10 Organisational behaviour and public decision making in the EA context

By Paula Posas and Thomas Fischer

10.1 INTRODUCTION Organisational behaviour (OB) as an academic field draws on various professions, including psychology, sociology,

anthropology, political science and economics. It elucidates human behaviour at individual, group, and organisational levels. Whilst the topics covered range widely, this module chapter will highlight a selected number of theories and models from OB, illustrating their pertinence and utility in the context of environmental assessment (EA). These will include human motivations, organisational culture, learning, power and conflict management, and decision making.

In the EA context, it is particularly useful to know about principles and theories from OB, because EA effectiveness and environmentally favourable actions hinge on the interactions, decisions, and actions of individuals, groups and organisations. EA actors in these categories include, for example, developers, affected parties, regulators, and facilitators (see Figure 10.1). Understanding principles related to human motivations and power relationships, among others, can thus contribute to a more effective management of the EA process and ultimately lead to more successful outcomes.

Figure 10.1 Actors interacting in EA processes

Source: Adapted from Glasson et al. (1994)

Utilising OB theories, this chapter will also delve into decision making models, influences on decision making, and decision making practice. Finally, public decision making and the public’s changing role will be investigated. This will draw on a variety of theoretical and practical perspectives, which help create a deeper understanding and appreciation of EA’s role and potential. This module’s aims and learning objectives are presented in the next section (10.1.1), followed by the chapter outline (10.1.2).

10.1.1 Module aims and learning objectivesThis chapter aims to present key aspects of organisational behaviour and public decision making, including theory,

models, practice, techniques, and current legal and policy contexts. In focusing on these areas, it is demonstrated how knowledge from organisational behaviour can improve EA effectiveness, exploring how decisions are made and influenced, illustrating why decision making in reality can be different from in theory, and investigates public decision making and the evolving nature of public participation therein. Discussion of these areas takes into account theories and information from the field of organisational behaviour and from recent EA journal publications and books. Four learning objectives have been identified below to fulfil this module’s aims. Specifically, lecturers are expected to provide students with:

1. A basic understanding of how knowledge from the field of organisational behaviour pertains to and can improve EA effectiveness. After providing an overview of the field of organisational behaviour, this section highlights certain theories of practical value and relevance for successful and effective EA processes and outcomes.

2. A review of decision making models from organisational behaviour and current EA literatures. This section will introduce students to the dominant frameworks for understanding decision making and their caveats and contested points. It will also provide insights into decision making that have direct implications for EA practice.

93

DEVELOPERSPublic sector developers(e.g. Highways Agency)

Private sector developers(e.g. multinational corporations)

AFFECTED PARTIESStatutory bodies(e.g. Countryside Commission, Environment Agency)

Non-statutory bodiesEnvironmental•International/national(e.g. Greenpeace, CPRE)•Local groups, the public

Economic•National (e.g. unions)•Local groups, the publicREGULATORS

Supra-national(e.g. Commission of European Communities)

National(e.g. Department of the Environment, Transport, etc.)

Local(e.g. County and District planning authorities)

FACILITATORSConsultants(environmental, planning, etc.)

Advisers, advocates

DEVELOPERSPublic sector developers(e.g. Highways Agency)

Private sector developers(e.g. multinational corporations)

AFFECTED PARTIESStatutory bodies(e.g. Countryside Commission, Environment Agency)

Non-statutory bodiesEnvironmental•International/national(e.g. Greenpeace, CPRE)•Local groups, the public

Economic•National (e.g. unions)•Local groups, the publicREGULATORS

Supra-national(e.g. Commission of European Communities)

National(e.g. Department of the Environment, Transport, etc.)

Local(e.g. County and District planning authorities)

FACILITATORSConsultants(environmental, planning, etc.)

Advisers, advocates

3. A description of public decision making and the rationale for increasing public participation. In this context, theoretical issues are discussed, characterising public decision making. Then, how and why public participation in environmental decision making came to be a permanent fixture in modern societies is briefly chronicled, including the legal basis for such changes.

4. Information and guidance on selecting appropriate participation methods and techniques within the EA context. In reviewing various approaches, different levels of participation and techniques are described, focusing on advantages and applicability in different circumstances, including EU and non-EU contexts.

