ࡱ > _ ǁ bjbj 4 5\5\y % L L L L L ` ` ` 8 ` 0! 82 " Z2 Z2 Z2 3 V; r> $ R Z L @ 3 3 @ @ L L Z2 Z2 H LJ LJ LJ @ L Z2 L Z2 v LJ @ LJ LJ g 0 ok Z2 0#$x D T i $ sv ԉ 0 /i @ nE H ok ok L Cl 0
@ @ LJ @ @ @ @ @ LJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : This is the authors final version of the work, as accepted for publication
but without the publishers layout or pagination.
The definitive version is available from Edward Elgar
Chapter 1. Introducing the roots, evolution and effectiveness of sustainability assessment, in A Morrison-Saunders, J Pope and A Bond (editors), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA).
Alan Bond - University of East Anglia, United Kingdom; North-West University, South Africa, Email HYPERLINK "mailto:alan.bond@uea.ac.uk" alan.bond@uea.ac.uk
Jenny Pope - Integral Sustainability, Australia; North-West University, South Africa; Email HYPERLINK "mailto:jenny@integral-sustainability.net" jenny@integral-sustainability.net
Angus Morrison-Saunders* - Murdoch University, Australia; North-West University, South Africa; Email HYPERLINK "mailto:A.Morrison-Saunders@murdoch.edu.au" A.Morrison-Saunders@murdoch.edu.au
Chapter 1. Introducing the roots, evolution and effectiveness of sustainability assessment
Alan Bond, University of East Anglia and North West University
Jenny Pope, Integral Sustainability and North West University
Angus Morrison-Saunders, Murdoch University and North West University
1. Introduction
Sustainability assessment can be simply defined as any process that directs decision-making towards sustainability ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20113159`, derived from Hacking and Guthrie`, 2008(Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011, derived from Hacking and Guthrie, 2008)3159315917Bond, A.J.Morrison-Saunders, A.Re-evaluating Sustainability Assessment: aligning the vision and the practiceEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review1-7311Sustainability AssessmentReductionismHolismTimescalesWeak sustainabilityStrong sustainabilityDeliberation201110.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.007 ( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_15" \o "Bond, 2011 #3159" Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011, derived from Hacking and Guthrie, 2008). This definition is sufficiently broad to encompass a vast range of decision-making from choices of individuals in everyday life through to projects, plans, programmes or policies more familiarly addressed in the fields of impact assessment. The variety of processes and applications under the banner of sustainability assessment became evident through a search for the term in January 2012 on the Scopus database, which showed that growth in publications on sustainability assessment has been exponential in the period 1994 to 2010 inclusive ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20124035(Bond, 2012)4035403517Bond, AlanMorrison-Saunders, AngusPope, JennySustainability assessment: the state of the artImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal53-6230120122012/03/01Taylor & Francis1461-5517http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.66197410.1080/14615517.2012.6619742012/04/24( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_13" \o "Bond, 2012 #4035" Bond et al., 2012). It found examples of sustainability assessment practice from fields including engineering, agriculture, and planning, many of which relate to very specific one-off decisions and are outside the bounds of traditional impact assessment, defined as the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action ADDIN EN.CITE International Association for Impact Assessment20091106(International Association for Impact Assessment, 2009)1106110612International Association for Impact Assessment,What is impact assessment?22 August 20132009http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/What%20is%20IA_web.pdf( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_51" \o "International Association for Impact Assessment, 2009 #1106" International Association for Impact Assessment, 2009).
Based on this background understanding of sustainability assessment, this chapter sets the context for, and introduces, the remainder of this book. It begins by explaining how decision-making first came to be recognised as a cause of environmental problems culminating in the need for some kind of ex ante understanding of decision implications. It then goes on to look at the process that gradually led to the development of an approach which we can call sustainability assessment. It goes on to consider the effectiveness of sustainability assessment; that is, now that a tool exists, how do we know it works and delivers what is expected of it? As such, the chapter tells the story of where sustainability assessment came from, how it changed as it evolved, and what we currently understand about it the way it works and what it can deliver.
After providing this background, the structure of the book itself is introduced. As one of the series of Handbooks on impact assessment, this book presents some of the latest research on sustainability assessment emerging from different parts of the world. The chapters reflect the variety of this research, with some chapters focusing on important conceptualisations relevant to sustainability assessment, while others focus on practical applications off sustainability assessment at different scales and in different sectors. As with other forms of impact assessment, sustainability assessment draws on (and can embed) different tools and techniques, and several chapters explore tools that are particularly useful in addressing the challenges inherent to the practice of sustainability assessment. Still other chapters reflect on the role of sustainability assessment in decision processes.
2. The journey from environmental degradation to environmental conservation to sustainable development
The history of ex ante interventions to achieve environmental conservation outcomes can be traced back to the early part of the 20th century where environmental disasters started to be recognised as having anthropogenic causes in the United States, one example being the Dust Bowl of the USA's Great Plains in the 1930s. However, it wasnt until the 1960s that the paradox of the Government being both custodian of the environment and facilitator of development was recognised, leading to questions about Government emphasis and a shift back towards the environment. Prominent publications in this movement included Silent Spring by Rachel Carson ADDIN EN.CITE Carson19631321(1963)132113216Carson, RachelSilent Spring3041963LondonHamish Hamilton( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_20" \o "Carson, 1963 #1321" 1963) linking environmental hazards and personal health, and Limits to Growth produced for the Club of Rome ADDIN EN.CITE Meadows19723394(Meadows, 1972)339433946Meadows, Donella H.Meadows, Dennis L.Randers, JorgenBehrens, William W.The Limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament for mankind1972New YorkUniverse Books( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_63" \o "Meadows, 1972 #3394" Meadows et al., 1972).
This new awareness of the environment culminated in the production of a congressional white paper containing possible elements of a national policy on the environment. On its passage through Congress, this Bill was modified several times to resolve conflicts with other Bills and to make certain compromises. It was passed by Senate on December 20th 1969, and by the House of Representatives on December 23rd 1969 and thus became the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) 1969. President Richard Nixon signed NEPA on January 1st 1970 when it became law, and accompanied it with a statement proclaiming the 1970s as the decade of the environment ADDIN EN.CITE Karkkainen20072846`, p.47(Karkkainen, 2007, p.47)284628465Karkkainen, Bradley KHolder, JaneMcGillivray, DonaldNEPA and the curious evolution of environmental impact assessment in the United StatesTaking Stock of Environmental Assessment: Law, Policy and Practice45-63environmental assessmentUSANEPA2007AbingdonRoutledge-Cavendish978-1-84472-100-9( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_59" \o "Karkkainen, 2007 #2846" Karkkainen, 2007, p.47)
The appearance of environmental impact assessment (EIA) through the enactment of NEPA (1969) in the United States of America is well documented. Its importance in terms of the development of impact assessment as a decision-support tool of choice is also well understood, with HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_19" \o "Canter, 1996 #56" ADDIN EN.CITE Canter199656`, p.xviiCanter (1996, p.xvii)56566Canter, Larry W.Environmental Impact Assessment660SecondEIAUSA1996New YorkMcGraw-Hill0-07-114103-0Canter (1996, p.xvii) stating that (NEPA) in the United States is considered to be the seminal legislation for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process in the majority of some 100 countries that have adopted EIA legislation. We now know that EIA exists as a requirement in all countries in the world bar two (as at 2011) ADDIN EN.CITE Morgan20124030(Morgan, 2012)4030403017Morgan, Richard K.Environmental impact assessment: the state of the artImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal5-1430120122012/03/01Taylor & Francis1461-5517http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.66155710.1080/14615517.2012.6615572012/04/24( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_66" \o "Morgan, 2012 #4030" Morgan, 2012).
EIA is a term which is usually reserved for application to projects, as opposed to plans, programmes and policies. Indeed in many countries separate strategic environmental assessment (SEA) legislation has been adopted which applies to plans and programmes ADDIN EN.CITE European Parliament and the Council of the European Union20011156for example`, the European Union SEA Directive`, (for example, the European Union SEA Directive, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001)1156115617European Parliament and the Council of the European Union,Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environmentOfficial Journal of the European CommunitiesOfficial Journal of the European Communities30-37L197SEAEUDirective200121 July 2001( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_30" \o "European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001 #1156" for example, the European Union SEA Directive, European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001) and, sometimes, policies also. This distinction in terms of application to different levels of decision making was never enshrined in NEPA 1969 which, in theory, should apply to all levels of decision making. However, as HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_24" \o "Clark, 2011 #4552" ADDIN EN.CITE Clark20114552Clark (2011)455245525Clark, RayMahoney, LisaPierce, KathySadler, B.Aschemann, R.Dusik, JiriFischer, Thomas B.Partidrio, Maria R.Verheem, RobSEA in the USHandbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment74-882011LondonEarthscan978-1-84407-365-8Clark et al. (2011) report, programmatic EIA (the term used for strategic environmental assessment in the USA) has been underused in NEPA applications ADDIN EN.CITE Clark20114552`, p.74(Clark, 2011, p.74)455245525Clark, RayMahoney, LisaPierce, KathySadler, B.Aschemann, R.Dusik, JiriFischer, Thomas B.Partidrio, Maria R.Verheem, RobSEA in the USHandbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment74-882011LondonEarthscan978-1-84407-365-8( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_24" \o "Clark, 2011 #4552" Clark et al., 2011, p.74).
