Alan Bond

The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory

An analysis of studies of the outcomes of environmental impact assessment (EIA) indicates that its role in consent and design decisions is limited, due primarily to passive integration with the decision processes it is intended to inform. How much EIA helps sustainable development is largely unknown, but it is hypothesised that it is more than is typically assumed, through a plethora of causes, including emancipation of stakeholders and incremental change in the bureaucracy, companies and scientific institutions. To enhance the effectiveness of EIA, research should focus more on theory about the nature and operation of diverse causal processes, even though the concepts, methods and analytical challenges would be substantial.

Sustainability assessment: the state of the art

Sustainability assessment is a recent framing of impact assessment that places emphasis on delivering positive net sustainability gains now and into the future. It can be directed to any type of decision-making, can take many forms and is fundamentally pluralistic. Drawing mainly on theoretical papers along with the few case study examples published to date (from England, Western Australia, South Africa and Canada), this paper outlines what might be considered state-of-the-art sustainability assessment. Such processes must: (i) address sustainability imperatives with positive progress towards sustainability; (ii) establish a workable concept of sustainability in the context of individual decisions/assessments; (iii) adopt formal mechanisms for managing unavoidable trade-offs in an open, participative and accountable manner; (iv) embrace the pluralistic inevitabilities of sustainability assessment; and (v) engender learning throughout. We postulate that sustainability assessment may be at the beginning of a phase of expansion not seen since environmental impact assessment was adopted worldwide.

Health impact assessment: the state of the art

Health impact assessment (HIA) has matured as a form of impact assessment over the past two decades. The use of HIA methods and approaches has expanded rapidly, and it now has applications in both the public and private sectors and in an increasing number of countries around the world. This paper presents an overview of the historical and recent international developments in HIA, before detailing the existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to practice. It draws upon the HIA literature, five workshops on ‘Current issues in HIA practice’ held at International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) conferences between 2006 and 2011, and the experience of the authors.

Strengthening impact assessment: a call for integration and focus

We suggest that the impact assessment community has lost its way based on our observation that impact assessment is under attack because of a perceived lack of efficiency. Specifically, we contend that the proliferation of different impact assessment types creates separate silos of expertise and feeds arguments for not only a lack of efficiency but also a lack of effectiveness of the process through excessive specialisation and a lack of interdisciplinary practice. We propose that the solution is a return to the basics of impact assessment with a call for increased integration around the goal of sustainable development and focus through better scoping. We rehearse and rebut counter arguments covering silo-based expertise, advocacy, democracy, sustainability understanding and communication. We call on the impact assessment community to rise to the challenge of increasing integration and focus, and to engage in the debate about the means of strengthening impact assessment.

The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012

This special issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal aims to present the state of the art of a number of impact assessment tools. It is timely given that environmental impact assessment is now 42 years old (beginning on 1 January 1970 when President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act in the USA). It updates the last International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) overview of the field that was published in 1995 (Vanclay and Bronstein), which preceded the 1996 International Effectiveness Study (Sadler 1996). The Effectiveness Study itself has been updated, but, at the time of press, any conclusions are still pending. The initial problem for the editors was to decide the appropriate focus for papers, as only six could be selected, which suggests we have made judgements about the relative importance of various types of impact assessment. We decided not to include papers that dealt with generic types of impact assessment, or components of impact assessment, that could be applicable to any process, so cumulative effects assessment was not included, nor was public participation, despite our acknowledgement of their importance. Several of the papers in this special edition do address these concerns in relation to their specific topics, however. Determining which forms of impact assessment should then be the focus was no easy choice; we considered ecological impact assessment, climate impact assessment and technology assessment among others. We acknowledge that our choices could have been very different, and some readers may not agree with them, but we chose to consider some forms of assessment originally covered by Vanclay and Bronstein for which we were aware there was extensive practice globally, as well as two newcomers that we believe have now achieved this status. So this issue covers the state of the art of environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA), policy assessment, social impact assessment (SIA), health impact assessment (HIA) and sustainability assessment, where SEA and sustainability assessment have emerged as significant bodies of theory and practice since the publication of Vanclay and Bronstein (1995). We have left open the possibility of producing a further issue dealing with some of the impact assessment processes we could not consider on this occasion. Having identified the topics, our next challenge was to identify appropriate authors to be invited to write each paper. We extended invitations to the Chair(s) of IAIA Sections where possible, and to others who have demonstrated leadership in their fields, for example by the publication of recent articles or books. Inmany cases the invited authors also drew upon the expertise of others; the HIA paper, with its 10 authors from that IAIA Section, represents a particularly collaborative effort. We are extremely grateful to all the authors for their tremendous hard work and responsiveness throughout the 12-month process that is behind this special edition. In the interests of academic rigour and continuing the spirit of collaboration among a broad range of contributors, we relied on three anonymous peer reviewers for each paper rather than the standard two. All of the reviewers engaged deeply with the material andmade significant contributions to the final forms of each paper.We set aword limit of 7,000 words per article, which every paper failed tomeet (they are all closer to 8,000 words in length). This is partly because the remit for each paper is very large as we are asking authors to sumup everything there is to knowabout the state of the art, a topic for which there has been 17 years of practice since the Vanclay and Bronstein (1995) book. We also considered what the focus of each paper should be. To allow some overview to be taken of the state of the art of impact assessment in general, we tried to standardize the content, asking for:

