Exploring the relationship between context and effectiveness in impact assessment

Impact Assessment (IA) has been adopted worldwide typically to ensure the achievement of its goal(s), which might be one or more of sustainable development, environmental policy integration, and democratic governance. Researchers have developed and applied effectiveness frameworks in order to evaluate whether IA achieves its goal(s). The application of these frameworks often identifies some areas of ineffectiveness, and the frameworks are rarely transferable to other cases either within or across different jurisdictions, which makes national and international comparisons problematic. Context is frequently cited as a reason why ineffectiveness is identified in a case, and yet context is not clearly understood in relation to effectiveness. Our aim in this paper is to unpack the notion of context in order to better understand how IA can achieve its goal(s). Based on literature review and a subsequent conceptualisation of context drawing, for the first time, on Integral Theory, we propose that the notion of context can be understood as a range of mediators, which act either as enablers or barriers to the ability of IA to deliver its goal(s). It is these mediators which lead to very different IA system performance in terms of goals achievement, despite applying similar procedural steps. Our conceptualisation provides a significant contribution as it clarifies the validity of claims about contextual elements in the literature, explains the nature of different elements of context, provides a framework with which they can be meaningfully considered and makes an initial attempt at identifying strategies for ensuring mediators act as enablers rather than barriers. It also potentially serves to help unify literature on the meaning of context for IA effectiveness, effectiveness dimensions, and causation in IA, thus providing clarity over the challenges of goals achievement and the appropriateness of capacity development interventions

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

This paper addresses the future of environmental assessment (EA) practice in light of a rapidly changing world. We apply a literature review-based methodology to firstly identify key global megatrends and then reflect upon the implications for EA practice based on some known challenges. The key megatrends identified are synthesised into six categories: i) demographics, ii) urbanization, iii) technological innovation, iv) power shifts, v) resource scarcity and vi) climate change. We then discuss the implications of these megatrends for EA practice against four known EA challenges namely: dealing with i) complexity and uncertainty, ii) efficiency, iii) significance and iv) communication and participation. Our analysis suggests important implications for EA practice such as: increased difficulties with accuracy of prediction; the need for facilitative adaptation; an increase in the occurrence of unexpected events; higher expectations for procedural efficiency; challenges with information and communication management; dealing with significance judgements; and mitigation amidst resource scarcity and increasing pressures on earth systems. The megatrends underscore the need for continued evolution of EA thinking and practice, especially moving away from seeking a predictable single future or outcome towards the possibility of multiple scenarios with associated adaptability and enhanced system resilience capable of responding to rapid change

Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up

Follow-up is an essential component of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if the success of EIA in improving the sustainability of a project once implemented is to be determined. This paper aims to establish universally-applicable criteria for EIA follow-up to evaluate project performance once assessed and underway. A suite of 24 criteria is derived from EIA follow-up best practice principles published by the International Association for Impact Assessment. The criteria are categorized according to the five dimensions of EIA follow-up: monitoring, evaluation, management, communication and governance. Posed as questions, the criteria support qualitative assessments of EIA follow-up performance for a project. Through application of the criteria to a case study currently under construction (the Shell Cove Marina project in eastern Australia), we found they provided an effective basis for a document review process delivering a short but informative account of the follow-up performance of the case study. The more robust evaluation of some of the criteria, particularly in the governance category, would require supplementary techniques such as interviews

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

Conclusion: Reflections on the State of the Art of Sustainability Assessment

In this concluding chapter we offer some of our reflections on the state of the art of sustainability assessment based upon the contributions to this Handbook. We do not claim that this is a definitive summary of global sustainability assessment theory and practice, as this is not possible based solely on the 17 preceding chapters, varied and interesting though they are. The focus of this Handbook is sustainability assessment research, and the chapters reflect both applied research and more conceptual contributions. While many of the chapters have been written by members of the impact assessment community, some come from researchers on the edges of or even outside this community and as such offer some fresh perspectives on the conceptual foundations of sustainability assessment. We hope that this research focus means that this Handbook complements other recent and not so recent books on sustainability assessment that have more practical orientations, particularly: Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes (Gibson et al., 2005); Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism, Practice and Progress (Bond et al., 2013b); and Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience (Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2014)

Tracking the Fine Scale Movements of Fish using Autonomous Maritime Robotics: A Systematic State of the Art Review

This paper provides a systematic state of the art review on tracking the fine scale movements of fish with the use of autonomous maritime robotics. Knowledge of migration patterns and the localization of specific species of fish at a given time is vital to many aspects of conservation. This paper reviews these technologies and provides insight into what systems are being used and why. The review results show that a larger amount of complex systems that use a deep learning techniques are used over more simplistic approaches to the design. Most results found in the study involve Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, which generally require the most complex array of sensors. The results also provide insight into future research such as methods involving swarm intelligence, which has seen an increase in use in recent years. This synthesis of current and future research will be helpful to research teams working to create an autonomous vehicle with intentions to track, navigate or survey

Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from unconventional gas in Scotland

Publisher PD

When is an offset not an offset? A framework of necessary conditions for biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsets have become a widely-accepted means of attempting to compensate for biodiversity loss from development, and are applied in planning and decision-making processes at many levels. Yet their use is contentious, and numerous problems with both the concept and the practice have been identified in the literature. Our starting point is the understanding that offsets are a kind of biodiversity compensation measure through which the goal of no net loss (or net gain) of biodiversity can be at least theoretically achieved. Based on a typology of compensation measures distinguishing between habitat protection, improvement (including restoration, habitat creation and improved management practices), and other compensation, we review the literature to develop a framework of conditions that must be met if habitat protection and improvement initiatives can be truly considered offsets and not merely a lesser form of compensation. It is important that such conceptual clarity is reflected in offsets policy and guidance, if offsets are to be appropriately applied and have any chance of fully compensating for biodiversity loss. Our framework can be used to support the review and ongoing development of offsets policy and guidance, with the aim of improving clarity, rigour and therefore the chances that good biodiversity outcomes can be achieved