NEPA is vaguely worded ADDIN EN.CITE Glasson20124027(Glasson, 2012)402740276Glasson, JohnTherivel, RikiChadwick, AndrewGlasson, JohnIntroduction to Environmental Impact AssessmentThe natural and built environment series392FourthEIA2012LondonRoutledge978-0-315-66470-7( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_44" \o "Glasson, 2012 #4027" Glasson et al., 2012) which has left a lot of room for interpretation by the Courts and also by the Council on Environmental Quality which formulates associated guidelines. Other examples of EIA legislation have been more specific about the definition of the environment, at least in terms of the environmental components that fit within the scope of environment although this definition changes over time. For example, in 1985 the definition of the environment in the EU Directive on EIA ADDIN EN.CITE Council of the European Communities198557`, Article 3(Council of the European Communities, 1985, Article 3)575717Council of the European Communities,Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC)Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOfficial Journal of the European Communities40 - 49C175EECPolicyDirectiveEIA1985( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_26" \o "Council of the European Communities, 1985 #57" Council of the European Communities, 1985, Article 3) was:
human beings, fauna and flora,
soil, water, air, climate and the landscape,
the inter-action between the factors mentioned in the first and second indents,
material assets and the cultural heritage
However, by 2014 ADDIN EN.CITE European Parliament and the Council of the European Union20144510(European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014)4510451017European Parliament and the Council of the European Union,Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environmentOfficial Journal of the European CommunitiesOfficial Journal of the European Communities1-18L124CCSEUDirective201425 April 2014( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_31" \o "European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014 #4510" European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014), this had changed to:
(a) population and human health;
(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC;
(c) land, soil, water, air and climate;
(d) material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape;
(e) the interaction between the factors referred to in points (a) to (d).
The UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1982 was a response to increasing concerns over the state of the global environment and led to the development of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and so more than a decade since EIA appeared, the recognition that the human impacts on the environment continued to cause concern was clear. However, during the 1980s, political rhetoric shifted from a focus on environmental protection to one of sustainable development; there was significant advocacy at that time for the facilitation of development, with some anxiety that environmental protectionism was detrimental to a pro-development stance ADDIN EN.CITE Garner19823960(Garner and O'Riordan, 1982)3960396017Garner, J. F.O'Riordan, TimothyEnvironmental Impact Assessment in the Context of Economic RecessionThe Geographical Journal343-35514831982Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)00167398http://www.jstor.org/stable/633152( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_36" \o "Garner, 1982 #3960" Garner and O'Riordan, 1982).
The story of the advent of sustainable development as a globally agreed goal is well described by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_73" \o "O'Riordan, 2000 #3232" ADDIN EN.CITE O'Riordan20003232O'Riordan (2000)323232325O'Riordan, T.O'Riordan, T.The sustainability debateEnvironmental Science for Environmental Management29-622Environmental ScienceRisk2000HarlowPrentice Hall0-582-35633-4O'Riordan (2000). The UN established the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983 with the specific task of identifying and promoting the cause of sustainable development ADDIN EN.CITE O'Riordan20003232`, p.41(O'Riordan, 2000, p.41)323232325O'Riordan, T.O'Riordan, T.The sustainability debateEnvironmental Science for Environmental Management29-622Environmental ScienceRisk2000HarlowPrentice Hall0-582-35633-4( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_73" \o "O'Riordan, 2000 #3232" O'Riordan, 2000, p.41). It reported in 1987, giving us the most commonly quoted definition of sustainable development as development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs ADDIN EN.CITE World Commission on Environment and Development19871691`, p.8(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p.8)169116916World Commission on Environment and Development,Our Common Future1987OxfordOxford University Press( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_100" \o "World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 #1691" World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p.8). HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_38" \o "George, 1999 #1047" ADDIN EN.CITE George19991047`, p.178George (1999, p.178)1047104717George, C.Testing for Sustainable Development through Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review175-200192EIASustainable DevelopmentIndicatorsUK1999Elsevier Science Inc.DOI: 10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00038-9George (1999, p.178) interprets this definition as being equity focused with the twin pillars of sustainable development being intergenerational equity - a necessary condition for sustainability and intragenerational equity - a necessary condition for development.
HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_73" \o "O'Riordan, 2000 #3232" ADDIN EN.CITE O'Riordan20003232`, p.41O'Riordan (2000, p.41)323232325O'Riordan, T.O'Riordan, T.The sustainability debateEnvironmental Science for Environmental Management29-622Environmental ScienceRisk2000HarlowPrentice Hall0-582-35633-4O'Riordan (2000, p.41) draws attention to the distinction between interventionist and nurturing modes, as captured in the language adopted, in general, by the economic ministries on the one hand and the environmental ministries on the other as sustainable development gained political traction around the world; the salient point being that sustainable development can be interpreted to have meaning which fits in with the majority of existing agendas. The distinction highlighted by ORiordan can be considered the basis for disagreement which exists in the literature over the meaning of the terms sustainability and sustainable development ADDIN EN.CITE Ll19913686see`, for example`, (see, for example, Ll, 1991)3686368617Ll, Sharachchandra M.Sustainable development: A critical reviewWorld Development607-621196Sustainable DevelopmentSustainability19910305-750Xhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VC6-4692282-3/2/e21de053652cd86f65400efc7543bbe510.1016/0305-750X(91)90197-P( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_60" \o "Ll, 1991 #3686" see, for example, Ll, 1991); the former derives from a carrying capacity stance and owes its roots to ecological sustainability considerations, whilst the latter derives from economic imperatives to develop, albeit within limits. However, the two terms are also used interchangeably and, specifically in the context of sustainability assessment where the goal is to direct decision-making towards sustainability, the two terms are regarded as synonymous in line with HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_11" \o "Bond, 2013 #3965" ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133965Bond and Morrison-Saunders (2013)396539655Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 3: Challenges in determining the effectiveness of sustainability assessmentSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress37-50First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisBond and Morrison-Saunders (2013), and are used as such throughout the remainder of this book.
The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was the political driver that led to the adoption of sustainable development as a national goal across the globe. Pursuit of sustainable development was formalised in the five-year review of the Earth Summit, which committed governments to formulate national strategies for sustainable development ADDIN EN.CITE Ayre20052543(Ayre and Callway, 2005)254325435Ayre, GeorginaCallway, RosalieAyre, GeorginaCallway, RosalieOutcomes from the World Summit for Sustainable DevelopmentGovernance for Sustainable Development: a Foundation For the Future14-421stSustainabilityGovernanceBiodiversityAgricultureHealthWCED2005LondonEarthscan1-84407-208-8( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_5" \o "Ayre, 2005 #2543" Ayre and Callway, 2005). Some examples of sustainable development strategies that owe their existence to this chain of events include those of the United Kingdom ADDIN EN.CITE HM Government20052577(HM Government, 2005)2577257727HM Government,Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. Cm 6467.1882005NorwichThe Stationery Officehttp://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/strategy/SecFut_complete.pdf( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_48" \o "HM Government, 2005 #2577" HM Government, 2005), European Union ADDIN EN.CITE Council of the European Union20063076(Council of the European Union, 2006)3076307612Council of the European Union,Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy20144th June 2014EUSustainable Development Strategy200626 June 2006http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_27" \o "Council of the European Union, 2006 #3076" Council of the European Union, 2006), and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development in Australia (Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee, 1992). Sustainable development can thus be considered the currently dominant rhetorical device underpinning government actions ADDIN EN.CITE Adger20031511(Adger, 2003)1511151117Adger, W NeilBrown, KatrinaFairbrass, JennyJordan, AndrewPaavola, JouniRosendo, SergioSeyfang, GillGovernance for sustainability: towards a 'thick' analysis of environmental decisionmakingEnvironment and Planning A1095-111035GovernanceSustainabilityDecision making2003( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_2" \o "Adger, 2003 #1511" Adger et al., 2003) and the stated goal for a variety of policies in countries across the world.
3. The implications of sustainable development for environmental assessment
What role, then, for EIA within the sustainability agenda? Or SEA which examines the implication of more strategic actions (some combination of policies, plans and programmes, depending on the specific legislative requirements) and is also now widespread ADDIN EN.CITE Fundingsland Tetlow20124031(Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012)4031403117Fundingsland Tetlow, MonicaHanusch, MarieStrategic environmental assessment: the state of the artImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal15-2430120122012/03/01Taylor & Francis1461-5517http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.66640010.1080/14615517.2012.6664002012/04/24( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_35" \o "Fundingsland Tetlow, 2012 #4031" Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012)? Given the combination of the new global goal of sustainable development and an existing tool focussed on environmental protection (EIA), it would seem inevitable that a new tool, sustainability assessment, would be embraced and would replace both EIA and SEA. To a small extent that has happened, and may still be occurring as there is increasing evidence of sustainability assessment practice ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20124035(Bond, 2012)4035403517Bond, AlanMorrison-Saunders, AngusPope, JennySustainability assessment: the state of the artImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal53-6230120122012/03/01Taylor & Francis1461-5517http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.66197410.1080/14615517.2012.6619742012/04/24( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_13" \o "Bond, 2012 #4035" Bond et al., 2012), but there are other interpretations of how best to manage this change:
1. There are arguments that decision-making already incorporates socio-economic issues and that it was environmental consequences that were missing thus the environmental advocacy role of EIA (and SEA) are being eroded and socio-economic issues double-counted in sustainability assessment ADDIN EN.CITE Morrison-Saunders20062743(Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006)2743274317Morrison-Saunders, A.Fischer, T.B.What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic's perspective on sustainability assessmentJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management19-3981EIASEAAdvocacyEnvironmentproblems2006World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.1464-333210.1142/S1464333206002372( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_67" \o "Morrison-Saunders, 2006 #2743" Morrison-Saunders and Fischer, 2006).