10.1.2 Module outlineThe module is divided into three main sections. The first examines organisational behaviour and the potential

contribution of its theories and models to understanding individual, group, and organisational behaviour in the EA process. The second section focuses on decision making theory, practice, and techniques. The third section hones in more closely on the public and public decision making in the EA context. The main subtopics for these three sections are outlined in Figure 10.2.

Figure 10.2 Organisational behaviour and public decision making module outline

Organisationalbehaviour

Decision making intheory and practice

The public and publicdecision making

Organisational behaviour andpublic decision making

Ove

rvie

w o

fO

B

Val

ue o

f OB

disc

iplin

es

Key

theo

ries

in O

B

Dec

isio

n ai

dsfro

m O

B

Def

inin

gpu

blic

inte

rest

Tech

niqu

es,

eval

met

hods

Influ

ence

s on

deci

sion

s

His

tory

and

ratio

nale

4 de

cisi

onm

odel

s

10.2 ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUROrganisational behaviour (OB) is defined as the study of human behaviour in organisational contexts, with a focus on

individual and group processes and actions (Brooks, 2003). The modern study of OB can be traced back to Frederick Winslow Taylor’s seminal work The Principles of Scientific Management (1911), wherein he described how application of the scientific method to management could improve worker productivity. Though the study of OB arose in the management sciences and is located within them today, organisational behaviour has roots in many traditional disciplines including psychology, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science and economics. Organisational behaviour as an academic field continues to be partly informed by research and debate arising in the aforementioned traditional subject disciplines. These disciplines’ specific relevance to OB is evident in the subjects they study, as described in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 OB, a multidisciplinary subject underpinned by traditional disciplines

Source: Information extracted from text in Brooks (2003, p2)

94

Discipline’s contributing to organisational behaviour

Discipline subject of study

Psychology Individual human behaviour and personalitySocial psychology Group behaviour, including organisationalSociology Social behaviour, societal structures and controlAnthropology Culture, the symbolic, attitudinal, and behavioural factors that unite various social groupsPolitical science Power and control between individuals and groupsEconomics Rational explanatory frameworks for individual and organisational activity

OB’s various dimensions are often divided into micro, macro, and meso scales. The London Business School, summarises the micro themes as the psychological principles that govern the exercise of leadership, motivation, decision-making, negotiation, and creativity. Macro themes constitute the sociological, cultural and institutional factors shaping organisational structures and systems, inter-organisational relationships, and networks. Finally, bridging micro and macro levels of analysis are "meso" factors such as teamwork, group dynamics, and organisational culture, among others (LBS, 2007). Three dominant overarching themes in OB are management of change, communication, and conflict (Brooks, 2003). These three areas influence an organisation’s competitiveness and ability to meet its objectives.

Business managers study organisational behaviour to make the most of their institutional structure, practices, and staff. In this context, Brooks suggested that knowledge of OB should enable one to

“explain and predict human behaviour in organisations and even control it if appropriate” (2003, p2). But principles and models from organisational behaviour are relevant and can be applied in a range of circumstances

besides business to optimise conditions for smoother processes and more effective outcomes. A sampling of OB theories and models relevant to EA will be briefly explored in the next section.

10.2.1 Key relevant theories in organisational behaviourFrom both OB and EA perspectives, this section reviews the topics of motivation, goal setting, cultural differences,

learning, organisational learning, power, and conflict resolution.

Motivation, goal setting theory and SMART metricsSome of the most widely known models used in organisation behaviour are theories of motivation, including Maslow’s

famous hierarchy of needs. Originating from psychologist Abraham Maslow in 1943, this model of human motivation proposes that human needs and motivation to fulfil those needs form a pyramid with physiological needs (food, water, shelter, and clothing) at the bottom. Then in sequence building up come security needs, love and belonging needs, esteem needs, and finally at the top of the pyramid growth needs. The lower needs are said to be the most powerful and instinctive. This model helps explain why people, especially those in marginal circumstances, are apt to support options and alternatives that will help meet basic needs. It also shows why project affected people may be on the side of safeguarding the environment, because they depend on it for their basic needs, including air, water, food, and shelter.

Goal setting theory represents another motivation-related model. Almost fifty years ago, the pioneering work of Edwin Locke advanced collective understanding of the importance of goals as motivators. His work and the work of others later resulted in five areas to consider when setting goals:

1. goal clarity; 2. level of challenge; 3. commitment (buy in); 4. feedback; and 5. task complexity.

