Tools
Tools
Bond, Alan 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3809-5805, Dusik, Jiří and Ladikas, Miltos
(2024)
Impact Assessment versus Technology Assessment:Distant Relatives or Different Species?
In:
Handbook of Technology Assessment.
Research Handbooks in Science and Technology Studies
.
Edward Elgar, pp. 418-429.
ISBN 9781035310678
Abstract
This chapter introduces the process of impact assessment (IA) in order to explain to the technology assessment (TA) community what it is that IA practitioners do. The United States (US)-based International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines IA as a ‘process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action’ (IAIA n.d.). This uses IA as an umbrella term to encompass practice across different tiers of decision-making, including strategic environmental assessment and project-level environmental impact assessment (EIA), as well as more issue-focused IA such as social impact assessment and health impact assessment, amongst many others; a fuller list of such forms of IA can be found in Vanclay (2015). Here we also use IA as an umbrella term following this same understanding. The chapter aims to bring together the two communities for mutual value, leading to cross-fertilisation of ideas, innovation and methods, and advancing understanding of how best to influence policy outcomes. The two communities share a common link through IAIA, which remains the principal global network for impact assessment to inform decision-making at all levels. Yet we feel that the close ties that existed in the early years of IAIA (founded in 1980) have disappeared. IA is globally mandated at the project level (for large projects that may have significant impacts) and therefore known to influence decision-making worldwide, yet it has many weaknesses that plague its acceptance amongst the wide variety of stakeholders involved in any particular decision. Whilst the need for TA has never been greater with the advent of artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, genetic modification (see chapters 10, 11 and 12), and so on, there are inherent challenges in assessing its impact outside the well-established parliamentary institutional setting (Roper/Porter 1998).
| Item Type: | Book Section |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | environmental science(all) ,/dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2300 |
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Science > School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Research Groups/Centres > Theme - ClimateUEA |
| UEA Research Groups: | Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Environmental Social Sciences |
| Depositing User: | LivePure Connector |
| Date Deposited: | 16 Oct 2024 12:30 |
| Last Modified: | 16 Oct 2024 12:30 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/97043 |
| DOI: | 10.4337/9781035310685.00058 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |