On legitimacy in impact assessment: An epistemologically-based conceptualisation

Impact assessment (IA) is carried out as an ex ante process to inform decision-making. It includes requirements for engagement with stakeholders (including the public) regarding actions proposed by a proponent. A key issue with the various stakeholders involved is the perceived legitimacy of the IA, which can have implications both for the reputation of the proponent, and the likelihood of conflict over the decision. But the understanding of legitimacy in the IA literature has changed over time in line with an ontological shift from positivism (that scientifically generated information leads to better informed decisions) to the post-positivist acknowledgement of the limitations of scientific method whereby assumptions must be subject to transparency, deliberation and openness. This has led to an epistemological shift towards greater subjectivism which, we suggest, has created new opportunities (which have been realised in political decision-making) to subvert knowledge through the increased use of the Internet and social media. To address the potential for such subversion of legitimacy, we seek to conceptualise legitimacy in the IA context through framing IA around a critical realist ontology and a reliabilist virtue epistemology. This allows us to identify ‘knowledge legitimacy’ as an equally important component of IA legitimacy along with organisational legitimacy. We conceptualise knowledge legitimacy through literature review drawing on rich understandings of knowledge from IA and other fields of research in order to develop a four-dimensional typology. This includes the dimensions of: knowledge accuracy; knowledge restriction; knowledge diffusion; and knowledge spectrum. This is the first theoretically grounded attempt to understand legitimacy in IA. It is hoped that it will provoke discussion in the IA community to further advance theoretical understandings of IA and legitimacy of practice

SEA in Eastern Europe, caucasus and central Asia

This chapter reviews the development of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) systems in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia (EECCA) countries that were once part of the former Soviet Union. Although diverse, these countries share a number of similar structures that have in?uenced the evolution of their SEA systems. Speci?cally, SEA in the EECCA region is based on State Environmental Reviews (SER) and Assessment of Environmental Impacts (OVOS in the Russian abbreviation) procedures inherited from the Soviet era. Their main features, and implications for recent reforms aimed at incorporating internationally accepted standards of SEA practice, are presented, providing essential background to understand regional issues and challenges of introducing effective SEA systems. These perspectives are further developed through a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of the status of SEA systems in EECCA countries and an evaluation of key requirements and directions for targeted efforts to build the capacity for SEA in this region. Our review is based on the studies cited and particularly on papers and discussions at the EECCA regional session of the Prague SEA conference