2. There is an existing industry of EIA and SEA which is, to an extent, self-sustaining to protect the interests of those who now make a living through the process ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20031515(Bond, 2003)1515151517Bond, A.J.Let's not be rational about this: response to BensonImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal266-268214EIAResearchRationalismInstitutional arrangementsSustainabilityPlanning2003( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_14" \o "Bond, 2003 #1515" Bond, 2003). That is, EIA is entrenched practice which is difficult to change.
3. Arguments are also made that EIA and/or SEA already have sustainable development as their aim ADDIN EN.CITE Sheate20091087(Sheate, 2009)108710875Sheate, William RSheate, William RThe Evolving Nature of Environmental Assessment and Management: Linking Tools to Help Deliver Sustainability - Tools, Techniques & Approaches for SustainabilityTools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management1-292009SingaporeWorld Scientific( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_84" \o "Sheate, 2009 #1087" Sheate, 2009). A case in point is the EU SEA Directive which the authors specifically argue has sustainability goals ADDIN EN.CITE Feldmann200124(Feldmann, 2001)242417Feldmann, LieselotteVanderhaegen, MarcPirotte, CharlesThe EU's SEA Directive: status and links to integration and sustainable developmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review203-22221Strategic Environmental AssessmentSEAUNECEAarhusDirective2001( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_32" \o "Feldmann, 2001 #24" Feldmann et al., 2001). Arguments have also been made that the text of NEPA (1969) is closely aligned with sustainable development ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20103370e.g.`, (e.g., Bond, 2010)3370337017Bond, A.J.Viegas, Cludia VCoelho de Souza Reinisch Coelho, ChristianneSelig, Paulo MaurcioInformal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA?Journal of Cleaner Production6-13181Environmental Impact AssessmentKnowledge processesSustainabilityInterdisciplinarityTransdisciplinarity20100959-652610.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.002( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_16" \o "Bond, 2010 #3370" e.g., Bond et al., 2010).
So the context for impact assessment practice is complex. There is evidence of a proliferation of types of impact assessment, with HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_70" \o "Morrison-Saunders, 2014 #4468" ADDIN EN.CITE Morrison-Saunders20144468Morrison-Saunders (2014)4468446817Morrison-Saunders, APope, JGunn, JAEBond, ARetief, FStrengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focusImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal2-8321201410.1080/14615517.2013.872841Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014) listing over 40 and acknowledging this is a subset of the true figure. A number of these processes share a common goal of sustainable development, although this is a very plural term as the next chapter (Pope et al) will go on to demonstrate. HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_46" \o "Hacking, 2008 #2911" ADDIN EN.CITE Hacking20082911Hacking and Guthrie (2008)2911291117Hacking, TheoGuthrie, PeterA framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability AssessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review73-89282-3Integrated AssessmentTriple Bottom-Line AssessmentSustainability assessmentSEAIntegrationSustainable Development20080195-925510.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002Hacking and Guthrie (2008) identified a series of different forms of impact assessment which had been specifically developed to deliver sustainable development, which are described in the next chapter. Based on their analysis a traditional EIA process would come out as being biophysically-focused, rather than comprehensive, separate rather than integrated, and project-specific rather than strategic. An ideal form of sustainability assessment would, on the other hand, be expected to be comprehensive, spanning all pillars of sustainability, fully connected in terms of the techniques used and themes covered, and very forward looking. On this basis it can be seen that arguing that an existing EIA process has sustainability goals, without substantive changes to the procedure, might fall short of what might be expected for an effective process for directing decision making toward sustainability.
This brings us on to the next topic of the chapter which addresses the question just what do we mean by effectiveness? The next section explores this question in the context of sustainability assessment.
4. Sustainability assessment effectiveness
The remainder of this book will highlight the significant diversity in the way sustainability assessment is, and can be, operated in a large number of different decision contexts. This diversity ultimately means that no single, definitive and globally agreed sustainability assessment process is likely to emerge beyond some basic steps which most researchers can agree are likely to be required ADDIN EN.CITE Morrison-Saunders20134204`, p.56(Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013b, p.56)4204420417Morrison-Saunders, A.Pope, J.Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review54-6338AcceptabilityDecision-makingNet gainsOffsetsSustainability assessmentTrade-offs2013//01959255http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84867523697&partnerID=40&md5=02e8cf407d5f2ea483bee0d21b83dd4b10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.003( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_69" \o "Morrison-Saunders, 2013 #4204" Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013b, p.56):
Step 1: Decision to conduct a sustainability assessment (screening).
Step 2: Identification of the desired outcome and hence the sustainability assessment decision question to be addressed.
Step 3: Establishment of sustainability goals and criteria for the decision (scoping).
Step 4: Identification of alternatives and options to achieve the desired outcome.
Step 5: Prediction and evaluation of the impact of each alternative.
Step 6: Selection and enhancement of the preferred alternative (mitigation).
Step 7: Approval decision and announcement.
Step 8: Implementation and monitoring (follow-up).
These steps are similar to any generic impact assessment steps ADDIN EN.CITE Glasson20124027see`, for example`, for the basic EIA steps(see, for example, Glasson, 2012 for the basic EIA steps)402740276Glasson, JohnTherivel, RikiChadwick, AndrewGlasson, JohnIntroduction to Environmental Impact AssessmentThe natural and built environment series392FourthEIA2012LondonRoutledge978-0-315-66470-7( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_44" \o "Glasson, 2012 #4027" see, for example, Glasson et al., 2012 for the basic EIA steps) but the opportunity for different requirements, and practice within such a generic framework is vast. This means that generic guidance, applicable in different contexts, on the right way to approach sustainability assessment is impossible to formulate. And without any common agreement on what sustainability assessment should look like, assessing effectiveness is inevitably tricky. Despite this, effectiveness can be unpicked and conceptualized in the context of sustainability assessment, and this section aims to do just that. Developing some idea of how effectiveness might be evaluated will provide valuable context for reading the rest of this book.
HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_12" \o "Bond, 2013 #3946" ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133946Bond (2013)394639465Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practiceSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress117-131First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisBond et al. (2013) have developed a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of sustainability assessment. This draws on decades of research examining environmental decision-making which has tended to argue that the original theoretical basis for EIA (the forerunner of all other impact assessment processes in use today), that better information will lead to better decisions, is overly simplistic and flawed ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_8" \o "Bartlett, 1999 #1381" Bartlett and Kurian, 1999; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_22" \o "Cashmore, 2004 #1992" Cashmore et al., 2004). Their effectiveness framework looks at the ability of the sustainability assessment process to deliver on several criteria. These criteria reflect six categories of effectiveness: procedural; substantive; transactive; normative; knowledge and learning; and pluralism ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133946(Bond, 2013)394639465Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practiceSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress117-131First2013LondonTaylor and Francis( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_12" \o "Bond, 2013 #3946" Bond et al., 2013), which are briefly outlined in Table 1.1.
<<
>>
Table 1.1 Categories of effectiveness for impact assessment processes. ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133946Source: (Source: Bond, 2013)394639465Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practiceSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress117-131First2013LondonTaylor and Francis( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_12" \o "Bond, 2013 #3946" Source: Bond et al., 2013)
In summary, procedural effectiveness reflects the ability of a legal or administrative process to lead to sustainable outcomes; substantive effectiveness reflects the actual outcomes which need to be sustainable (i.e. effective in this context); transactive effectiveness recognises the financial and time implications of conducting assessments and examines the efficiency of the process; normative effectiveness relates to the individual and social norms, or expectations, that exist in relation to the process and outcome; knowledge and learning reflects the fact that a number of researchers have now recognised them as being determinative of effectiveness; and pluralism recognises the importance of discourses to perceptions of effectiveness and is a topic covered in more detail in Chapter 2 of this book (Pope et al.).
