Pub Date : 2022-04-19DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2066445
R. Alberts, F. Retief, J. Arts, C. Roos, D. Cilliers, T. Fischer
ABSTRACT In this paper we aim at determining the link between EIA report substance and administratively just EIA decisions. In so doing, previous research based on 42 case studies from South Africa, which analysed whether they comprised administratively just decisions (i.e. that were lawful, procedurally fair and reasonable) were reviewed for the substance of the EIA reports on which the decisions were based. The research found that administratively just decisions can be achieved even with weak EIA report substance in areas such as: need and desirability, identifying alternatives, dealing with significance, and addressing mitigation measures. We thereby conclude that administrative justice may be a false safety net in ensuring more environmentally sustainable EIA outcomes if not supported and informed by good EIA report substance. We conclude by making recommendations to improve substance and thereby strengthening administrative justice in EIA.
{"title":"EIA decision-making and administrative justice: the substance of just decisions","authors":"R. Alberts, F. Retief, J. Arts, C. Roos, D. Cilliers, T. Fischer","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2066445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2066445","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper we aim at determining the link between EIA report substance and administratively just EIA decisions. In so doing, previous research based on 42 case studies from South Africa, which analysed whether they comprised administratively just decisions (i.e. that were lawful, procedurally fair and reasonable) were reviewed for the substance of the EIA reports on which the decisions were based. The research found that administratively just decisions can be achieved even with weak EIA report substance in areas such as: need and desirability, identifying alternatives, dealing with significance, and addressing mitigation measures. We thereby conclude that administrative justice may be a false safety net in ensuring more environmentally sustainable EIA outcomes if not supported and informed by good EIA report substance. We conclude by making recommendations to improve substance and thereby strengthening administrative justice in EIA.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"296 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45451152","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 : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2050666
Salleh Ma, Bo Lin, Sun-Jin Yun
ABSTRACT As a significant decision support tool, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been legally necessitated since 2003 when the Environmental Impact Assessment Law of the P.R. China was put into effect. However, the different national development targets and the social and economic development gaps between the western region and the eastern region of China greatly influence the SEA implementation. This paper demonstrates the differences in the SEA implementation between the western region and the eastern region of China and discusses the reasons for the disparities. Reviewing government policies and conducting in-depth interviews are selected as the two main research methods. The disparities of SEA implementation existing in intervention time, alternatives, public participation, and monitoring are presented. The differences are caused by the impacts of local SEA regulations and policies, institutions and experts, public attitudes, local government attitudes, strength of Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB), funding, national government strategies, and policies and regulations of environmental management.
{"title":"Strategic environmental assessment implementation: variation across regions in China","authors":"Salleh Ma, Bo Lin, Sun-Jin Yun","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2050666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2050666","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As a significant decision support tool, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been legally necessitated since 2003 when the Environmental Impact Assessment Law of the P.R. China was put into effect. However, the different national development targets and the social and economic development gaps between the western region and the eastern region of China greatly influence the SEA implementation. This paper demonstrates the differences in the SEA implementation between the western region and the eastern region of China and discusses the reasons for the disparities. Reviewing government policies and conducting in-depth interviews are selected as the two main research methods. The disparities of SEA implementation existing in intervention time, alternatives, public participation, and monitoring are presented. The differences are caused by the impacts of local SEA regulations and policies, institutions and experts, public attitudes, local government attitudes, strength of Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB), funding, national government strategies, and policies and regulations of environmental management.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"283 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45256796","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 : 2022-03-17DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2052474
Chakaphon Singto, L. Fleskens, J. Vos
ABSTRACT Compensation of people affected by dam building can be unfair, leading to protests and delays. Several international guidelines exist for compensation procedures that aim at equitable and reasonable compensation. Different criteria and procedures have been proposed for valuation of lost assets and income. We investigated five dam-building projects in Thailand, and evaluated the compensation process and outcomes with a conceptual framework focused on recognition of values, representation of affected people, actual compensation and acceptance of the project and compensation by the affected people. We studied the representation and recognition of languages of valuation in the compensation negotiation processes, and outcomes of the compensation in terms of cash-for-land payments and acceptance of the projects by the affected people. We propose and applied a ‘Comparative Index’ to compare paid cash compensations in the five projects with average family income in the respective regions. The results show deficient representation, insufficient attention to multiple languages of valuation, low compensations for lost land and trees and low degrees of acceptance by the affected people.
