Pub Date : 2023-05-02DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2204286
J. Arts, H. de Vries
ABSTRACT The Netherlands’ Environmental Assessment (EA) system has continuously been discussed with calls for streamlining and simplifying. This paper aims to provide an overview and to examine these discussions, including their more fundamental background. To this end, we discuss the origins of the Dutch EA-system, its practice, the critique, the regulator’s reaction by changing institutional arrangements, and the consequences. We conclude that politically, EA is blamed for cumbersome planning and decision-making, while professionals are more nuanced. We see a process of persistent cumbersome planning and decision-making about plans and projects in a country in which environment and nature are under pressure. This situation is resulting in impromptu ‘escape routes’ and evermore detailed EA-studies that are costly, time-consuming, lack quality, are contested, and often fail before court. This process is observed for a long time. Although most studies stressed that streamlining and simplifying will not help in accelerating the planning process, nevertheless regulatory changes aimed at this because of political pressure. Overall, as a consequence of the simplification of regulations and the reduction of safeguards, the advanced and comprehensive nature of the original Dutch EIA-system has been called into question. EA as a messenger intrinsically will always be subject to critique.
{"title":"Don’t Shoot the Messenger – Reflections on streamlining and simplification of Environmental Assessment in the Netherlands","authors":"J. Arts, H. de Vries","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2204286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2204286","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Netherlands’ Environmental Assessment (EA) system has continuously been discussed with calls for streamlining and simplifying. This paper aims to provide an overview and to examine these discussions, including their more fundamental background. To this end, we discuss the origins of the Dutch EA-system, its practice, the critique, the regulator’s reaction by changing institutional arrangements, and the consequences. We conclude that politically, EA is blamed for cumbersome planning and decision-making, while professionals are more nuanced. We see a process of persistent cumbersome planning and decision-making about plans and projects in a country in which environment and nature are under pressure. This situation is resulting in impromptu ‘escape routes’ and evermore detailed EA-studies that are costly, time-consuming, lack quality, are contested, and often fail before court. This process is observed for a long time. Although most studies stressed that streamlining and simplifying will not help in accelerating the planning process, nevertheless regulatory changes aimed at this because of political pressure. Overall, as a consequence of the simplification of regulations and the reduction of safeguards, the advanced and comprehensive nature of the original Dutch EIA-system has been called into question. EA as a messenger intrinsically will always be subject to critique.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"238 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45774321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-02DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2207269
T. Fischer
This is my last issue – a special issue on ‘environmental/ impact assessment simplification’; subsequently introduced by Fischer et al. (2023) – as editor of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (IAPA) after seven years, 39 issues (of which 11 issues with a special focus) and 351 published items (including research and professional practice papers, letters, book reviews and editorials). Prior to my time at IAPA, I was editor of the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), also for seven years, which means I have continuously edited – what used to be – two of the three main impact assessment (IA) journals (the third being Environmental Impact Assessment Review – EIAR) for a total of 14 years. In this, my last editorial, I will make some personal observations and provide for some reflections on IA publishing and editing, looking at past and present developments, in particular with regards to where IAPA is currently standing.
{"title":"Impact assessment publishing – observations and reflections after 7 years of being editor of impact assessment and project appraisal","authors":"T. Fischer","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2207269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2207269","url":null,"abstract":"This is my last issue – a special issue on ‘environmental/ impact assessment simplification’; subsequently introduced by Fischer et al. (2023) – as editor of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (IAPA) after seven years, 39 issues (of which 11 issues with a special focus) and 351 published items (including research and professional practice papers, letters, book reviews and editorials). Prior to my time at IAPA, I was editor of the Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), also for seven years, which means I have continuously edited – what used to be – two of the three main impact assessment (IA) journals (the third being Environmental Impact Assessment Review – EIAR) for a total of 14 years. In this, my last editorial, I will make some personal observations and provide for some reflections on IA publishing and editing, looking at past and present developments, in particular with regards to where IAPA is currently standing.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"175 - 180"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44819417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-13DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2192595
Anna Haładyj, K. Tokarczyk-Dorociak, Ł. Szkudlarek
ABSTRACT This letter looks at whether important changes introduced to the Polish EIA Act over the last decade (with regard to scoping, cooperation, the rights of the public concerned and non-governmental organisations) have led to simplified EIA as well as to simplified development consent processes. In addition, current draft modifications (the EIA Amendment Draft 2022) are also reviewed with regard to their potential to lead to simplification. It is found that to date, rather than simplifying EIA, amendments have resulted in more complexity and have led to increased uncertainty and risks, in particular for investors.