The first four effectiveness criteria have been described in greater detail in HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_23" \o "Chanchitpricha, 2013 #4323" ADDIN EN.CITE Chanchitpricha20134323Chanchitpricha and Bond (2013)4323432317Chanchitpricha, C.Bond, A.Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processesEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review65-7243Impact assessment toolsLogic modelNormative effectivenessProcedural effectivenessSubstantive effectivenessTransactive effectiveness2013//01959255 (ISSN)http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84879762775&partnerID=40&md5=bb3496089fb0c5b69caa29012345d7acChanchitpricha and Bond (2013). They have long been used as a means of evaluating all forms of impact assessment practice, with procedural, substantive and transactive effectiveness all being considered in the International Effectiveness Study of EIA which was published in 1996 ADDIN EN.CITE Sadler19961174(Sadler, 1996)1174117427Sadler, BarryInternational Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report - Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance.248EffectivenessIAIACEEA1996June 1996OttawaMinister of Supply and Services CanadaEN106-37/1996E( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_83" \o "Sadler, 1996 #1174" Sadler, 1996). Examples of procedural effectiveness criteria can be found in comparative studies of impact assessment procedures, including on EIA ADDIN EN.CITE Wood20031308e.g.`, (e.g., Wood, 2003)130813086Wood, CEnvironmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review405Second2003EdinburghPrentice Hall0 582 36969 X( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_99" \o "Wood, 2003 #1308" e.g., Wood, 2003) and on SEA ADDIN EN.CITE Jones20052228e.g.`, (e.g., Jones, 2005)2228222828Jones, Carys EBaker, MarkCarter, JeremyJay, StephenShort, MichaelWood, ChristopherStrategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: an International Evaluation240SEALand Use PlanningUK2005LondonEarthscan Publications Ltd.1844071103( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_55" \o "Jones, 2005 #2228" e.g., Jones et al., 2005). Substantive effectiveness criteria have frequently been used to evaluate SEA procedures ADDIN EN.CITE Jones20052228e.g.`, (e.g., Thrivel and Minas, 2002; Jones, 2005)2228222828Jones, Carys EBaker, MarkCarter, JeremyJay, StephenShort, MichaelWood, ChristopherStrategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: an International Evaluation240SEALand Use PlanningUK2005LondonEarthscan Publications Ltd.1844071103Thrivel200213611361136117Thrivel, RikiMinas, PhillipEnsuring effective sustainability appraisalImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal81-91202Sustainability Appraisaldevelopment plansEU Directive2002(e.g., HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_93" \o "Thrivel, 2002 #1361" Thrivel and Minas, 2002; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_55" \o "Jones, 2005 #2228" Jones et al., 2005). Transactive effectiveness criteria are less frequently used, but examples can be found ADDIN EN.CITE Theophilou20103348e.g.`, (e.g., Theophilou, 2010)3348334817Theophilou, VassiliaBond, A.Cashmore, M.Application of the SEA Directive to EU structural funds: perspectives on effectivenessEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review136-144302Strategic Environmental AssessmentTransactive and substantive effectivenessEuropean Union structural fundsLisbon AgendaCardiff Process20100195-925510.1016/j.eiar.2009.08.001( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_90" \o "Theophilou, 2010 #3348" e.g., Theophilou et al., 2010). These initial three criteria are relatively easily understood and applied. The fourth criterion in Table 1, normative effectiveness, was introduced by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_6" \o "Baker, 2003 #1486" ADDIN EN.CITE Baker20031486Baker and McLelland (2003)1486148617Baker, Douglas CMcLelland, James NEvaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for first nations' participation in mining developmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review581-603235First NationsBritish ColumbiaEnvironmental assessment process2003Baker and McLelland (2003) and is altogether more problematic. Essentially this criterion of effectiveness recognizes the importance of individual and social norms, or values, that are applied in any decision context. By definition, these are not predetermined. In developing their effectiveness framework, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_12" \o "Bond, 2013 #3946" ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133946Bond (2013)394639465Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practiceSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress117-131First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisBond et al. (2013) argued that normative effectiveness relates to social norms (with individual norms being covered by the separate pluralism effectiveness category), which they define as the standards with which society expects conformance ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133965(Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2013)396539655Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 3: Challenges in determining the effectiveness of sustainability assessmentSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress37-50First2013LondonTaylor and Francis( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_11" \o "Bond, 2013 #3965" Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2013). Given that society is always context specific, and that they sought to apply the framework as the basis for a comparative study ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_42" \o "Gibson, 2013 #3948" Gibson, 2013b; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_68" \o "Morrison-Saunders, 2013 #3929" Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_77" \o "Retief, 2013 #3930" Retief, 2013; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_91" \o "Thrivel, 2013 #3947" Thrivel, 2013) they used, as a surrogate, six sustainability imperatives outlined by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_41" \o "Gibson, 2013 #3928" ADDIN EN.CITE Gibson20133928Gibson (2013a)392839285Gibson, R. B.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 1: Why sustainability assessment?Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress3-17First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisGibson (2013a); these draw on earlier work identifying decision criteria for sustainable development as briefly outlined below.
Clive HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_38" \o "George, 1999 #1047" ADDIN EN.CITE George19991047George (1999)1047104717George, C.Testing for Sustainable Development through Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review175-200192EIASustainable DevelopmentIndicatorsUK1999Elsevier Science Inc.DOI: 10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00038-9George (1999) developed 18 criteria which he argued needed to be satisfied if a proposed development were to be considered sustainable ADDIN EN.CITE George19991047(George, 1999)1047104717George, C.Testing for Sustainable Development through Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review175-200192EIASustainable DevelopmentIndicatorsUK1999Elsevier Science Inc.DOI: 10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00038-9( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_38" \o "George, 1999 #1047" George, 1999). HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_43" \o "Gibson, 2005 #2230" ADDIN EN.CITE Gibson20052230Gibson (2005b)223022306Gibson, Robert BHassan, SelmaHoltz, SusanTansey, JamesWhitelaw, GrahamSustainability Assessment: Criteria, Processes and Applications254SustainabilityCanadaTrade-offsConflict2005LondonEarthscan1-84407-051-4Gibson et al. (2005b) developed a simpler set of eight decision criteria which significantly overlapped with those of HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_38" \o "George, 1999 #1047" ADDIN EN.CITE George19991047George (1999)1047104717George, C.Testing for Sustainable Development through Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review175-200192EIASustainable DevelopmentIndicatorsUK1999Elsevier Science Inc.DOI: 10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00038-9George (1999). These decision criteria were developed based on many years of academic investigation of environmental decision-making. They recognised ongoing decision issues, including the difficulty of dealing with uncertainty ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_101" \o "Wynne, 1993 #513" Wynne and Mayer, 1993; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_89" \o "Tenny, 2006 #2427" Tenny et al., 2006), the mutual reliance of social and ecological systems ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_96" \o "Turner, 2003 #3255" Turner et al., 2003; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_61" \o "Liu, 2010 #4053" Liu et al., 2010), the tensions between achieving both intra- and inter-generational equity ADDIN EN.CITE Okrent19994499see`, for example`, (see, for example, Okrent, 1999; Shrader-Frechette, 2000)4499449917Okrent, D.On intergenerational equity and its clash with intragenerational equity and on the need for policies to guide the regulation of disposal of wastes and other activities posing very long-term risksRisk Analysis877-9011951999http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0033213489&partnerID=40&md5=2badf2d36b3a629f50f7926372b05de8ScopusShrader-Frechette200045004500450017Shrader-Frechette, K.Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra- and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear wasteRisk Analysis771-7782062000http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0034581476&partnerID=40&md5=5705420ac6e28c7621b18c3411e7e822Scopus(see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_74" \o "Okrent, 1999 #4499" Okrent, 1999; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_85" \o "Shrader-Frechette, 2000 #4500" Shrader-Frechette, 2000), the importance of the precautionary principle ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_56" \o "Jordan, 2004 #2073" Jordan and O'Riordan, 2004; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_95" \o "Tickner, 2004 #1960" Tickner and Geiser, 2004), the need for more democratic governance ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_80" \o "Rossouw, 2004 #1917" Rossouw and Wiseman, 2004; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_88" \o "Sneddon, 2006 #3352" Sneddon et al., 2006), the importance of adaptation, particularly given the limitations of existing assessment and decision-making processes ADDIN EN.CITE Burton20024502see`, for example`, (see, for example, Burton, 2002; Smit and Wandel, 2006)4502450217Burton, I.Huq, S.Lim, B.Pilifosova, O.Schipper, E. L.From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: The shaping of adaptation policyClimate Policy145-15922-32002http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0036378796&partnerID=40&md5=3397d3a8336712b6774d984a77906a1bScopusSmit200645014501450117Smit, B.Wandel, J.Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerabilityGlobal Environmental ChangeGlobal Environmental Change282-2921632006http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-33746185501&partnerID=40&md5=7af6ab6b7ce3e3e847d15397efc4c6bdScopus(see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_18" \o "Burton, 2002 #4502" Burton et al., 2002; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_87" \o "Smit, 2006 #4501" Smit and Wandel, 2006) as well as the key development needs of existing populations. Inherent in all these tensions is the inevitable existence of trade-offs in decision making, whereby decision makers acknowledge the difficulty of satisfying all of these criteria and, therefore, trade off achievement of some against failure to achieve others. The fact that trade-offs occur in practice, whereby socio-economic gains have been accepted at the expense of environmental losses, has been researched and documented ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA ( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_92" \o "Thrivel, 2009 #3082" Thrivel et al., 2009; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_17" \o "Brownlie, 2013 #4295" Brownlie et al., 2013).
In 2013 HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_41" \o "Gibson, 2013 #3928" ADDIN EN.CITE Gibson20133928Gibson (2013a)392839285Gibson, R. B.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 1: Why sustainability assessment?Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress3-17First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisGibson (2013a) set out his six imperatives which he argued were essential for sustainability assessment. These are set out in Box 1 and their summarised form provides the basis for the normative criterion in Table 1. We would emphasise, however, that for any specific decision context, these imperatives would need to be revisited and amended in line with the social norms in play; however they provide a useful starting point for discussion.
HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_12" \o "Bond, 2013 #3946" ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133946Bond (2013)394639465Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practiceSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress117-131First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisBond et al. (2013) added to the first four categories of effectiveness based on literature focussing on the role of knowledge and learning in impact assessment. This raises the possibility that those involved in a proposed project in any capacity might have poor knowledge about sustainable development and, therefore, are potentially less likely to press for sustainable outcomes.
The importance of knowledge and learning to effective assessment outcomes has now been recognised by a number of researchers ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_72" \o "Nilsson, 2005 #3008" Nilsson, 2005; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_53" \o "Jha-Thakur, 2009 #3126" Jha-Thakur et al., 2009), with a distinction made between instrumental and conceptual learning: the former being defined as the type of learning that leads to a change in policy or project design to better deliver sustainable outcomes, with the latter referring to a change in beliefs which should have wider consequences for the way those particular actors behave outside of the specific decision context.