Feedback, in particular, is seen as an important motivator. The commitment factor is a reminder of the implicit presence of values in that people are more likely to perform relative to a goal if it is consistent with values and personal standards or will bring them recognition or improved reputation. In management, the acronym SMART is often used, referring to the fact that goals and objectives should be: Specific; Measurable; Attainable (or Agreed); Relevant (or Realistic); and Time-bound. These ideas on goals and motivation may be useful to bear in mind when designing EA objectives, follow-up, monitoring and evaluation criteria, and when it is necessary to help motivate collaborators and relevant stakeholders in particular areas relevant to the EA process. For further reading in these areas, see Brooks (2003) and Manktelow (2007).

Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural analysisGeert Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural analysis has stood the test of time. In the 1980s, he gained access to the

American computer company IBM and was able to investigate over 116,000 employee attitudes in 50 countries. This resulted in identification of five dimensions of culture: small vs. large power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long vs. short term orientation. While the meaning of the other terms is relatively self-evident, power distance refers to the extent to which members of society accept how power is distributed unequally in that society (or organisation). See Brooks (2003) for further reading. This model is widely known and can be used to help one understand that France and Japan have high power distances (e.g. high formality with superiors) where in the United States of America generally there is a low power distance, or why some cultures are very individualistic (e.g. the UK), while others are more community oriented (e.g. Sweden). People and organisations from different cultures are likely to have been influenced by their national cultures and may thus exhibit certain of these cultural traits more strongly than others. Hofstede’s model is helpful to bear in mind when working on international teams or in countries other than one’s own. Even more, it is relevant to a globalising world and the EU, wherein travel to other countries and contact with people of different cultures is common.

95

Kolb’s learning cycle and learning stylesDavid Kolb views learning as a continuous process of experience, reflection, and action. His model (Fig. 10.3), which

can be applied both, to individual and organisational contexts, is based on the belief that we learn through our experiences. Kolb’s model led on to studies on cognitive styles, i.e. the way we organise and process information. In 1982, Honey and Mumford identified four cognitive styles linked to the phases of Kolb’s cycle. As described in Brooks (2003, p35), these are “the activist (linked to concrete experimentation), the reflector (reflective observation), the theorist (abstract conceptualisation), and finally the pragmatist (active experimentation/testing)”.

Fig. 10.3 Kolb’s learning cycle

Source: adapted from Brooks (2003)

There are test questionnaires to help people find out which cognitive style best matches them personally. These general tendencies with regard to cognitive style have implications for teams and placing people in the right roles, congruent with the needs of the organisation and environment. In teaching EA and structuring activities, it can be useful to bear in mind the different (not right or wrong) learning styles and tendencies of students. In EA practice, if one is in a facilitating role, it might be important to bear in mind different learning styles and Kolb’s learning cycle to facilitate learning processes for different actors and groups.

Organisational learning, double and single loop learningWhile on the topic of learning, it is useful to mention the concept of single and double loop learning. There is no

question that individuals learn, but organisations sometimes do not seem to learn and to cope in a dynamic environment. Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1978) helped sharpen the debate on organisational learning by distinguishing between single loop and double loop learning. They conclude that most organisations are stuck in a process of single loop learning (i.e. making techniques more efficient). Single loop learning takes goals, values, frameworks and strategies for granted. Double loop learning, by contrast, involves greater questioning of both, the organisation’s objectives and methods, so that errors can be identified and corrected on a fairly continuous basis. It requires individuals and groups “to be willing to discuss sensitive issues openly and to confront differences of view and seek ways of clarifying vague and ambiguous ideas and data” (Brooks 2003, p256).

This description should help in understanding how the EA, and particularly the SEA process, can stimulate double loop learning, more so when public participation occurs, as it pushes those involved to question and think in new and creative ways.

Sources of powerIn line with its thematic focus on change, conflict, and communication (Brooks, 2003), OB addresses power and the

closely related topic of conflict management. Power, is defined as ‘possession of control, authority or influence over others’ (MWOD, 2007). It is studied at various levels in OB, including individual, interdepartmental, and organisational levels. It may be transparent and tangible, or invisible and covert, such as when exerted by controlling the speed of information dissemination, controlling budgets, or covert individual and collective resistance. The models of power developed in OB aid in assessing power balances in and between organisations, government departments, and other stakeholder groups.