{"title":"Is there any EIA simplification?: reflections on procedural aspects of the Polish system","authors":"Anna Haładyj, K. Tokarczyk-Dorociak, Ł. Szkudlarek","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2192595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2192595","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This letter looks at whether important changes introduced to the Polish EIA Act over the last decade (with regard to scoping, cooperation, the rights of the public concerned and non-governmental organisations) have led to simplified EIA as well as to simplified development consent processes. In addition, current draft modifications (the EIA Amendment Draft 2022) are also reviewed with regard to their potential to lead to simplification. It is found that to date, rather than simplifying EIA, amendments have resulted in more complexity and have led to increased uncertainty and risks, in particular for investors.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"223 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41774125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-06DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2198839
T. Fischer, A. Fonseca, G. Geißler, Urmila Jha-Thakur, F. Retief, R. Alberts, A. Jiricka-Pürrer
ABSTRACT Results from an international online survey on simplification efforts in environmental assessment (EA) and other types of impact assessments (IAs) are presented. The survey, which was conducted between July and October 2022, captured responses from 45 participants who reported on developments in a total of 26 EA/IA systems. Whilst in about three quarters of these systems simplification efforts are either currently underway or planned, in particular with regards to reducing costs and time necessary for EA/IA, opposite developments were also reported on in two-thirds of the systems, including an extension of existing requirements, such as the consideration of further aspects in EA/IA and the coverage of additional actions subject to assessment. The findings are a reflection of the increasing complexities of the contexts within which EAs/IAs are applied and highlight the need for further empirical research on simplification efforts.
{"title":"Simplification of environmental and other impact assessments – results from an international online survey","authors":"T. Fischer, A. Fonseca, G. Geißler, Urmila Jha-Thakur, F. Retief, R. Alberts, A. Jiricka-Pürrer","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2198839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2198839","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Results from an international online survey on simplification efforts in environmental assessment (EA) and other types of impact assessments (IAs) are presented. The survey, which was conducted between July and October 2022, captured responses from 45 participants who reported on developments in a total of 26 EA/IA systems. Whilst in about three quarters of these systems simplification efforts are either currently underway or planned, in particular with regards to reducing costs and time necessary for EA/IA, opposite developments were also reported on in two-thirds of the systems, including an extension of existing requirements, such as the consideration of further aspects in EA/IA and the coverage of additional actions subject to assessment. The findings are a reflection of the increasing complexities of the contexts within which EAs/IAs are applied and highlight the need for further empirical research on simplification efforts.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"181 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43983998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-27DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2194740
G. Matome
ABSTRACT Examining SEA effectiveness is a complex yet critical component of any well-functioning SEA system. This article reflects on SEA’s substantive effectiveness and examines the influence of SEA on development planning for environmental sustainability and the challenges of integrating SEA with decisional processes in Botswana. The paper is set within the context of three government plan-SEAs. Results indicate that despite the strong legislative requirement and understanding of the significance of integrating SEA into development planning, the general effectiveness of the tool is rather limited. Also, the results indicate that the successful integration of SEA findings and recommendations into decision-making in Botswana is threatened by financial constraints, the presentation of SEAs, technical inadequacies, politics, and conflicting stakeholder value expectations. The paper therefore argues that for SEA to guide environmentally sound planning in Botswana, obstacles to environmentally sound decision-making must be addressed. This will require behavioural, institutional, and legislative reforms.
{"title":"Strategic environmental assessment’s role in formulating environmentally sound development plans in Botswana","authors":"G. Matome","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2194740","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2194740","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Examining SEA effectiveness is a complex yet critical component of any well-functioning SEA system. This article reflects on SEA’s substantive effectiveness and examines the influence of SEA on development planning for environmental sustainability and the challenges of integrating SEA with decisional processes in Botswana. The paper is set within the context of three government plan-SEAs. Results indicate that despite the strong legislative requirement and understanding of the significance of integrating SEA into development planning, the general effectiveness of the tool is rather limited. Also, the results indicate that the successful integration of SEA findings and recommendations into decision-making in Botswana is threatened by financial constraints, the presentation of SEAs, technical inadequacies, politics, and conflicting stakeholder value expectations. The paper therefore argues that for SEA to guide environmentally sound planning in Botswana, obstacles to environmentally sound decision-making must be addressed. This will require behavioural, institutional, and legislative reforms.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"263 - 279"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46818055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-22DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914
L. Kørnøv, I. Lyhne
ABSTRACT The need for simplifying Environmental Assessment (EA), and potential that simplification holds, has not only been raised by policymakers but also by scholars. Despite recent years’ focus and increased push for simplifying EA world-wide – hereunder argued because of the need for accelerating climate investments and green transition – and the fact that simplification is not a new agenda, studies exploring types and effects of simplification remain scarce. Although there is potential in simplifying EA, several concerns have also been raised, including the risk of ‘oversimplification.’ This letter outlines different reasoning behind simplification of EA and further presents a simplification triangle distinguishing between three interdependent types of simplification: Regulatory, administrative, and praxis. The reasoning and categorization of simplification is illustrated and discussed through four Danish cases, which reveal simplification as a multifaceted set of processes for which we need a more precise terminology. The reasoning and types of simplification presented in this letter may offer a basis for communicating the nature of the simplification processes that the EA may be facing – or needing.