{"title":"Compensation for displacement caused by dam building: representation, recognition, and outcomes in Thailand","authors":"Chakaphon Singto, L. Fleskens, J. Vos","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2052474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2052474","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Compensation of people affected by dam building can be unfair, leading to protests and delays. Several international guidelines exist for compensation procedures that aim at equitable and reasonable compensation. Different criteria and procedures have been proposed for valuation of lost assets and income. We investigated five dam-building projects in Thailand, and evaluated the compensation process and outcomes with a conceptual framework focused on recognition of values, representation of affected people, actual compensation and acceptance of the project and compensation by the affected people. We studied the representation and recognition of languages of valuation in the compensation negotiation processes, and outcomes of the compensation in terms of cash-for-land payments and acceptance of the projects by the affected people. We propose and applied a ‘Comparative Index’ to compare paid cash compensations in the five projects with average family income in the respective regions. The results show deficient representation, insufficient attention to multiple languages of valuation, low compensations for lost land and trees and low degrees of acceptance by the affected people.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"356 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48156513","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 : 2022-03-05DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2041160
A. Loza, T. Fidélis
ABSTRACT Dams are long-term structures still being developed despite the controversy around their relevance and associated impacts. Dams can impact climate change but also be vulnerable to climate change risks when not properly assessed before approval. As including climate change within EIA is said to thrive this assessment, legislation is being revised and support guidelines adopted, but the practice remains scarcely researched. This article analyses how climate change is being addressed in EIA legislation, supporting guidelines, and dam safety regulations in Canada, Oman and Portugal. The findings show that climate change concerns are not fully detailed in the process, leaving aside references in steps like scoping and follow-up. Also, adaptation is disregarded in legislation and left to the guidelines. To make matters worse, the existing dam safety regulations are not including specific references to climate change. Given dams’ relevance and long-term nature, these conclusions underline the need to foster a clear inclusion of climate change concerns in the environmental assessment of new dams and ensure their climate-proofing before approval.
{"title":"Addressing climate change in EIA legislation and the climate-proofing of dams: a comparative analysis of Canada, Oman and Portugal","authors":"A. Loza, T. Fidélis","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2041160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2041160","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Dams are long-term structures still being developed despite the controversy around their relevance and associated impacts. Dams can impact climate change but also be vulnerable to climate change risks when not properly assessed before approval. As including climate change within EIA is said to thrive this assessment, legislation is being revised and support guidelines adopted, but the practice remains scarcely researched. This article analyses how climate change is being addressed in EIA legislation, supporting guidelines, and dam safety regulations in Canada, Oman and Portugal. The findings show that climate change concerns are not fully detailed in the process, leaving aside references in steps like scoping and follow-up. Also, adaptation is disregarded in legislation and left to the guidelines. To make matters worse, the existing dam safety regulations are not including specific references to climate change. Given dams’ relevance and long-term nature, these conclusions underline the need to foster a clear inclusion of climate change concerns in the environmental assessment of new dams and ensure their climate-proofing before approval.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"269 - 282"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45613135","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2041161
A. Bond, J. Dusík
ABSTRACT Seven authors have responded to our paper asking whether the European Union (EU) Taxonomy will change the mindset over the contribution of Impact Assessment (IA) to sustainable development, delivering a range of opinions, based on a number of themes including: the politics of decision-making; the need to achieve positive impacts and strengthen carrying capacities; the transition to a green economy; the lack of clarity over the role of Strategic Environmental Assessment; and past historical experience. To each of these points, we provide a response highlighting why we think the potential for a change of mindset still exists. Ultimately, however, we recognise that a mindset change will not happen passively; it does need the IA community to become more political and engage with the financial community to make it clear what financial benefits their environmental knowledge can deliver.