In 1959, French and Raven (1959) identified five main sources of power. The first, coercive power, depends on the threat of fear or the threat of disciplinary action or sanction. Reward power relates to the incentive to behave in a particular manner. People may respond to this power if they find the benefit to be of value. Expert power is influence based on possessing special skills or knowledge. Legitimate or position power is derived from holding a formal position in an organisation. It provides a mechanism for order and the stabilisation of power relations (Brooks, 2003). Referent power or charismatic authority is related to admiration or respect for an individual. Charisma, which means ‘gift of grace’ can inspire followers and enable leaders to exert power over others. In the mid 1980s, Gareth Morgan (1986)

96

Observation and

reflection

Concrete experiences

Abstract conceptualisation Testing

expanded this list to 14, specifying several that implied some form of control over communication flow. These included control of knowledge and information, control of boundaries, control of technology, control of boundaries, control of the informal organisation, and interpersonal alliances. Bases of power (means to exert influence) identified by Stephen Robbins (1984) include control of budgets and rewards, persuasion, rules and procedures, physical presence or threat, and charisma (see Brooks, 2003, for further discussion of the power sources and bases).

In EA, where power lies is important, as it determines to a large extent what can be accomplished. Project implementation that takes EA findings into account depends on strong legal instruments and ultimately the decisions made by those with legitimate power. Even a well conducted EA and participation process are

“not a substitute for the regulatory power, political will, and money required to get things done” (Beierle and Cayford 2002, p62).

Different players in the EA context may include different government departments, such as the environment department and sectoral departments or agencies. Different departments, power sources often relate to: dependency (the extent to which one department depends on another department), centrality (importance of the department’s work to the organisation or government), financial resources, ‘sustainability’ (work could be performed by others), and the department’s ability to reduce uncertainty for others. This is interesting to bear in mind and helps explain why most economic and treasury departments are so powerful relative to others. In EA can therefore be sometimes be important to have the economic or treasury departments involved from the early stages. Part of EA’s role though, is to give voice to and help empower the less powerful departments (especially environment departments), stakeholders, and interests.

Politics and conflict resolutionPolitics and conflict resolution are also important in EA contexts. Richard Daft (1992, p403) considers politics to be “a process of bargaining and negotiation that is used to overcome conflicts and differences of opinion”. He identifies four areas where politics and thus potentially conflict seem endemic: 1. structural change; 2. inter-departmental coordination; 3. management succession; and 4. resource allocation.

Conflict occurs when at least one party feels its interests have been frustrated. Conflict often arises due to: • difference in status; • scarcity of resources (e.g. budget); • dependency on others; • winners and losers; and • cultural differences.

Conflict can be handled by avoidance, accommodation, compromise, competition, or collaboration (which is often seen as the optimum solution). The factors likely to influence the conflict-handling style are (Brooks, 2003, chapter 8): • the time available to resolve the conflict; • the level of importance of the issue stimulating the conflict; • whether one of the styles is more suitable to the circumstances; and • issues of commitment, motivation, precedence.

Interestingly, since the early 1980s, EA has been usually been perceived as “a learning and negotiation process between multiple actors” (in Fischer 2003, p156). Recent studies call “resolving conflict among competing interests” (Beierle and Cayford 2002, p15) one of the five most important social goals of the EA public participation processes. As can be imagined, politics and conflict are almost intrinsic to the EA process, which is not only scientific and technical, but firmly embedded in a political and social context. EA involves to some degree nearly every aspect of the above-mentioned political and conflict-prone situations. Particularly for controversial projects, conflict can be a significant issue for EA. Effective communication strategies are increasingly seen as an important tool for managing and facilitating EA’s ‘multiple negotiation process’ between stakeholders and decision makers (Gustavo and Partidario, 2006). Further study of conflict resolution techniques is highly desirable for EA practitioners.

10.2.2 Value of work in OB constituent disciplinesIt is important to bear in mind that OB’s constituent disciplines, including sociology, have developed many useful

models and ideas that can contribute to more effective EA. In Environmental Sociology, for example, Hannigan (2006) outlines the five necessary factors for successful construction of an environmental problem. These include scientific authority, popularisers, media attention, dramatization in symbolic and visual terms, economic incentives for positive action, and a legitimate institutional sponsor (Box 10.1).