{"title":"Unfolding simplification beyond drawbacks: types and reasoning for simplifying environmental assessment","authors":"L. Kørnøv, I. Lyhne","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The need for simplifying Environmental Assessment (EA), and potential that simplification holds, has not only been raised by policymakers but also by scholars. Despite recent years’ focus and increased push for simplifying EA world-wide – hereunder argued because of the need for accelerating climate investments and green transition – and the fact that simplification is not a new agenda, studies exploring types and effects of simplification remain scarce. Although there is potential in simplifying EA, several concerns have also been raised, including the risk of ‘oversimplification.’ This letter outlines different reasoning behind simplification of EA and further presents a simplification triangle distinguishing between three interdependent types of simplification: Regulatory, administrative, and praxis. The reasoning and categorization of simplification is illustrated and discussed through four Danish cases, which reveal simplification as a multifaceted set of processes for which we need a more precise terminology. The reasoning and types of simplification presented in this letter may offer a basis for communicating the nature of the simplification processes that the EA may be facing – or needing.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"228 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43106991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-06DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2186595
G. Geißler, A. Jiricka-Pürrer
ABSTRACT Streamlining IA for low-carbon activities respectively to reach climate mitigation targets has become a new trend. In Austria and Germany, likewise in many other countries authorities and project developers discuss acceleration of impact assessment procedures looking particularly at public participation as one of the factors suspected to lead to prolongation of procedures. Additionally, also inspired by the EU provisions regarding climate change and renewable energies, experts discuss streamlining between regional and project level, thus between SEA and EIA. In this letter the authors look critically at the most recent developments related to the ambition to accelerate particularly the planning and commissioning of wind energy infrastructure and discuss both chances but also negative consequences and limitations. These are related to several factors such as the assessment at the appropriate planning level or the quality of data. The letter provides implications for IA practice and alternative suggestions which might support efficient impact assessment while maintaining or improving its quality particularly having in mind the various conflicting targets related to, i.e., biodiversity, human health and climate change mitigation.
{"title":"The future of impact assessment in Austria and Germany – streamlining impact assessment to save the planet?","authors":"G. Geißler, A. Jiricka-Pürrer","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2186595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2186595","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Streamlining IA for low-carbon activities respectively to reach climate mitigation targets has become a new trend. In Austria and Germany, likewise in many other countries authorities and project developers discuss acceleration of impact assessment procedures looking particularly at public participation as one of the factors suspected to lead to prolongation of procedures. Additionally, also inspired by the EU provisions regarding climate change and renewable energies, experts discuss streamlining between regional and project level, thus between SEA and EIA. In this letter the authors look critically at the most recent developments related to the ambition to accelerate particularly the planning and commissioning of wind energy infrastructure and discuss both chances but also negative consequences and limitations. These are related to several factors such as the assessment at the appropriate planning level or the quality of data. The letter provides implications for IA practice and alternative suggestions which might support efficient impact assessment while maintaining or improving its quality particularly having in mind the various conflicting targets related to, i.e., biodiversity, human health and climate change mitigation.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"215 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46593369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-21DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2181248
F. Retief, A. Bond, A. Morrison‐Saunders, Jenny Pope, R. Alberts, C. Roos, D. Cilliers
ABSTRACT Significance judgements lie at the heart of EIA and provide the basis and justification for overall decision-making. Although the subjective nature of significance judgements is widely recognized, there has been limited research aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of its implications. This paper builds on the growing tradition of exploring learning from psychology in dealing with challenges in EIA practice, in this case, significance judgements. The aim of this research is therefore, to gain a deeper understanding of the psychology underpinning significance judgements. This is achieved by applying 10 concepts from psychology to the four steps in the ‘significance spectrum model’, namely: decide thresholds, make predictions, judge acceptability and consider mitigation. The results suggest that significance judgements should (with underpinning concepts from psychology provided in parentheses) aim for a limited number of key thresholds (paradox of choice); design thresholds with future gains in mind (loss aversion), reconsider probability scoring (possibility and certainty effect); avoid judgements based on limited information (What You See Is All There Is, WHYSIATI); utilise statistical prediction over expert opinion (expert fallacy); communicate carefully (priming, framing and cognitive ease); and consider personal attitudes and biases (affect heuristic).
