making for progress towards sustainability
Full text linkExploring the EIA / environmental management relationship: follow-up for performance evaluation
Full text linkEnvironmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up studies or audits can be conducted for a variety of reasons. Previously many audits have focused on scientific aspects of EIA, particularly the utility and accuracy of impact predictions (eg. Bisset 1984, Culhane et al. 1987, Buckley 1991, Bailey et al. 1992). More recent studies have emphasised other aspects of EIA performance including monitoring programmes and environmental outcomes (eg. Environmental Protection Department 1995, Au and Sanvicens 1996, Arts 1995, 1998). This paper presents the results of an audit of six projects that have undergone EIA in Western Australia that focuses on environmental management outcomes. The emphasis is on the actual impacts that occurred once the projects became operational and the environmental management actions (mitigation) undertaken to avoid or minimise impacts. To achieve this required some consideration of impact predictions as well as a detailed examination of environmental monitoring programmes for the case studies.
Background information on the role of environmental management in EIA in Western Australia is presented in Bailey (1997) and a complete account of the environmental management audit study results discussed here can be found in Morrison-Saunders and Bailey (1999). In this audit, environmental management activities were examined with respect to three stages of EIA based on the principal approval decision point–predecision stage (activities identified prior to decision-making on a project such as preparation of environmental impact statements and public review), postdecision stage (eg. activities that originated when the project was constructed and implemented) and transitional stage (activities identified during the predecision stage but subject to further investigation and modification during the postdecision stage). This paper presents the results of the management audit study, including some practical examples and concludes with some future directions for EIA follow-up and reflections on the role of science in EIA
Reflecting on the role of emotions in the PhD process
Full text linkThis research project examined the role of emotions in the PhD process through an exploratory, qualitative, self reflective study by six recent or current PhD candidates. Despite differences in the nature of the PhD fields of study, and in the personal backgrounds of the participants, a number of common themes were recognised. We developed an interactive workshop for postgraduate students in which participants were asked to reflect on their emotional experiences in their own studies. The combined information from these sources was used to suggest some strategies for management of negative emotions that may arise during the PhD process. Of critical importance is the multiple roles of the PhD supervisor in helping manage the negative emotions that most PhD students inevitably experience at some stage in their candidature. Most important, though, is the role of self reflection in identifying potential emotional problems and their solutions; a process we recommend to PhD candidates and supervisors
EIA practitioner perceptions on the role of science in impact assessment
Full text linkThe process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) brings together a broad raft of professional practitioners including environmental policy-makers, administrators, decision-makers, government agencies, planners, engineers, scientists, social scientists, and business and project managers as well as the public. From the diversity of these practitioners it can be anticipated that people from different backgrounds will have different expectations of how the process should function in practice. This paper presents the results of a follow-up survey of EIA practitioners in Western Australia. The purpose of the research was to examine the role of science in EIA based upon the experiences and expectations of EIA practitioners. Thirty-one EIA practitioners were interviewed. These were drawn from the Environmental Protection Authority (the peak body responsible for EIA in Western Australia) and its supporting administrative agency the Department of environmental Protection, other government decisionmaking authorities, environmental consultants and project managers and environmental officers. Interviewees were also selected to represent different industry sectors (ie. planning, industrial and resource development projects) as well as urban and remote settings. Interviewees were asked about the role of science in impact prediction, monitoring activities, mitigation and management, and EIA decision-making. The results indicate that practitioners have different expectations of the role of science in EIA according to the type of project and its location (ie. urban or remote) and the stage of the EIA process. Most participants indicated that the role of science currently is greatest during the earlier pre-decision stages of EIA and provide the basis for these activities (ie. baseline monitoring, impact prediction and mitigation design). Science input in the post-decision stages of was generally perceived to be of poorer quality. Science was seen to be less important during decision-making and ongoing project management. It is kept in balance with other factors such as socio-political and economic considerations. Despite these differences, overall, good science was seen to be a hallmark for effective EIA and a greater role for science in EIA was advocated, particularly for follow-up activities
- …