97

Box 10.1 Factors for successful construction of an environmental problem

• Scientific authority and validation of claims• Existence of ‘popularisers’ who can bridge environmentalism and science• Media attention in which the problem is ‘framed’ as novel and important• Dramatization of the problem in symbolic and visual terms• Economic incentives for taking positive action• Recruitment of an institutional sponsor who can ensure both legitimacy and continuity

Source: Hannigan (2006, p 78)

For issues that may not have as strong a foothold, such as particulate levels in city air, knowledge of the factors may assist in helping give stronger credibility or drawing attention to them. While the EA process may not be doing these things itself, bearing them in mind may help communicate the importance of an issue both, among decision makers and the public. For example, in public participation processes, it might be helpful to structure communication along some of these lines, i.e. mention scientific authorities and their claims, reference popularisers and media attention to the issue, consider how to discuss the problem in symbolic and visual terms.

In summary, OB and its constituent disciplines are home to a wealth of useful tools, models, and ideas that can aid in understanding the ‘people management’ aspects of the EA process, thereby contributing to an EA process's effectiveness and success. An EA’s effectiveness does depend on certain factors other than human interaction (as discussed earlier and in Section 12.5), though it is arguably one of the most important factors. The following sections on decision making are also underpinned by ideas from OB.

10.3 DECISION MAKING THEORY AND PRACTICEOne of the main purposes of EA is to act as a decision making aid, and EA is often defined as a ‘systematic decision

support process’ (i.e. Fischer, 2007, pxiii). Though frequently ‘the decision’ in EA is portrayed as occurring between the EA review and post decision making stages, in fact EA consists of many implicit and explicit decision moments (see Table 10.2; Pischke and Cashmore, 2006) that cover the entire process. EA is theorized to influence decisions in three main ways, through (Fischer 2007, p17-19): • providing better information (based on a rational decision-making model); • enabling attitudes and perceptions to change through participation and involvement; and • changing established routines over a longer period of time.

In theory, decisions are made via an uninterrupted linear process that results in rational solutions. Yet in practice, things do not always go that way. This section explores the rational decision making model and other models of decision making. It then looks at the various influences on decisions to be aware of, and finally considers some generic decision aids that may be helpful to anyone involved with EA processes.

Table 10.2 Decisions required throughout the EIA process

Source: based on Weston (2000, p186)

10.3.1 Four core decision making modelsRational model of decision makingIn the rational model, decision making is a rational, linear process that will produce rational outcomes. It is used to

explain microeconomic behaviour and is the accepted model in many disciplines up to the present. The steps in rational 98

EIA stage Question requiring a decisionScreening Is the project one for which an EIA is necessary?Scoping What environmental impacts need to be examined?Prediction What is the size, magnitude or extent of the impacts?Assessment Is the impact significant?Mitigation What can be done to reduce the impact?Review Are the assessment and the Environmental Statement adequate?Decision Should the project be authorized to proceed?Monitoring and auditing Was the prediction of impacts accurate and do the mitigation measures work?

decision making can be described as follows (Brooks, 2003, p36): 1. identifying a problem that requires a decision; 2. gathering information and materials that will help solve that problem; 3. generating potential solutions to the problem; and 4. making a rational choice, selecting the best solution, and then implementing it.

It is a logical normative model, and the main difficulties with it lie not with the model’s process, but rather with its underlying assumptions. Thus, the model implies that a person will:

“always make a rational decision based on the ability to evaluate all the alternatives and effectively calculate the potential success of each alternative (Brooks, 2003, p36).”

In addition, it suggests that the decision is being made in a stable, slow-moving environment and that the decision maker has ample time to gather all the information, reflect on all the alternatives, and reach a rational solution. The logical steps in the model are reminiscent of the EA process. In practice, routine decisions may nearly follow this rational process (Butler, 1991), but most decisions (including many in EA) face more pressures and unknowns than this model’s assumptions allow for.

Bounded rational modelHerbert Simon in 1960 introduced the concept of bounded rationality to address the rational model’s potential

weaknesses and incongruence with many decision making contexts, which are not benefiting from unlimited time and perfect information. The bounded rationality model has been shown to be much more consistent with the way managers behave (Brooks, 2003), in that they are faced by time pressure and imperfect information which causes them to find a solution that will ‘satisfice’ rather than what might have been the best one (see Box 10.2). Bounded rational decision making is often the type required in EA, particularly SEA (Nilsson and Dalkmann, 2001), due in part to the associated greater degree of uncertainty and often greater time pressure. While the rational model is more appropriate for routine decisions, the bounded rational model is more appropriate for unfamiliar, non routine, and potentially contentious issues (Butler, 1991). Its six explicit assumptions are listed in Box 10.2.

