The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making

Abstract

English In spite of its manifest policy importance, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been the focus of very few explicit attempts at theoretical understanding. Writing about EIA has been guided by assumptions and models that have been implicitly assumed rather than explicitly and systematically explored, formulated, or articulated. How EIA is understood to work, how much policy significance is attributed to it, and the meaning it has in the politics of the environment is determined largely by which of these implicit models constitutes a frame of reference. As a first step in developing a theory of EIA, we identify six categories of implicit models based on our survey of scholarly and practitioner literature. We locate and specify each of these models in terms of debates over EIA, analysing implications for a theory of EIA, both operational and normative.

The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory

“…This analysis supports assertions made by Bartlett and Kurian (1999) and McDonald and Brown (1995) that EIA functions predominantly as a passive tool for information provision and, as such, is relatively inefficient and ineffective at proactively and substantially influencing environmental decisionmaking. Yet there is limited evidence that decision-makers believe EIA should have a significantly greater influence than it does at present (Gwilliam, 2002).…”

“…It is a tool for influencing outcomes: by altering the norms and values that govern decision-making; by facilitating purposeful deliberation on environmental policy issues; and, by making decisions transparent and decision-makers accountable (O'Riordan and Sewell, 1981). The effectiveness of EIA, therefore, is assessed by criteria such as: the substantive influence on the actions and attitudes of stakeholders; the inclusiveness of decision processes; and legitimisation of social, cultural and ecological values (O'Riordan, 2001;Bartlett and Kurian, 1999;Vanclay, 2003). Bartlett (1986) argues that the ultimate purpose of EIA remains unavoidably based on a concept of rational decision-making, but not the simplistic conception of public administration theory.…”

“…Culhane et al (1987) describe two causal processes, other than the passive provision of scientific analyses, that socially or institutionally amplify the effects of EIA: (1) the internal reform model, wherein capacity development in environmental expertise affects the politics and dynamics of government agencies; and, (2) the external reform model, where increased transparency and accountability to 'external' stakeholders force, or reinforce, change in government agencies. These causal processes are elaborated on by Bartlett and Kurian (1999) to include such factors as the symbolic impact of EIA (in what they term the symbolic politics model), the corporate impact of EIA (the political economy model), and the impact of EIA on value systems in government agencies (the institutional model).…”

Managing uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resilience, participatory modelling and adaptive management

“…Impact assessment can be, and traditionally has been, framed in the context of rational decision making whereby better information leads to better decisions (Bartlett and Kurian, 1999;Cashmore, 2004). Inherent in this 'positivist' theory of decision making are the assumptions that: 1) decision makers behave rationally; and 2) IAs practice 'normal' science whereby the level of system understanding is sufficient to associate cause and effect (i.e.…”

“…More and more authors argue that decision-making is not rational and that IA, for example, has considerably more roles than simply information provision (see, for example, Lawrence, 2000;Leknes, 2001;Bond, 2003;Bekker et al, 2004;Cashmore, 2004;Owens et al, 2004). Bartlett and Kurian (1999) detail six separate models explaining the role of environmental impact assessment in decision-making, in which the information processing (rational) model is just one end of the spectrum of influence; other models include the symbolic politics model, the political economy model, the organisational politics model, the pluralist politics model and the institutionalist model.…”