A final category of effectiveness proposed by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_12" \o "Bond, 2013 #3946" ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20133946Bond (2013)394639465Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practiceSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress117-131First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisBond et al. (2013) is related to pluralism. This category acknowledges the variety of discourses that might be associated with the goals of sustainability assessment and therefore, that it is likely that perceptions of effectiveness may vary as a result. The notion of pluralism leads into the study of discourse, whereby different people will have different worldviews a topic that is covered in more detail in Chapter 2 (Pope et al.).
In summary, a series of criteria have been identified for determining what an effective sustainability assessment process should be like, although it is recognised that the normative and plural nature of some concepts means that these criteria may need modification to suit different contexts. The evidence gathered to date, however, suggests that existing sustainability assessment processes, whilst often performing well, fall short when viewed against all the criteria of effectiveness ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_42" \o "Gibson, 2013 #3948" Gibson, 2013b; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_68" \o "Morrison-Saunders, 2013 #3929" Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_77" \o "Retief, 2013 #3930" Retief, 2013; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_91" \o "Thrivel, 2013 #3947" Thrivel, 2013). They are nevertheless a useful framework to consider prior to reading the other chapters. The structure of the remainder of the book is explained below. The following chapters contain a combination of conceptualizations, case studies, proposed approaches and reflections, each of which have implications for the effectiveness of sustainability assessment practice.
5. Handbook structure
Key to understanding any field of study is a conceptualization of the current state of theory and practice. This allows us to place new knowledge in the appropriate context, and to be clear on the scope of the new understanding in relation to possible other conceptualizations. Chapters 2 to 4, comprising the Part 1 of the book, are all conceptualization chapters.
Important early work in conceptualizing sustainability assessment was undertaken by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_75" \o "Pope, 2004 #1926" ADDIN EN.CITE Pope20041926Pope (2004)1926192617Pope, JennyAnnandale, DavidMorrison-Saunders, AngusConceptualising sustainability assessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review595-616246EIASEAtriple bottom line20040195-9255Pope et al. (2004), who set out a typology of assessment processes at that time. In the intervening decade, considerable practice has emerged, further research has been conducted, and new knowledge and understanding has developed. It is thus important to revisit this conceptualization to map the current landscape of the field as a guide to the remainder of this Handbook. Jenny Pope et al. do just that in Chapter 2, and find some weaknesses in the 2004 conceptualisation which are addressed. In particular, given the pluralism inherent in the concept of sustainable development (as the stated goal of sustainability assessment) and emerging work examining the role of discourse in decision-making where forms of impact assessment are undertaken ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_82" \o "Runhaar, 2009 #3188" Runhaar, 2009; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_81" \o "Rozema, 2012 #3957" Rozema et al., 2012; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_50" \o "Hug, 2013 #1068" Hug et al., 2013), Pope et al. set the scene in terms of sustainability discourses underpinning assessment.
Different discourses of sustainability also exist and often reflect either strong or weak sustainability ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA ( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_71" \o "Neumayer, 2003 #254" Neumayer, 2003; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_15" \o "Bond, 2011 #3159" Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_50" \o "Hug, 2013 #1068" Hug et al., 2013). These terms have emerged from the field of economics and so present important context for our understanding of sustainability. In particular, given the prevalence of the three pillars approach to sustainable development, whereby sustainability is underpinned by progress in social, economic and environmental areas, it is important to have a clear understanding of how sustainability is perceived in that underpinning economic pillar. Chapter 3 by Nick Hanley provides a brief introduction to the economics of sustainable development, explains these terms, and discusses the different capitals that are accounted for in economic understandings of sustainability, as well as the economic indicators in use for measuring sustainable development at country scales. The inclusion of this chapter reflects the importance of such measures in terms of the development of Government policy.
As we have previously discussed, and as highlighted by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_39" \o "George, 2001 #1210" ADDIN EN.CITE George20011210George (2001)1210121017George, CliveSustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything from jobs to climate changeImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal95-106192Sustainable DevelopmentIntegrationcriterion-based appraisal2001June 2001George (2001), the concepts of inter-generational and intra-generational equity are central to most understandings of sustainable development. Chapter 4 by Lydia Lamorgese and Davide Geneletti, however, highlights how equity is poorly understood and rarely adequately considered in most impact assessment practice, and proposes a conceptual approach through which intra- and inter-generational equity can be embedded together as a unifying concept into sustainability assessment.
Another key variable affecting sustainability assessment practice is scale. HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_49" \o "Howitt, 2013 #4152" ADDIN EN.CITE Howitt20134152`, p.68Howitt (2013, p.68)415241525Howitt, R.Bond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 5: Contested spatiality: geographical scale in sustainability assessmentSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress68-84First2013LondonTaylor and FrancisHowitt (2013, p.68) explained the importance of scale in sustainability assessment in terms of the institutional and administrative arrangements across ecological, social, economic and political structures that are themselves scaled. The point is that the institutional and geographical context in which sustainability assessment fits is critical. Practice can be seen to already apply to different scales, with sustainability assessment of land use plans in England ADDIN EN.CITE Thrivel20093082e.g.`, (e.g., Thrivel, 2009)3082308217Riki ThrivelGemma ChristianClaire CraigRussell GrinhamDavid MackinsJames SmithTerry SnellerRichard TurnerDee WalkerMotoko YamaneSustainability-focused impact assessment: English experiencesImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal155-168272SEASustainability AppraisalEnglandEffectiveness200910.3152/146155109X438733( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_92" \o "Thrivel, 2009 #3082" e.g., Thrivel et al., 2009) and projects in Western Australia ADDIN EN.CITE Morrison-Saunders20133929e.g.`, (e.g., Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a)392939295Morrison-Saunders, A.Pope, JennyBond, AMorrison-Saunders, A.Howitt, R.Chapter 10: Learning by doing: sustainability assessment in Western AustraliaSustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress149-166First2013LondonRoutledge( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_68" \o "Morrison-Saunders, 2013 #3929" e.g., Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013a) as examples. Reflecting the very different decision contexts and therefore sustainability assessment processes, Part 2 of the Handbook, incorporating Chapters 5 and 6, examine practice at the regional scale (in this case in Canada) and at the policy level respectively.
Chapter 5, by Jill Gunn and Bram Noble, draws on the argument that impact assessment is better practiced at more strategic scales where it can direct development and plan outcomes rather than react to project proposals ADDIN EN.CITE Thrivel199240(Thrivel, 1992)40406Thrivel, RikiWilson, ElizabethThomson, S.Heaney, D.Pritchard, D.Strategic Environmental AssessmentSEA1992LondonEarthscan1-85383-147-6( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_94" \o "Thrivel, 1992 #40" Thrivel et al., 1992). It draws on the rich history of regional scale environmental assessments in Canada and examines how best sustainability might be integrated into existing practice.
In Chapter 6 Camilla Adelle and Sabine Weiland examine sustainability assessment at the policy level at national and international scales where there has been progress driven by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and by the European Union ADDIN EN.CITE Adelle20124032(Adelle and Weiland, 2012)4032403217Adelle, CamillaWeiland, SabinePolicy assessment: the state of the artImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal25-3330120122012/03/01Taylor & Francis1461-5517http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.66325610.1080/14615517.2012.6632562012/04/24( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_1" \o "Adelle, 2012 #4032" Adelle and Weiland, 2012). They specifically focus on the case studies of the European Union, Germany, Switzerland and the UK in explaining and evaluating the processes undertaken to assess the sustainability implications of emerging policies and legislation.
Part 3 of the Handbook examines practice in different sectors, again acknowledging the importance of context in shaping practice. It would not be possible to present a comprehensive review of practice across all sectors as they are so numerous; for example the EU SEA Directive ADDIN EN.CITE European Parliament and the Council of the European Union20011156(European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001)1156115617European Parliament and the Council of the European Union,Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environmentOfficial Journal of the European CommunitiesOfficial Journal of the European Communities30-37L197SEAEUDirective200121 July 2001( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_30" \o "European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001 #1156" European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2001) sets out sectors falling within its scope as: agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, town and country planning or land use. In this book two sectors are featured: energy (Chapters 7 and 8) and urban development (Chapter 9). The importance of considering the energy sector in any discussion of sustainable development is evident, given the continuing increase in demand for energy at a global scale, and the climate implications of current reliance on fossil fuel. The continuing expansion and development of our cities is equally critical; the HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_97" \o "United Nations, 2014 #4542" ADDIN EN.CITE United Nations20144542United Nations (2014)4542454212United Nations,, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population DivisionWorld Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).6th November 20142014http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdfUnited Nations (2014) indicate that 54% of the worlds population live in cities in 2014, with 28 cities being categorised as mega-cities (10 million people or more) with the number of mega-cities expected to rise to 41 by 2030 ADDIN EN.CITE United Nations20144542(United Nations, 2014)4542454212United Nations,, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population DivisionWorld Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).6th November 20142014http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_97" \o "United Nations, 2014 #4542" United Nations, 2014).
In Chapter 7, Carla Duarte et al. consider the best approach for integrating sustainability into the decennial energy plans (i.e. plans of ten-year duration) that are produced in Brazil, thus far without appropriate consideration of sustainability implications. These plans include supply and demand studies for electricity, oil, gas and biofuels and make a fascinating case study in relation to energy given Brazils development of ethanol as a key renewable transport fuel.
A different energy perspective is provided by Kirk Gaudreau and Bob Gibson in Chapter 8 which introduces an approach based on a move away from energy plans and policies focussing on meeting demand and towards meeting social goals the soft energy path. Based on this approach they derive principles towards a constructive relationship with energy. They then combine these principles with the broader sustainability principles derived by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_40" \o "Gibson, 2005 #144" ADDIN EN.CITE Gibson2005144Gibson (2005a)1441446Gibson, RobertHassan, SelmaHoltz, SusanTansey, JamesWhitelaw, GrahamSustainability assessment: Criteria and processes2005LondonEarthscanGibson et al. (2005a) to generate sustainability evaluation and decision criteria for energy applications.