Box 10.2 Features accepted in the bounded rational model

• Managers respond to problems rather than going out of their way to find them.• Cognitive limits exist in the search process (human mind is limited in comprehension of problem).• Time pressures frequently apply (decisions have to be made with incomplete information).• Disjointed and incremental decision making often occurs, not a smooth continuous rational

process.• Intuition and judgment may have to be the basis for making a decision rather than computation.• Satisficing (satisfactory and ‘will do’) solutions rather than optimal solutions are arrived at.

Source: Adapted from Butler (1991, p47)

Garbage can modelMichael Cohen, James March and Johan Olsen’s (1972) ‘garbage can model’ is different from the two rationality based

models just discussed, in that it is not a sequence of steps that start with a problem and end in a solution. Rather than steps, this model proposes four independent streams (problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities). An organisation acts as a ‘garbage can’ in which these streams flow. A decision will be made when problems and solutions can be connected during a time when there are choice ‘opportunities’ (to be made by individuals). This model is more random and likely to be relevant to organisations operating in a volatile business environment (Brooks, 2003). Butler (1991) notes that organisations following this model exhibit several features, including: • ambiguity in the decision process; • difficult to determine cause and effect relationships; and • fluid participation (i.e. turnover of participants).

While not particularly efficient in organisations (Butler, 1991), the garbage can model can represent an apt description of government policy making (Kingdon, 1995, convergence of problem, policy, and politics). The garbage can model and Kingdon’s model are often invoked in the context of policy SEAs (World Bank, 2005; 2007).

Political or coalition approach to decision makingThe political or coalition model of organisational decision making was put forward by Richard Cyert and James March

in 1963. This view portrays the process of organisational decision making as 99

“involving shifting coalitions of interests and temporary alliances of decision makers who can, for the purposes of a decision, come together and sufficiently submerge their differences to make a decision” (Butler, 1991, p51).

A coalition may be formed for just one decision, though some quid pro quo and bargaining is likely to be involved. This kind of decision making has been known to occur in government contexts.

Three other integrative models The OB literature cites three further models of decision making in organisational contexts. Henry Mintzberg’s decision

making model for organisations overlays the core models and is associated with no approach in particular. It is based on study of 25 cases and emphasizes the stages and circularity of decision making. In a 1976 study, Mintzberg and his colleagues attempted to identify types and patterns in decision making processes (Butler, 1991).

The contingency model of organisational decision making, developed by James Thompson and Arthur Tuden in 1956, charts the decision making models in terms of means and ends uncertainty (uncertainty about how and why to take a course of action). It positions the four models discussed above in relation to one another and suggests the type of organisational context for which they might be appropriate (Fig. 10.4).

Fig. 10.4 Contingency model of organisational decision making

Source: Butler (1991, p59), adapted from Thompson and Tuden (1956)

In the third model, the contingent institutional model of organisation, Richard Butler (1991) links the institutional model of organisation (consisting of context, structure and ideology) to the decision models. He sees decisions in terms of their interactions with the areas of context, structure, and ideology in a given organisational context. The variables associated with each aspect are shown in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3 Variables associated with three aspects of organisation

Fuzzy v Crisp Complex v Simple Robust v FocusedImplicit v Formal

Expert v LocalDifferentiated v Demarcated

Interactive v ParametricActive v Analytic

Collective v IndividualisticDecentralized v Centralized

Supportive v PunitiveSymbolic v Literal

Unique v ComparableOpen v ConcentratedAmbiguous v ClearVariable v Stable

Disparate v AgreedHeterogeneous v Homogeneous

Independent v Autonomous

Plural v SingularTolerant v ParticularMoral v Efficiency

Source: Butler (1991, p255)

While the exact meaning of some of these terms may not be apparent without further reading, they suffice to illustrate Butler’s observation that there is a constant tension between these dialectical aspects in an organisation. These variables also fuel a tension between inner loop learning (pushing an organisation towards efficiency) and outer loop learning (which helps it adapt). In this context, Butler (1991, p255) explains that the

“phenomenon appears in organizations when short term expediency leads organizations to tighten up structures, with apparent immediate return achieved through greater efficiency, centralization, and the like, but leads the organization into a vicious circle of decline as the ability to adapt to future exigencies decreases.”