{"title":"Environmental assessments and sustainable finance taxonomies – a riposte","authors":"A. Bond, J. Dusík","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2041161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2041161","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Seven authors have responded to our paper asking whether the European Union (EU) Taxonomy will change the mindset over the contribution of Impact Assessment (IA) to sustainable development, delivering a range of opinions, based on a number of themes including: the politics of decision-making; the need to achieve positive impacts and strengthen carrying capacities; the transition to a green economy; the lack of clarity over the role of Strategic Environmental Assessment; and past historical experience. To each of these points, we provide a response highlighting why we think the potential for a change of mindset still exists. Ultimately, however, we recognise that a mindset change will not happen passively; it does need the IA community to become more political and engage with the financial community to make it clear what financial benefits their environmental knowledge can deliver.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"123 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48388797","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2044174
T. Fischer
Dear Readers, Taxonomies of sustainable investment are recent and promising initiatives, aiming at determining what expenditures can be deemed environmentally sustainable. In this context, the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities has received some close attention in the media over the past few weeks, in particular due to plans to include natural gas and nuclear energy in their classification system of ‘sustainable economic activities’. Whilst it appears ambitious to try and classify certain economic activities into either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ per se (rather than reaching a judgment based on specific circumstances, contexts and impacts), the underlying ‘do no significant harm’ to critical environmental components credo is certainly laudable. The first nine papers in this issue come as a set and revolve around taxonomies of sustainable investment. They are the outcome of an initiative by Jiří Dusík (Integra Consulting Ltd, Czechia) and Alan Bond (University of East Anglia, UK) on whether ‘the EU Taxonomy [will] change the mindset over the contribution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to sustainable development’. Subsequently, in the first paper, these two authors explain the functioning of sustainable finance and possible connections with EIA and elaborate on the potential benefits that might ensue from using taxonomies of sustainable investment, with a particular focus on the EU taxonomy. This is followed by seven critical responses by Roel Slootweg (SevS human and natural environment consultants, The Netherlands), Cong C Vu (VinaCapital Group, Vietnam), Bryan Jenkins (University of Adelaide, Australia), Rufus Howard (Greenfriars and IEMA, UK), Maria Partidário (Instituto Superior Técnico Lisbon, Portugal), Juan Palerm (EuropeAid/DEVCO) and Thomas B Fischer (University of Liverpool, UK). The set of papers is rounded off by a riposte to the seven responses by Dusík and Bond. Four ‘regular’ papers follow these initial nine contributions. In the first, Alan Ehrlich (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Canada) reflects on ‘Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment’. Here, the author extends some of the thinking on how to address area-wide cumulative impacts through, e.g. strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes to an assessment of multiple impacts of single projects. He concludes that impacts need to be considered collectively, and mitigations need to be prescribed ‘that reflect the holistic nature of the impacts on systems’. In the second paper, Mårten Karlsson (Division of Land and Water Resources Stockholm, Sweden) and Örjan Bodin (Stockholm University, Sweden) reflect on ‘Ten years of experience with ecological connectivity analysis and urban planning in Sweden’. They find that the primary accomplishment of the use of this quantitative analysis technique has been an increase in awareness and acceptance of ecological connectivity among practitioners and decisionmake
可持续投资分类是最近的一项有前景的倡议，旨在确定哪些支出可以被认为是环境可持续的。在这种背景下，欧盟的可持续活动分类在过去几周受到了媒体的密切关注，特别是由于计划将天然气和核能纳入其“可持续经济活动”的分类系统。虽然试图将某些经济活动本身分为“好”或“坏”(而不是根据具体情况，背景和影响做出判断)似乎雄心勃勃，但潜在的“不会对关键环境成分造成重大损害”的信条当然值得称赞。本期的前九篇论文是一套围绕可持续投资分类的论文。它们是Jiří Dusík(捷克Integra咨询有限公司)和Alan Bond(英国东安格利亚大学)发起的一项倡议的结果，该倡议的主题是“欧盟分类法是否会改变人们对环境影响评估(EIA)对可持续发展的贡献的看法”。随后，在第一篇论文中，这两位作者解释了可持续金融的功能及其与环境影响评估的可能联系，并详细阐述了使用可持续投资分类可能带来的潜在效益，特别关注欧盟分类。紧随其后的是Roel Slootweg (SevS人类和自然环境顾问，荷兰)、Cong C Vu(越南vinaccapital集团)、Bryan Jenkins(澳大利亚阿德莱德大学)、Rufus Howard(英国Greenfriars和IEMA)、Maria Partidário(葡萄牙里斯本高级tsamicnico研究所)、Juan Palerm(欧洲援助/DEVCO)和Thomas B Fischer(英国利物浦大学)的七个关键回应。这组论文最后由Dusík和邦德对这七个问题的回答进行了反驳。在这最初的九篇文章之后，又发表了四篇“常规”论文。在第一篇文章中，Alan Ehrlich(加拿大麦肯齐山谷环境影响审查委员会)对“集体影响:在项目级评估中使用系统思维”进行了反思。在这里，作者扩展了一些关于如何通过政策、计划和方案的战略环境评估(SEA)来解决整个地区的累积影响的思考，以评估单个项目的多重影响。他的结论是，需要对影响进行集体考虑，并且需要规定“反映对系统影响的整体性质”的缓解措施。在第二篇论文中，ma rten Karlsson(瑞典斯德哥尔摩国土和水资源部)和Örjan Bodin(瑞典斯德哥尔摩大学)反思了“瑞典生态连通性分析和城市规划的十年经验”。他们发现，使用这种定量分析技术的主要成就是从业者和决策者对生态连通性的认识和接受程度的提高。在第三篇文章中，Sergio Moreira(葡萄牙里斯本大学)、Frank Vanclay(荷兰格罗宁根大学)和Ana Maria Esteves(荷兰社区洞察小组)反思了“发展项目的评估和实施”与“社会心理学的相关概念，特别是那些与理解项目与当地社区之间的相互作用有关的概念”之间的脱节。这组作者描述了八种谬论，并得出结论，这些谬论应该在发展项目和影响评估的实践中得到解决。在第四篇也是最后一篇论文中，Ainhoa González(爱尔兰都柏林大学学院)反思了SEA监测的经验。在欧洲联盟(欧盟)，监测工作继续表现不佳。反思爱尔兰最近的两个研究项目，作者“提出了一套建议，旨在培养一种实用而明智的方法，将监测付诸行动”。喜欢阅读!
