超越弊端展开简化:简化环境评估的类型和理由

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal Pub Date : 2023-03-22 DOI:10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914
L. Kørnøv, I. Lyhne
{"title":"超越弊端展开简化:简化环境评估的类型和理由","authors":"L. Kørnøv, I. Lyhne","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914","DOIUrl":null,"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":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unfolding simplification beyond drawbacks: types and reasoning for simplifying environmental assessment\",\"authors\":\"L. Kørnøv, I. Lyhne\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简化环境评估(EA)的必要性和潜力不仅由政策制定者提出,也由学者提出。尽管近年来世界范围内对简化环境评估的关注和推动越来越大——本文认为这是因为需要加速气候投资和绿色转型——而且简化并不是一个新的议程,但探索简化的类型和效果的研究仍然很少。尽管简化EA有潜力,但也提出了一些担忧,包括“过度简化”的风险。这封信概述了EA简化背后的不同原因,并进一步提出了一个简化三角形,区分了三种相互依赖的简化类型:监管、行政和实践。通过四个丹麦案例说明和讨论了简化的推理和分类,这些案例揭示了简化是一个多方面的过程,我们需要一个更精确的术语。本信函中提出的简化的推理和类型可能为沟通EA可能面临或需要的简化过程的性质提供了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unfolding simplification beyond drawbacks: types and reasoning for simplifying environmental assessment
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
22.70%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: This is the international, peer-reviewed journal of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). It covers environmental, social, health and other impact assessments, cost-benefit analysis, technology assessment, and other approaches to anticipating and managing impacts. It has readers in universities, government and public agencies, consultancies, NGOs and elsewhere in over 100 countries. It has editorials, main articles, book reviews, and a professional practice section.
期刊最新文献
A game theoretic decision-making approach to reduce mine closure risks throughout the mine-life cycle Consideration of risks to people and the environment related to accidents on natural gas transmission pipelines in LUP and SEA processes in Poland Landscape, EIA and decision-making. A case study of the Vistula Spit Canal, Poland SEA and EIA: uncertain boundaries in Spain Influence factors on the quality of regulatory impact analysis in Brazil
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1