A game theory perspective on Environmental Assessment: what games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decision maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver ‘least worst’ outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such ‘least worst’ decisions in practice. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made

Barriers and opportunities for robust decision making approaches to support climate change adaptation in the developing world

Climate change adaptation is unavoidable, particularly in developing countries where the adaptation deficit is often larger than in developed countries. Robust Decision Making (RDM) approaches are considered useful for supporting adaptation decision making, yet case study applications in developing countries are rare. This review paper examines the potential to expand the geographical and sectoral foci of RDM as part of the repertoire of approaches to support adaptation. We review adaptation decision problems hitherto relatively unexplored, for which RDM approaches may have value. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, suggest potential sectors for application and comment on future directions. We identify that data requirements, lack of examples of RDM in actual decision-making, limited applicability for surprise events, and resource constraints are likely to constrain successful application of RDM approaches in developing countries. We discuss opportunities for RDM approaches to address decision problems associated with urban socio-environmental and water-energy-food nexus issues, forest resources management, disaster risk management and conservation management issues. We examine potential entry points for RDM approaches through Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessments, which are relatively well established in decision making processes in many developing countries. We conclude that despite some barriers, and with modification, RDM approaches show potential for wider application in developing country contexts

Sunderland

Sunderland, lying on the north east coast of England, is the largest city in the north east of England. Having historically suffered from its proximity to the Tyneside conurbation centred around Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sunderland has a long and illustrious history and the city is an interesting one to examine in a City Profile in its own right. In the first instance the legacy of the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation regeneration initiatives from the late 80s and early 90s has been the piecemeal development of unrelated and un-linked projects along the river Wear. Sunderland Arc, the urban regeneration company formed in 2002 by a local partnership to regenerate the city, has had a much broader focus and remit with a clear mandate for redevelopment. This profile examines recent regeneration initiatives and a move from a piecemeal development of disparate sites to partnership working and a more holistic view of regeneration activities, and is a good example of some of the innovative ways in which smaller cities are seeking to re-image and regenerate in response to economic crises. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

Impact assessment has been in place for over 40 years and is now practised in some form in all but two of the world's nations. In this paper we reflect on the state of the art of impact assessment theory and practice, focusing on six well-established forms: EIA, SEA, policy assessment, SIA, HIA and sustainability assessment. We note that although the fundamentals of impact assessment have their roots in the US National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA) each branch of the field is distinct in also drawing on other theoretical and conceptual bases that in turn shape the prevailing discourse in each case, generating increasing degrees of specialisation within each sub-field. Against this backdrop, we consider the strengths and weaknesses of collective impact assessment practice, concluding that although there are substantial strengths, the plethora of specialist branches is generating a somewhat confusing picture and lack of clarity regarding how the pieces of the impact assessment jigsaw puzzle fit together. We use this review to suggest an overarching research agenda that will enable impact assessment to evolve in line with changing expectations for what it should deliver

The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005-2009

Background: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) involves assessing how proposals may alter the determinants of health prior to implementation and recommends changes to enhance positive and mitigate negative impacts. HIAs growing use needs to be supported by a strong evidence base, both to validate the value of its application and to make its application more robust. We have carried out the first systematic empirical study of the influence of HIA on decision-making and implementation of proposals in Australia and New Zealand. This paper focuses on identifying whether and how HIAs changed decision-making and implementation and impacts that participants report following involvement in HIAs. Methods: We used a two-step process first surveying 55 HIAs followed by 11 in-depth case studies. Data gathering methods included questionnaires with follow-up interview, semi-structured interviews and document collation. We carried out deductive and inductive qualitative content analyses of interview transcripts and documents as well as simple descriptive statistics. Results: We found that most HIAs are effective in some way. HIAs are often directly effective in changing, influencing, broadening areas considered and in some cases having immediate impact on decisions. Even when HIAs are reported to have no direct effect on a decision they are often still effective in influencing decision-making processes and the stakeholders involved in them. HIA participants identify changes in relationships, improved understanding of the determinants of health and positive working relationships as major and sustainable impacts of their involvement.Conclusions: This study clearly demonstrates direct and indirect effectiveness of HIA influencing decision making in Australia and New Zealand. We recommend that public health leaders and policy makers should be confident in promoting the use of HIA and investing in building capacity to undertake high quality HIAs. New findings about the value HIA stakeholders put on indirect impacts such as learning and relationship building suggest HIA has a role both as a technical tool that makes predictions of potential impacts of a policy, program or project and as a mechanism for developing relationships with and influencing other sectors. Accordingly when evaluating the effectiveness of HIAs we need to look beyond the direct impacts on decisions