重要性判断是环境影响评价的核心，为总体决策提供了依据和理由。尽管显著性判断的主观性质得到了广泛认可，但旨在更深入地理解其含义的研究有限。本文建立在不断增长的传统之上，即探索从心理学中学习，以应对环评实践中的挑战，在这种情况下，即显著性判断。因此，本研究的目的是更深入地理解支撑意义判断的心理学。这是通过将心理学的10个概念应用于“显著性谱模型”的四个步骤来实现的，即：决定阈值、做出预测、判断可接受性和考虑缓解。结果表明，显著性判断应该（括号中提供了心理学的基本概念）针对有限数量的关键阈值（选择悖论）；考虑到未来收益（损失厌恶）设计阈值，重新考虑概率评分（可能性和确定性效应）；避免基于有限信息的判断（What You See Is All There Is，WHYSIATI）；利用统计预测而非专家意见（专家谬误）；仔细沟通（启动、框架和认知轻松）；并考虑个人态度和偏见（影响启发式）。
{"title":"Gaining a deeper understanding of the psychology underpinning significance judgements in environmental impact assessment (EIA)","authors":"F. Retief, A. Bond, A. Morrison‐Saunders, Jenny Pope, R. Alberts, C. Roos, D. Cilliers","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2181248","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2181248","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Significance judgements lie at the heart of EIA and provide the basis and justification for overall decision-making. Although the subjective nature of significance judgements is widely recognized, there has been limited research aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of its implications. This paper builds on the growing tradition of exploring learning from psychology in dealing with challenges in EIA practice, in this case, significance judgements. The aim of this research is therefore, to gain a deeper understanding of the psychology underpinning significance judgements. This is achieved by applying 10 concepts from psychology to the four steps in the ‘significance spectrum model’, namely: decide thresholds, make predictions, judge acceptability and consider mitigation. The results suggest that significance judgements should (with underpinning concepts from psychology provided in parentheses) aim for a limited number of key thresholds (paradox of choice); design thresholds with future gains in mind (loss aversion), reconsider probability scoring (possibility and certainty effect); avoid judgements based on limited information (What You See Is All There Is, WHYSIATI); utilise statistical prediction over expert opinion (expert fallacy); communicate carefully (priming, framing and cognitive ease); and consider personal attitudes and biases (affect heuristic).","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"250 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44476338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-20DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2178172
Annette Nykiel, A. Morrison‐Saunders
ABSTRACT What would impact assessment (IA) look like from the perspective of Nature? This paper intends to provoke a conversation about including Nature in the IA process. It is an intentional provocation to challenge the businessasusual approach driven by proponents. Using reflexivity and embedding images in the text, along with literature review from within IA and wider interdisciplinary thinking, the means for the environment to participate are explored. The paper argues for allowing Nature a voice by including the environment as a stakeholder in a more relational approach to IA.
{"title":"Understanding impact assessment from other perspectives: what might nature have to say?","authors":"Annette Nykiel, A. Morrison‐Saunders","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2178172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2178172","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT What would impact assessment (IA) look like from the perspective of Nature? This paper intends to provoke a conversation about including Nature in the IA process. It is an intentional provocation to challenge the businessasusual approach driven by proponents. Using reflexivity and embedding images in the text, along with literature review from within IA and wider interdisciplinary thinking, the means for the environment to participate are explored. The paper argues for allowing Nature a voice by including the environment as a stakeholder in a more relational approach to IA.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"314 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45529981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-07DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2175503
B. Noble
ABSTRACT Environmental Assessment (EA) has been the subject of much debate about its role in resource development. Some have argued that EA in Canada is too complex and should be simplified to enable timely and efficient project development decisions; others have argued that the scope of EA should be expanded to tackle larger environmental and societal challenges, many of which extend well-beyond individual development projects. This paper reflects on past and recent reforms in Canadian federal EA to simplify EA requirements and processes, alongside simplification of the increasingly complex issues that are being introduced to EA.
{"title":"EA simplification: Canadian processes and challenges","authors":"B. Noble","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2175503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2175503","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Environmental Assessment (EA) has been the subject of much debate about its role in resource development. Some have argued that EA in Canada is too complex and should be simplified to enable timely and efficient project development decisions; others have argued that the scope of EA should be expanded to tackle larger environmental and societal challenges, many of which extend well-beyond individual development projects. This paper reflects on past and recent reforms in Canadian federal EA to simplify EA requirements and processes, alongside simplification of the increasingly complex issues that are being introduced to EA.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"212 - 214"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41837944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：