In Chapter 9 Maria Partidario and Pedro Pereira draw on the concept of resilience and connect sustainability and resilience thinking, an approach also taken by HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_37" \o "Gaudreau, 2010 #3645" ADDIN EN.CITE Gaudreau20103645Gaudreau and Gibson (2010)3645364517Gaudreau, K.Gibson, R. B.Illustrating integrated sustainability and resilience based assessments: A small-scale biodiesel project in BarbadosImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal233-243283sustainability assessmentresiliencebiodieselsystems analysismulti-criteria assessment2010http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-77958061139&partnerID=40&md5=de1ea603ff1206d44c44d18cf44991d210.3152/146155110X12772982841122Gaudreau and Gibson (2010), in an urban context (using Lisbon, Portugal as a case study). The term resilience is increasingly heard in impact assessment circles ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (see, for example, HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_86" \o "Slootweg, 2011 #4003" Slootweg and Jones, 2011; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_29" \o "Davoudi, 2012 #4039" Davoudi et al., 2012; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_7" \o "Baker, 2013 #4332" Baker et al., 2013) and is a measure of the extent to which a system can absorb change. They develop an urban resilience approach drawing on the work of HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_45" \o "Gunderson, 2002 #4470" ADDIN EN.CITE Gunderson20024470Gunderson and Holling (2002)4470447028Gunderson, Lance HHolling, C. S.Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems5071st2002WashingtonIsland Press1-55963-857-5Gunderson and Holling (2002) and the concept of Panarchy. The concept of resilience is also explored in Chapter 13 (see below) by Grace and Pope.
All forms of impact assessment have long grappled with the methods and tools that can be used to conduct all or parts of the assessments ADDIN EN.CITE Bisset1980195e.g.`, (e.g., Bisset, 1980)19519517Bisset, R.Methods for Environmental Impact Analysis: Recent Trends and Future ProspectsJournal of Environmental ManagementJournal of Environmental Management27-43JanuaryMethods1980Academic Press( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_10" \o "Bisset, 1980 #195" e.g., Bisset, 1980), and there are constant developments in this aspect of impact assessment practice. HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_76" \o "Porter, 1998 #1152" ADDIN EN.CITE Porter19981152Porter and Fittipaldi (1998)1152115228Porter, A. L.Fittipaldi, J. J.Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century309EIAMethodsRiskSEAHealth1998U.S. Army Environmental Policy InstitutePorter and Fittipaldi (1998) set out what was new and important at the time of publication of their book, and there has been continuing evolution of approaches, some of which are reflected in Part 4 of this Handbook.
In particular, the concept of ecosystem services has gained popularity since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 ADDIN EN.CITE Millennium Ecosystem Assessment20053682(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)3682368212Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis20th December 20102005Washington D.C.Island Presshttp://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_65" \o "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 #3682" Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In Chapter 10 Davide Geneletti and Alan Bond introduce the concept of ecosystem services and how it has been incorporated into impact assessment in general, and sustainability assessment in particular. They then suggest a framework to facilitate the embedding of ecosystem services within sustainability assessment before concluding with an examination of the institutional barriers and enablers to this embedding. Drawing on research which has identified the importance of institutions and institutional discourses for the effectiveness of impact assessment practice ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (e.g., HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_47" \o "Hajer, 1993 #3212" Hajer, 1993; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_62" \o "Lorenzoni, 2014 #4533" Lorenzoni and Benson, 2014), they argue that the existence of a framework will not make something happen in a political setting without considerable effort.
A decision tool which has gained some favour given its ability to help to choose between alternatives is multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), or simply multicriteria analysis (MCA) ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (e.g., HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_33" \o "Fishburn, 1999 #3154" Fishburn and Lavalle, 1999; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_52" \o "Janssen, 2001 #2968" Janssen, 2001; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_25" \o "CoRWM, 2006 #2615" CoRWM, 2006). It is particularly useful in sustainability assessment applications due to its ability to integrate the various dimensions of sustainability as well as to combine expert opinion and lay knowledge (and hence embrace pluralism), through scoring and weighting of issues respectively. Davide Geneletti and Valentina Ferretti present an explanation of MCA and its potential application in sustainability assessment in Chapter 11. They include considerations of sensitivity analysis to test for robustness of conclusions based on different stakeholder weightings, and present three case study applications of MCA, one of which includes an innovative spatial MCA (through the application of Geographical Information Systems, GIS). The learning from the three case studies and their relevance to the practice of sustainability assessment concludes the chapter.
In their original conceptualization of sustainability assessment (reviewed in Chapter 2 of this Handbook), HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_75" \o "Pope, 2004 #1926" ADDIN EN.CITE Pope20041926Pope (2004)1926192617Pope, JennyAnnandale, DavidMorrison-Saunders, AngusConceptualising sustainability assessmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review595-616246EIASEAtriple bottom line20040195-9255Pope et al. (2004) identified objectives-led integrated assessment as one of the three types of assessment; the English sustainability apprasial process is an isolated example of this concept in mandatory practice. In Chapter 12, Samuel Hayes and Thomas Fischer explain the English process and the current state of the art in terms of the setting of sustainability objectives, along with the associated indicators that act as measures of whether alternative policies within the plan will achieve the objectives. They also investigate the issue of trade-offs across sustainability objectives that typify practice, as well as the knotty problems of reductionism whereby complex environmental systems are broken down into discreet components which will not always properly represent the whole ADDIN EN.CITE Bell20083063(Bell and Morse, 2008; Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011)306330636Bell, SimonMorse, StephenSustainability Indicators: Measuring the immeasurable?2282ndSustainabilitySustainability indicatorssystemismAMOEBAIMAGINE2008London, Sterling, VAEarthscan978-1-84407-299-6Bond201131593159315917Bond, A.J.Morrison-Saunders, A.Re-evaluating Sustainability Assessment: aligning the vision and the practiceEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review1-7311Sustainability AssessmentReductionismHolismTimescalesWeak sustainabilityStrong sustainabilityDeliberation201110.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.007 ( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_9" \o "Bell, 2008 #3063" Bell and Morse, 2008; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_15" \o "Bond, 2011 #3159" Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011). They conclude with reflections on the English approach and what can be learnt from it more broadly.
Chapter 13 takes as its starting point that there have been recent calls for impact assessment to embrace not only resilience thinking (as illustrated in Chapter 9) but systems-thinking more generally, i.e. to recognise the interconnected and dynamic nature of socio-ecological systems. Arguing that human cognition is limited in its ability to deal with either feedback or exponential growth, two considerations in understanding system dynamics, Bill Grace and Jenny Pope use computerised systems dynamics modelling tools to explore firstly the meaning of resilience-thinking concepts and heuristics, and then to develop a conceptual systems model for sustainability, which they define as enduring human wellbeing. They argue for an approach to sustainability assessment that recognises nested and connected systems at different scales, and demonstrate the use of systems dynamics as a useful tool in such a process.
In Chapter 14 Michelle Audouin et al. introduce sustainability science as a means of achieving sustainable development through its practical, problem-focused orientation; emphasis on the relationships between social, ecological and economic aspects in a systemic view of the world; and the adoption of a transdisciplinary approach to conducting research. They focus on the need for systems-based approaches to sustainability assessment that integrate knowledge across disciplines and stakeholder values. In their call for a systems approach, they reflect arguments that reductionism is flawed ADDIN EN.CITE Bond20113159as discussed in chapters 12 and 13`, and see (as discussed in chapters 12 and 13, and see Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011)3159315917Bond, A.J.Morrison-Saunders, A.Re-evaluating Sustainability Assessment: aligning the vision and the practiceEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review1-7311Sustainability AssessmentReductionismHolismTimescalesWeak sustainabilityStrong sustainabilityDeliberation201110.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.007 ( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_15" \o "Bond, 2011 #3159" as discussed in chapters 12 and 13, and see Bond and Morrison-Saunders, 2011) and highlight the contribution of complexity theory to overcome reductionism. Their call for transdisciplinarity reflects arguments that different framings exist across different stakeholders particularly in contexts that cross the social and ecological divide. They provide examples through case studies of how systems thinking and transdisciplinary approaches can benefit sustainability assessment.