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"T. Fischer","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2044174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2044174","url":null,"abstract":"Dear Readers, Taxonomies of sustainable investment are recent and promising initiatives, aiming at determining what expenditures can be deemed environmentally sustainable. In this context, the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities has received some close attention in the media over the past few weeks, in particular due to plans to include natural gas and nuclear energy in their classification system of ‘sustainable economic activities’. Whilst it appears ambitious to try and classify certain economic activities into either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ per se (rather than reaching a judgment based on specific circumstances, contexts and impacts), the underlying ‘do no significant harm’ to critical environmental components credo is certainly laudable. The first nine papers in this issue come as a set and revolve around taxonomies of sustainable investment. They are the outcome of an initiative by Jiří Dusík (Integra Consulting Ltd, Czechia) and Alan Bond (University of East Anglia, UK) on whether ‘the EU Taxonomy [will] change the mindset over the contribution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to sustainable development’. Subsequently, in the first paper, these two authors explain the functioning of sustainable finance and possible connections with EIA and elaborate on the potential benefits that might ensue from using taxonomies of sustainable investment, with a particular focus on the EU taxonomy. This is followed by seven critical responses by Roel Slootweg (SevS human and natural environment consultants, The Netherlands), Cong C Vu (VinaCapital Group, Vietnam), Bryan Jenkins (University of Adelaide, Australia), Rufus Howard (Greenfriars and IEMA, UK), Maria Partidário (Instituto Superior Técnico Lisbon, Portugal), Juan Palerm (EuropeAid/DEVCO) and Thomas B Fischer (University of Liverpool, UK). The set of papers is rounded off by a riposte to the seven responses by Dusík and Bond. Four ‘regular’ papers follow these initial nine contributions. In the first, Alan Ehrlich (Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Canada) reflects on ‘Collective impacts: using systems thinking in project-level assessment’. Here, the author extends some of the thinking on how to address area-wide cumulative impacts through, e.g. strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, plans and programmes to an assessment of multiple impacts of single projects. He concludes that impacts need to be considered collectively, and mitigations need to be prescribed ‘that reflect the holistic nature of the impacts on systems’. In the second paper, Mårten Karlsson (Division of Land and Water Resources Stockholm, Sweden) and Örjan Bodin (Stockholm University, Sweden) reflect on ‘Ten years of experience with ecological connectivity analysis and urban planning in Sweden’. They find that the primary accomplishment of the use of this quantitative analysis technique has been an increase in awareness and acceptance of ecological connectivity among practitioners and decisionmake","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"89 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43602053","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 : 2022-02-23DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035646
Melisha Charles, J. Tafel, D. McDonnell, C. Stoicheff, N. Kunz, Norman B Keevil
ABSTRACT Robust governance frameworks are crucial for maximizing the benefits of natural resource development in mining regions and minimising adverse social and environmental impacts. This paper analyses Ethiopia’s current ESIA policy, legal framework and implementation process to identify opportunities for policy reform. To gain perspective on leading practices in other countries, a comparative analysis of policies in Chile, Peru, Ghana, and Canada was performed. Interviews with representatives from government, industry, and civil society in Ethiopia were completed to gain perspective on the policy structures currently in place, and to identify areas for improvement. Results conclude that accountability mechanisms are currently limited in Ethiopia and that at the time of this study, the same authority was responsible for promoting mining and evaluating ESIAs. Contrary to legislative requirements, there was found to be a lack of transparency in the public availability of ESIAs and limited community participation. Compliance and monitoring processes were also found to be inadequate. Addressing these gaps is important to ensure that the expansion of Ethiopia’s mining sector proceeds in a sustainable manner.