100

Tensions inherent in organisations, decision making styles, and EAThe crisp/fuzzy tension in organisations is reminiscent of the structure/flexibility tension manifested in EA, the contexts

within which it is applied, and the public entities and organisations involved. Since crisp/fuzzy tensions are necessarily present in organisations, it seems that such tensions are (1) deeply embedded in social structures and culture, and (2) also potentially constructive with regard to maintaining an inner and outer loop learning balance. This might suggest then that the structure/flexibility debate in EA discourse and practice will never be fully resolved, but will need to be continually negotiated and adapted to changing contexts.

Rational models spark debate in EAModels of decision making, particularly the rational model, are closely tied to much of the current debates in EA,

including the structure/flexibility debate mentioned above. EA’s procedural origins are rooted in rational planning theory, which was developed in the mid 1950s and extensively discussed and spread in the late 1960s and early 1970s (see Faludi, 1973; Fischer, 2003). SEA, particularly, is understood to be better explained by the bounded rational rather than rational decision making model (Fischer, 2003). Many authors have used this understanding to argue that SEA processes need to be flexible rather than rational or rigidly structured. One critique that could be made of this debate, however, is the relatively poor level of articulation of which elements of the process should be flexible. A second critique relates to the lack of rigorous testing of whether a flexible approach gives better results and in what contexts (Fischer, 2007).

Habermas and Foucault, technical vs. deliberative, and values and powerPhilosophically, the rational model and the deviations from it that often occur, have sparked debate around Jürgen

Habermas’ notions of ‘communicative rationality’ and ‘ideal speech’ which reflect rational normative ideals. Habermas’ contextual ideals are notoriously difficult to attain due in large part to the existence of power disparities among actors (Flyvbjerg, 2001). In philosophical and EA literature, Habermas’ ideas are typically contraposed to Foucault’s conceptions of power (i.e. Flyvbjerg, 2001; Fischer, 2003), though Healy (2004) goes a long way in establishing the complementarities of these two philosophers’ ideas. In this regard and relating to EA being seen as a rational technical vs. deliberative instrument (Owens et al., 2004), there has been much discussion of the role of power and values in the EA process and associated decision making (Richardson, 2005; Connelly and Richardson, 2005; Wilkins, 2003). Friction between communicative planning theory based on Habermas’ ideas (see Healey, 1996; 1999) and rational planning theory has been continuing to influence the EA world and be worked out in academic journals (see Fischer, 2003; Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). More care in use of terminology may help sharpen and clarify the debates. For example, people often use the term ‘rational’ when they really mean ‘systematic’ (a term which does not invite such controversy!).

10.3.2 Influences on decision making

Situation constraints and cognitive biasesThe model of bounded rationality identified some of the key constraints on decision making, including time pressure

and incomplete information. Hammond et al. (2002) identify uncertainties, risk tolerance, and linkages to future choices as critical factors impinging on decisions. In his OB textbook, Brooks (2003, p37) takes a different approach and singles out cognitive biases as compromising “the rationality and objectivity of decision making”. Cognitive biases are distortions in thinking that can develop in an individual’s cognitive structure over time and are influenced by beliefs, attitudes, values, and the person’s own personality. Cognitive dissonance (where there is inconsistency between a person’s beliefs and actions) may occur, but cognitive biases are more common and less noticeable for most people. Common cognitive biases include: illusion of control (where an individual believes he or she can handle a complex problem but in fact cannot), status quo bias (tendency to prefer that things stay relatively the same), bandwagon effect and groupthink (tendency to do or believe the same things as others do) and déformation professionelle (tendency to look at things only according to the conventions of one’s profession, forgetting broader points of view). Cognitive biases can thus decrease the quality of decisions and decision making.