Governance arrangements have been identified as key factors influencing the effectiveness of EIA ADDIN EN.CITE Arts20124080(Arts, 2012)4080408017Arts, JosRunhaar, Hens A. C.Fischer, Thomas B.Jha-Thakur, UrmilaVan Laerhoven, FrankDriessen, Peter P. J.Onyango, VincentThe effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: Reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the netherlands and the ukJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management12500251442012http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333212500251doi:10.1142/S1464333212500251( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_4" \o "Arts, 2012 #4080" Arts et al., 2012), and given sustainability assessment works in the same governance context, we can assume the same applies. HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_28" \o "Craik, 2012 #4503" ADDIN EN.CITE Craik20124503Craik (2012)4503450317Craik, N.Doelle, M.Gale, F.Governing information: A three dimensional analysis of environmental assessmentPublic Administration19-369012012http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84858665502&partnerID=40&md5=edd93b963be617ae3b4951207b3b90a1ScopusCraik et al. (2012) analysed three case studies from three very different decision contexts (in Canada, Australia and the Ukraine) using three different dimensions of governance as a basis for analysis: institutional, political and regulatory form. They found that the case studies depicted great differences between the three contexts, based on all three governance forms. They make the point that, although the processes analysed might share the same goal of sustainable development, there is no substantive legal force behind this goal. Instead, the legal force applies to the procedural steps, and there is considerable scope for the various institutions and other actors involved in the process to vary between specific decision contexts, and to vary significantly in terms of the power they wield. Public participation in decision making is a key governance mechanism and is now considered a right, although practice varies considerably. HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_3" \o "Arnstein, 1969 #1326" ADDIN EN.CITE Arnstein19691326Arnstein (1969)1326132617Arnstein, S.R.A ladder of citizen participationJournal of the American Institute of Planners216-244354Public ParticipationCitizen power1969Arnstein (1969) set out a useful classification in the past which still provides the benchmark against which particular approaches are judged. Minimum standards in many countries are now set through international agreement, for example through the Aarhus Convention ADDIN EN.CITE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe199845(United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1998)454527United Nations Economic Commission for Europe,Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental mattersAarhus Convention28AarhusPublic ParticipationConvention199823-25 June 1998GenevaUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Environmental PolicyECE/CEP/43( HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_98" \o "United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1998 #45" United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 1998). Part 5 of this Handbook therefore examines governance and engagement in the context of sustainability assessment.
In Chapter 15, John Sinclair et al. identify the essential elements of public participation for sustainability assessment; in it they specifically explain how to address power imbalances which are increasingly recognised as affecting the objectivity of other forms of impact assessment ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA (e.g., HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_34" \o "Flyvbjerg, 1998 #2715" Flyvbjerg, 1998; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_79" \o "Richardson, 2005 #2036" Richardson, 2005; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_21" \o "Cashmore, 2013 #4214" Cashmore and Axelsson, 2013). Sinclair et al. identify five emerging directions for meaningful participation and outline what each entails.
Chapter 16, by Janette Hartz-Karp et al. picks up this theme and specifically considers the potential contribution of deliberative collaborative governance (DCG), as the hybrid of deliberative democracy and collaborative governance, to sustainability assessment. To do this, the authors draw on recent action research conducted in Western Australia through which the principles of DCG were applied and their effectiveness in delivering not only meaningful, representative engagement but positive outcomes for sustainability demonstrated. They then apply some of the lessons learnt to another case study, in this case a community affected when a large and controversial development project was progressed to a point (and various impact assessments undertaken) but then did not proceed. With the benefit of hindsight they consider hypothetically what could have been done had a sustainability assessment informed by the principles of DCG been undertaken, as well as discussing what could still be done now to co-create a more sustainable future for this community.
HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_78" \o "Retief, 2013 #4289" ADDIN EN.CITE Retief20134289Retief (2013)4289428917Retief, F.Morrison-Saunders, A.Geneletti, D.Pope, J.Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessmentImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal13-23311conflict in decision-makingdecision-makingenvironmental impact assessmentpsychologytrade-offs2013//14615517http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84875334851&partnerID=40&md5=28c4cd51d54a2d01aba674dca3a9a1ed10.1080/14615517.2013.768007Retief et al. (2013) introduced learning from the field of psychology to explore the handling of trade-offs in decision making. This research recognised that one of the key roles of impact assessment is to inform, and influence, decision makers, but that decision-making is inherently complex. A key author in the field of decision complexity associated with individual choice in particular is Daniel Kahneman ADDIN EN.CITE Kahneman20134478e.g.`, (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; Kahneman, 2013)447844786Kahneman, DThinking Fast and Slow2013New YorkFarrar, Straus and GirouxKahneman198445164516451617Kahneman, DanielTversky, AmosChoices, values, and framesAmerican psychologistAmerican psychologist34139419841935-990X(e.g., HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_58" \o "Kahneman, 1984 #4516" Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; HYPERLINK \l "_ENREF_57" \o "Kahneman, 2013 #4478" Kahneman, 2013). In Chapter 17 Francois Retief et al. explore further learning that can be derived from Kahnemans work, and from the psychology field in general, to better understand and enhance the practice of sustainability assessment. They consider issues of choice, prediction, and communication within sustainability assessment, and use this as a framework around which to synthesise learning.
Part 6 of the Handbook rounds out the material that precedes it with conclusions and an epilogue. Overall conclusions are provided in Chapter 19 by Pope et al., including key learning points arising from the Handbook chapters along with some reflections on the state of the art of sustainability assessment. The final words for the Handbook, however, go to Robert Gibson in an epilogue which takes a step back to provide a big picture overview of the field of sustainability assessment in terms of where it has come from and future directions and challenges for practitioners.
References
ADDIN EN.REFLIST Adelle, C. and S. Weiland (2012), 'Policy assessment: the state of the art', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 25-33.
Adger, W.N., K. Brown, J. Fairbrass, A. Jordan, J. Paavola, S. Rosendo and G. Seyfang (2003), 'Governance for sustainability: towards a 'thick' analysis of environmental decisionmaking', Environment and Planning A, 35, 1095-1110.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969), 'A ladder of citizen participation', Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4), 216-244.
Arts, J., H.A.C. Runhaar, T.B. Fischer, U. Jha-Thakur, F. Van Laerhoven, P.P.J. Driessen and V. Onyango (2012), 'The effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: Reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the netherlands and the uk', Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14 (4), 1250025.
Ayre, G. and R. Callway (2005), 'Outcomes from the World Summit for Sustainable Development', in Ayre, G. and R. Callway (eds), Governance for Sustainable Development: a Foundation For the Future, London: Earthscan. pp. 14-42.
Baker, D.C. and J.N. McLelland (2003), 'Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment process for first nations' participation in mining development', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 (5), 581-603.
Baker, J., W.R. Sheate, P. Phillips and R. Eales (2013), 'Ecosystem services in environmental assessment Help or hindrance?', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40 (0), 3-13.
Bartlett, R.V. and P.A. Kurian (1999), 'The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making', Policy & Politics, 27 (4), 415-433.
Bell, S. and S. Morse (2008), Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the immeasurable?, London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Bisset, R. (1980), 'Methods for Environmental Impact Analysis: Recent Trends and Future Prospects', Journal of Environmental Management, January, 27-43.
Bond, A. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2013), 'Chapter 3: Challenges in determining the effectiveness of sustainability assessment', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 37-50.
Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (2013), 'Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 117-131.
Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and J. Pope (2012), 'Sustainability assessment: the state of the art', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 53-62.
Bond, A.J. (2003), 'Let's not be rational about this: response to Benson', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (4), 266-268.
Bond, A.J. and A. Morrison-Saunders (2011), 'Re-evaluating Sustainability Assessment: aligning the vision and the practice', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31 (1), 1-7.
Bond, A.J., C.V. Viegas, C. Coelho de Souza Reinisch Coelho and P.M. Selig (2010), 'Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA?', Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (1), 6-13.
Brownlie, S., N. King and J. Treweek (2013), 'Biodiversity tradeoffs and offsets in impact assessment and decision making: Can we stop the loss?', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (1), 24-33.
Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova and E.L. Schipper (2002), 'From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: The shaping of adaptation policy', Climate Policy, 2 (2-3), 145-159.
Canter, L.W. (1996), Environmental Impact Assessment, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carson, R. (1963), Silent Spring, London: Hamish Hamilton.
Cashmore, M. and A. Axelsson (2013), 'The mediation of environmental assessment's influence: What role for power?', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 5-12.
Cashmore, M., R. Gwilliam, R. Morgan, D. Cobb and A. Bond (2004), 'The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 (4), 295-310.
Chanchitpricha, C. and A. Bond (2013), 'Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 65-72.
Clark, R., L. Mahoney and K. Pierce (2011), 'SEA in the US', in Sadler, B., R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T.B. Fischer, M.R. Partidrio and R. Verheem (eds), Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan. pp. 74-88.
CoRWM (2006), 'Managing our Radioactive Waste Safely, CoRWM's recommendations to Government', available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294118/700_-_CoRWM_July_2006_Recommendations_to_Government_pdf.pdf (accessed 17 December 2014).
Council of the European Communities (1985), 'Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC)', Official Journal of the European Communities, C175, 40 - 49.
Council of the European Union (2006), 'Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy', available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST 10917 2006 INIT (accessed 17 December 2014).
Craik, N., M. Doelle and F. Gale (2012), 'Governing information: A three dimensional analysis of environmental assessment', Public Administration, 90 (1), 19-36.
Davoudi, S., K. Shaw, L.J. Haider, A.E. Quinlan, G.D. Peterson, C. Wilkinson, H. Fnfgeld, D. McEvoy, L. Porter and S. Davoudi (2012), 'Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? Reframing Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note', Planning Theory & Practice, 13 (2), 299-333.
Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee (1992), 'National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development', available http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy (accessed 17 December 2014).
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2001), 'Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment', Official Journal of the European Communities, L197, 30-37.
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2014), 'Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment', Official Journal of the European Communities, L124, 1-18.
Feldmann, L., M. Vanderhaegen and C. Pirotte (2001), 'The EU's SEA Directive: status and links to integration and sustainable development', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 203-222.
Fishburn, P.C. and I.H. Lavalle (1999), 'MCDA: Theory, practice and the future', Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 8 (1), 1-2.
Flyvbjerg, B. (1998), Rationality & Power: Democracy in Practice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fundingsland Tetlow, M. and M. Hanusch (2012), 'Strategic environmental assessment: the state of the art', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 15-24.
Garner, J.F. and T. O'Riordan (1982), 'Environmental Impact Assessment in the Context of Economic Recession', The Geographical Journal, 148 (3), 343-355.