{"title":"A roadmap for ESIA policy change in Ethiopia should address wide-ranging governance reforms","authors":"Melisha Charles, J. Tafel, D. McDonnell, C. Stoicheff, N. Kunz, Norman B Keevil","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035646","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035646","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Robust governance frameworks are crucial for maximizing the benefits of natural resource development in mining regions and minimising adverse social and environmental impacts. This paper analyses Ethiopia’s current ESIA policy, legal framework and implementation process to identify opportunities for policy reform. To gain perspective on leading practices in other countries, a comparative analysis of policies in Chile, Peru, Ghana, and Canada was performed. Interviews with representatives from government, industry, and civil society in Ethiopia were completed to gain perspective on the policy structures currently in place, and to identify areas for improvement. Results conclude that accountability mechanisms are currently limited in Ethiopia and that at the time of this study, the same authority was responsible for promoting mining and evaluating ESIAs. Contrary to legislative requirements, there was found to be a lack of transparency in the public availability of ESIAs and limited community participation. Compliance and monitoring processes were also found to be inadequate. Addressing these gaps is important to ensure that the expansion of Ethiopia’s mining sector proceeds in a sustainable manner.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"243 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42477263","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 : 2022-02-18DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035636
R. de Lange, Lazarus Adua
ABSTRACT State and local authorities in Utah, the United States, have initiated a new inland port project in Salt Lake City amidst unresolved controversies and disagreements. While a proper social impact assessment (SIA) can help address the manifold concerns of the community, there is currently no indication authorities of the new inland port are considering such an assessment. To help ameliorate this situation, at least in part, we conduct an independent limited scope SIA of the project. Our efforts are twofold: 1) examining whether project-related actions taken so far comport with SIA protocols and principles; and 2) anticipating potential impacts of the project on crime, housing cost, and unemployment. We find that some actions undertaken by project officials comport with SIA principles, although they fall short of what is needed to fully address residents’ concerns. The project may also generate positive consequences, exemplified by long-term reduction in unemployment, and negative ones, exemplified by a modest increase in crime. As part of our conclusion, we recommend that port authorities should conduct a full-scale SIA, given the potential benefits of such an endeavor
{"title":"An independent assessment of potential social impacts of the newly initiated inland port in Salt Lake City, United States","authors":"R. de Lange, Lazarus Adua","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035636","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT State and local authorities in Utah, the United States, have initiated a new inland port project in Salt Lake City amidst unresolved controversies and disagreements. While a proper social impact assessment (SIA) can help address the manifold concerns of the community, there is currently no indication authorities of the new inland port are considering such an assessment. To help ameliorate this situation, at least in part, we conduct an independent limited scope SIA of the project. Our efforts are twofold: 1) examining whether project-related actions taken so far comport with SIA protocols and principles; and 2) anticipating potential impacts of the project on crime, housing cost, and unemployment. We find that some actions undertaken by project officials comport with SIA principles, although they fall short of what is needed to fully address residents’ concerns. The project may also generate positive consequences, exemplified by long-term reduction in unemployment, and negative ones, exemplified by a modest increase in crime. As part of our conclusion, we recommend that port authorities should conduct a full-scale SIA, given the potential benefits of such an endeavor","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"228 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45888239","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 : 2022-02-17DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2038534
R. Slootweg
ABSTRACT Dusík and Bond introduce the EU taxonomy on green finance as an opportunity to kick off the much-needed revolution in environmental impact assessment (EIA). The persistent weaknesses of EIA lead to negative trade-offs between the social, economic, and environmental domains. In my response, I attribute the apparent weakness of EIA to processes in society, and not so much to the instrument itself. Weaknesses that may hinder the implementation of the EU taxonomy as well. Yet, there seems to be a window of opportunity in society, to move from the limited and flawed ‘do not harm’ approach to a transition-focused ‘do good’ approach. The taxonomy provides a way forward, and EIA has the potential to avoid the taxonomy from becoming a green washing instrument. But it is the EIA community that has to take the necessary steps; the financial world will not look to the EIA for help.