Sustainability assessment : pluralism, practice and progress

Description Sustainability Assessment is an increasingly important tool for informing planning and development decisions across the globe. Required by law in some countries, strongly recommended in others, a comprehensive analysis of why Sustainability Assessment is needed and clarification of the value-laden and political nature of assessments is long overdue. Currently the writing on the subject is limited and comprises, for the most part, guidance documents and completed assessments. This book overcomes these shortcomings by simultaneously providing the knowledge, inspiration and range of assessment tools in decision-making students require to tackle Sustainability Assessment challenges nested within wide-ranging values and sustainability-grounded evidence. The collection details the current state-of-the art in relation to Sustainability Assessment theory and practice, and considers the pluralistic nature of the tool and the implications for achieving sustainable decision-making. The contributors set out the context for Sustainability Assessment and then outline some contested issues which can affect interpretations of whether the decision tool has been effective. Current practice worldwide is assessed against a consistent framework and then solutions to some of the inherent weaknesses and causes of conflict in relation to the perceived sustainability of outcomes are put forward. The book is unique in setting out state-of-the-art in terms of Sustainability Assessment practice by focusing on those countries with developing experience. It also covers emerging factors influencing effectiveness of decision-making tools and evaluates how they affect the performance of Sustainability Assessment. Written by authors among the leading university academics teaching impact assessment courses in the most acclaimed universities worldwide operating in this field, it is ideally suited for the growing numbers of courses in impact assessment education and training.

Dealing with the cultural heritage aspect of environmental impact assessment in Europe

The Environment Assessment Directive of the European Union (EU) requires that the potential impacts on cultural heritage of proposed developments are examined. This paper considers how well cultural heritage is considered in environmental impact assessments (EIAs) within the EU by analysing the results of three studies that encompass an examination of an ‘information processing’ and an ‘institutionalist’ model for EIA. In combination, the studies provided evidence for inadequate consideration of cultural heritage. The three main issues are: cultural heritage is mainly restricted to built heritage in studies; there is a need for better guidance on how best to consider the implications of proposals on cultural heritage; and cultural heritage needs to be considered earlier in the process and should include greater public participation.

Sustainability appraisal: Jack of all trades, master of none?

Sustainable development is a commonly quoted goal for decision making and supports a large number of other discourses. Sustainability appraisal has a stated goal of supporting decision making for sustainable development. We suggest that the inherent flexibility of sustainability appraisal facilitates outcomes that often do not adhere to the three goals enshrined in most definitions of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection and enhancement, and the wellbeing of the human population. Current practice is for sustainable development to be disenfranchised through the interpretation of sustainability, whereby the best alternative is good enough even when unsustainable. Practitioners must carefully and transparently review the frameworks applied during sustainability appraisal to ensure that outcomes will meet the three goals, rather than focusing on a discourse that emphasises one or more goals at the expense of the other(s).

What is the role of impact assessment in the long term

Amphibian chytridiomycosis, an emerging infectious disease caused by the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), has been a significant driver of amphibian declines. While globally widespread, Bd had not yet been reported from within Madagascar. We document surveys conducted across the country between 2005 and 2014, showing Bds first record in 2010. Subsequently, Bd was detected in multiple areas, with prevalence reaching up to 100%. Detection of Bd appears to be associated with mid to high elevation sites and to have a seasonal pattern, with greater detectability during the dry season. Lineage-based PCR was performed on a subset of samples. While some did not amplify with any lineage probe, when a positive signal was observed, samples were most similar to the Global Panzootic Lineage (BdGPL). These results may suggest that Bd arrived recently, but do not exclude the existence of a previously undetected endemic Bd genotype. Representatives of all native anuran families have tested Bd-positive, and exposure trials confirm infection by Bd is possible. Bds presence could pose significant threats to Madagascars unique “megadiverse” amphibians.

Impact mitigation in environmental impact assessment: paper promises or the basis of consent conditions?

This study analysed 40 planning applications in the East of England to investigate the practice of translating paper recommendations in the environmental statement (ES) into legal conditions and obligations. A high proportion (50%) of suggested mitigation measures were not translated into planning conditions or obligations. However, a significant number of additional conditions or obligations, not directly based on the ES, were imposed on developers. The research suggests a mismatch between the practice of those producing ESs and the expectations of planning authorities, leading to inefficiency and, possibly, emasculation of environmental impact assessment through a failure to implement mitigation. Several recommendations are made to increase the effectiveness of the implementation and integration of mitigation measures.