Gaudreau, K. and R.B. Gibson (2010), 'Illustrating integrated sustainability and resilience based assessments: A small-scale biodiesel project in Barbados', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (3), 233-243.
George, C. (1999), 'Testing for Sustainable Development through Environmental Assessment', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19 (2), 175-200.
George, C. (2001), 'Sustainability appraisal for sustainable development: integrating everything from jobs to climate change', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19 (2), 95-106.
Gibson, R., S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey and G. Whitelaw (2005a), Sustainability assessment: Criteria and processes, London: Earthscan.
Gibson, R.B. (2013a), 'Chapter 1: Why sustainability assessment?', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 3-17.
Gibson, R.B. (2013b), 'Chapter 11: Sustainability assessment in Canada', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 167-183.
Gibson, R.B., S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey and G. Whitelaw (2005b), Sustainability Assessment: Criteria, Processes and Applications, London: Earthscan.
Glasson, J., R. Therivel and A. Chadwick (2012), Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, London: Routledge.
Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling, (eds). (2002), Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Washington: Island Press.
Hacking, T. and P. Guthrie (2008), 'A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2-3), 73-89.
Hajer, M.A. (1993), 'Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain', in Fischer, F. and J. Forester (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Durham: Duke University Press. pp. 43-76.
HM Government (2005), Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. Cm 6467. (The Stationery Office, Norwich) 188.
Howitt, R. (2013), 'Chapter 5: Contested spatiality: geographical scale in sustainability assessment', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 68-84.
Hug, J., T. Waas, F. Dahdouh-Guebas, N. Koedam and T. Block (2013), 'A discourse-analytical perspective on sustainability assessment: interpreting sustainable development in practice', Sustainability science, 8 (2), 187-198.
International Association for Impact Assessment (2009), 'What is impact assessment?, available http://www.iaia.org/publications-resources/downloadable-publications.aspx (accessed 17 December 2014).
Janssen, R. (2001), 'On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in The Netherlands', Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10 (2), 101-109.
Jha-Thakur, U., P. Gazzola, D. Peel, T.B. Fischer and S. Kidd (2009), 'Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment - the significance of learning', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27 (2), 133-144.
Jones, C.E., M. Baker, J. Carter, S. Jay, M. Short and C. Wood, (eds). (2005), Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: an International Evaluation, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Jordan, A. and T. O'Riordan (2004), 'The precautionary principle: a legal and policy history', in Martuzzi, M. and J.A. Tickner (eds), The Precautionary Principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children, Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. pp. 31-48.
Kahneman, D. (2013), Thinking Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1984), 'Choices, values, and frames', American psychologist, 39 (4), 341.
Karkkainen, B.K. (2007), 'NEPA and the curious evolution of environmental impact assessment in the United States', in Holder, J. and D. McGillivray (eds), Taking Stock of Environmental Assessment: Law, Policy and Practice, Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish. pp. 45-63.
Ll, S.M. (1991), 'Sustainable development: A critical review', World Development, 19 (6), 607-621.
Liu, S., R. Costanza, S. Farber and A. Troy (2010), 'Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis', 1185, 54-78.
Lorenzoni, I. and D. Benson (2014), 'Radical institutional change in environmental governance: Explaining the origins of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 through discursive and streams perspectives', Global Environmental Change, 29 (0), 10-21.
Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers and W.W. Behrens (1972), The Limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament for mankind, New York: Universe Books.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), 'Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis', available at http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed 17 December 2014).
Morgan, R.K. (2012), 'Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 (1), 5-14.
Morrison-Saunders, A. and T.B. Fischer (2006), 'What is wrong with EIA and SEA anyway? A sceptic's perspective on sustainability assessment', Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8 (1), 19-39.
Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Pope (2013a), 'Chapter 10: Learning by doing: sustainability assessment in Western Australia', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Routledge. pp. 149-166.
Morrison-Saunders, A. and J. Pope (2013b), 'Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 54-63.
Morrison-Saunders, A., J. Pope, J. Gunn, A. Bond and F. Retief (2014), 'Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32 (1), 2-8.
Neumayer, E. (2003), Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Nilsson, M. (2005), 'Learning frames and environmental policy integration: the case of Swedish energy policy', Environment and Planning C, 23 (2), 207-226.
O'Riordan, T. (2000), 'The sustainability debate', in O'Riordan, T. (ed.) Environmental Science for Environmental Management, Harlow: Prentice Hall. pp. 29-62.
Okrent, D. (1999), 'On intergenerational equity and its clash with intragenerational equity and on the need for policies to guide the regulation of disposal of wastes and other activities posing very long-term risks', Risk Analysis, 19 (5), 877-901.
Pope, J., D. Annandale and A. Morrison-Saunders (2004), 'Conceptualising sustainability assessment', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (6), 595-616.
Porter, A.L. and J.J. Fittipaldi, (eds). (1998), Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century: U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute.
Retief, F. (2013), 'Chapter 12: Sustainability assessment in South Africa', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 184-196.
Retief, F., A. Morrison-Saunders, D. Geneletti and J. Pope (2013), 'Exploring the psychology of trade-off decision-making in environmental impact assessment', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31 (1), 13-23.
Richardson, T. (2005), 'Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25 (4), 341-365.
Rossouw, N. and K. Wiseman (2004), 'Learning from the implementation of environmental public policy instruments after the first ten years of democracy in South Africa', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 (2), 131-140.
Rozema, J.G., A.J. Bond, M. Cashmore and J. Chilvers (2012), 'An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33 (1), 80-90.
Runhaar, H. (2009), 'Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29 (3), 200-209.
Sadler, B. (1996), International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report - Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance. (Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa) 248.
Sheate, W.R. (2009), 'The Evolving Nature of Environmental Assessment and Management: Linking Tools to Help Deliver Sustainability - Tools, Techniques & Approaches for Sustainability', in Sheate, W.R. (ed.) Tools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Singapore: World Scientific. pp. 1-29.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2000), 'Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra- and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear waste', Risk Analysis, 20 (6), 771-778.
Slootweg, R. and M. Jones (2011), 'Resilience thinking improves SEA: A discussion paper', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29 (4), 263-276.
Smit, B. and J. Wandel (2006), 'Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability', Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), 282-292.
Sneddon, C., R.B. Howarth and R.B. Norgaard (2006), 'Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world', Ecological Economics, 57, 253268.
Tenny, A., J. Kvrner and K.I. Gjersyad (2006), 'Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24 (1), 45-56.
Theophilou, V., A. Bond and M. Cashmore (2010), 'Application of the SEA Directive to EU structural funds: perspectives on effectiveness', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30 (2), 136-144.
Thrivel, R. (2013), 'Chapter 9: Sustainability assessment in England', in Bond, A., A. Morrison-Saunders and R. Howitt (eds), Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress, London: Taylor and Francis. pp. 132-148.
Thrivel, R., G. Christian, C. Craig, R. Grinham, D. Mackins, J. Smith, T. Sneller, R. Turner, D. Walker and M. Yamane (2009), 'Sustainability-focused impact assessment: English experiences', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27 (2), 155-168.
Thrivel, R. and P. Minas (2002), 'Ensuring effective sustainability appraisal', Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20 (2), 81-91.
Thrivel, R., E. Wilson, S. Thomson, D. Heaney and D. Pritchard (1992), Strategic Environmental Assessment, London: Earthscan.
Tickner, J.A. and K. Geiser (2004), 'The precautionary principle stimulus for solutions- and alternatives-based environmental policy', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 (7-8), 801-824.
Turner, K.R., J. Paavola, P. Cooper, S. Farber, V. Jessamy and S. Georgiou (2003), 'Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions', Ecological Economics, 46, 493-510.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2014), 'World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). available at HYPERLINK "http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf%3e" http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf%3E, (accessed 6th November 2014).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1998), Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Environmental Policy, Geneva) 28.
Wood, C. (2003), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, Edinburgh: Prentice Hall.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wynne, B. and S. Mayer (1993), 'How science fails the environment', New Scientist, 5 June, 33-35.
PAGE
PAGE 3
K L ~ J o 罫r[rRF;/ hi hU 5OJ QJ h
hU OJ QJ h
hU 5OJ QJ hU 5OJ QJ -hi hU 56OJ QJ ]^J aJ nH tH 'hi hU 5OJ QJ ^J aJ nH tH 'hU hU 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph hU 5hU OJ QJ ^J aJ #hM) hU 6CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ )hU 6B*CJ OJ QJ ]^J aJ ph )hD hU B*CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ ph /hD hU 6B*CJ OJ QJ ]^J aJ ph L M
& d gd0 d ' gdU gdU 7$ 8$ H$ gdU $a$gdU 07$ 8$ H$ ^`0gdU $7$ 8$ H$ a$gdU
7
8
K
L
M
W
j k p\ 'hU ht 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph 'hU hHrq 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph 'hU hrx5 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph 'hU h7 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph 'hU hU 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph h
hU OJ QJ aJ hi hU 5OJ QJ hi hU 0J OJ QJ j hi hU OJ QJ Uhi hU OJ QJ % & / d e ïtaP?+ 'hU h@| 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph !hU hHrq B*OJ QJ aJ phf !hU hHrq B*OJ QJ aJ ph $hU hHrq 6B*OJ QJ aJ ph $hU h[w 6B*OJ QJ aJ ph 'hU hHrq 6B*OJ QJ ]aJ ph 'hU h[w 6B*OJ QJ ]aJ ph 'hU h7 6B*OJ QJ ]aJ ph 'hU hHrq 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph 'hU h7 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph 'hU hs 5B*OJ QJ \aJ ph & e G" H" % % % /&