{"title":"Response to Dusík and Bond","authors":"R. Slootweg","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2038534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2038534","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Dusík and Bond introduce the EU taxonomy on green finance as an opportunity to kick off the much-needed revolution in environmental impact assessment (EIA). The persistent weaknesses of EIA lead to negative trade-offs between the social, economic, and environmental domains. In my response, I attribute the apparent weakness of EIA to processes in society, and not so much to the instrument itself. Weaknesses that may hinder the implementation of the EU taxonomy as well. Yet, there seems to be a window of opportunity in society, to move from the limited and flawed ‘do not harm’ approach to a transition-focused ‘do good’ approach. The taxonomy provides a way forward, and EIA has the potential to avoid the taxonomy from becoming a green washing instrument. But it is the EIA community that has to take the necessary steps; the financial world will not look to the EIA for help.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"99 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41543432","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 : 2022-02-17DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2035647
Patrick R. Patiwael, P. Groote, F. Vanclay
ABSTRACT We explore whether local planning culture influences the effectiveness of heritage impact assessment (HIA) and we discuss the legitimacy of ICOMOS, the international advisory body to UNESCO on cultural heritage. We examined the HIA processes for two proposed infrastructure projects that potentially could affect the Defence Line of Amsterdam World Heritage site in the Netherlands. We interviewed key stakeholders involved in decision-making about these projects, and found that the Dutch planning culture positively influenced the effectiveness of the HIA processes. The interviewees predominantly discussed the substantive and transactive effectiveness of the HIA processes in that they praised the practitioner for facilitating a clear, inclusive and transparent process and having a solution-oriented mindset, which is common practice in the Dutch planning culture. However, in contrast to the Dutch planning culture, the role of ICOMOS was perceived as opaque and a ‘black box’, although this did not decrease its legitimacy among the key stakeholders.
{"title":"Does local planning culture influence the effectiveness of impact assessments?: reflecting on infrastructure projects in a Dutch UNESCO World Heritage site","authors":"Patrick R. Patiwael, P. Groote, F. Vanclay","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2022.2035647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2035647","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We explore whether local planning culture influences the effectiveness of heritage impact assessment (HIA) and we discuss the legitimacy of ICOMOS, the international advisory body to UNESCO on cultural heritage. We examined the HIA processes for two proposed infrastructure projects that potentially could affect the Defence Line of Amsterdam World Heritage site in the Netherlands. We interviewed key stakeholders involved in decision-making about these projects, and found that the Dutch planning culture positively influenced the effectiveness of the HIA processes. The interviewees predominantly discussed the substantive and transactive effectiveness of the HIA processes in that they praised the practitioner for facilitating a clear, inclusive and transparent process and having a solution-oriented mindset, which is common practice in the Dutch planning culture. However, in contrast to the Dutch planning culture, the role of ICOMOS was perceived as opaque and a ‘black box’, although this did not decrease its legitimacy among the key stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"40 1","pages":"254 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48012445","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：