Personal values and organisational and cultural influencesOn the flip side, Hammond et al. (2002, p4) point to the positive importance of subjective factors, declaring that good

decision making will take into account: “tangible and intangible aspects of the decision situation … [and] pertinent facts, feelings, opinions, beliefs, and

advice”. Finally, external factors influencing decision making are likely to include organisational context (in terms of structure,

context, and ideology variables as in Table 10.3) and cultural context (i.e. Hofstede’s model). All of the above factors combine in a way to make different decision contexts quite variable. The best discussion and summary of all these issues in the EA context is perhaps that of Kørnøv and Thissen (2000). They discuss a number of these ‘other characteristics of real decision making processes’ including cognitive limitations, behavioural biases, ambiguity and variability of preferences and norms, distribution of decision-making over actors and in time, and the notion of decision-making as a process of learning and negotiation between multiple actors.

101

10.3.3 Useful decision making aids and techniquesDecision making is inherent in and frequently required throughout the EA process. Decisions must be made relating to

project scope, approval, implementation, evaluation and follow up, among others (see Table 10.2). EA is a specific ‘systematic decision support process’ (Fischer, 2007, pxiii) aimed at (a) helping reduce or mitigate negative environmental impacts, (b) enhancing environmental opportunities, where possible, and (c) producing more environmentally and socially sustainable outcomes. But there are also other more generic aids for decision making that can be utilised by all parties in the EA process. A few of these from organisational behaviour and management will be introduced below, following discussion of criteria for effective decision making processes.

Criteria for an effective decision making processHammond et al. (2002), in their best selling book Smart Choices, propose that an effective decision-making process

fulfils six criteria (see Box 10.3).

Box 10.3: Six criteria for an effective decision making process

• Focuses on what is important• Is logical and consistent• Acknowledges both subjective and objective factors and blends analytical and intuitive thinking• Requires only as much information and analysis as is necessary to resolve the particular dilemma• Encourages and guides the gathering of relevant information and informed opinion• Is straightforward, reliable, easy to use, and flexible

Source: adapted from Hammond et al. (2002, p4)

They then present their ‘PrOACT approach’ which fulfils the six criteria and relates to the Problem, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, and Tradeoffs coupled with consideration of uncertainty, risk tolerance, and linked decisions. Their approach does not profess to make hard decisions easy, but to help manage complexity sensibly. While there is not space to elaborate here, PrOACT is a methodology that students may wish to explore further (see Hammond et al. 2002). As well, Friend and Hickling (2005, p8) discuss and offer a useful methodology to deal with uncertainty and pressure in planning contexts. The remaining approaches to be discussed are simpler but still fulfil many of the identified criteria. They all are maximising/minimising techniques to make decisions, rather than other strategies such as singling out a particular criterion to maximise or ‘satisficing’.

An overview of decision aiding techniques and processesMost people adopt implicit decision making techniques or heuristics (short cuts) over the course of their experience.

They may or may not be able to identify or explain the logic they used to arrive at a given decision. Since many students will have never been exposed to explicit decision making techniques and aids, a few are introduced here. Out of dozens of techniques, four have been selected for their utility in supporting specific decisions made in the EA context, including grid analysis, PMI, force field analysis, and cost benefit analysis. They will be briefly described below1.

Grid Analysis goes by many names, including Decision Matrix Analysis, Pugh Matrix analysis or Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). It is the simplest form of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. A matrix approach is best used to make a decision when there are several possible alternatives and many factors to take into account. It involves listing the options and important factors in a table, where options are the row headings and factors the column headings. A score is assigned to each option (cell) from 0-3 (poor to very good), with the possibility of an option might have several zeroes or several threes. Finally, each factor is assigned a weight, which is multiplied number by number in the cell. The option with the most points in the total column could then be considered the best one. The table can be formatted as is indicated in Table 10.4.

Table 10.4 Grid analysis sample template

Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 TotalWeights 4 5 3 2 3 1Option1 score x 4 score x 5 score x 3 score x 2 score x 3 score x 1Option2 score x 4 score x 5 score x 3 score x 2 score x 3 score x 1Option3 score x 4 score x 5 score x 3 score x 2 score x 3 score x 1Option4 score x 4 score x 5 score x 3 score x 2 score x 3 score x 1Option5 score x 4 score x 5 score x 3 score x 2 score x 3 score x 1

This technique may aid thinking about different options while taking into account many factors. Assigning weights may

1 There are many more techniques than these four that are worth exploring. The ‘6 Thinking Hats,’ for example, is useful for considering a decision from various perspectives, to anticipate problems and promote creativity and contingency planning. It is a useful technique for thinking critically about a plan and may help in discussing a plan with the public or government officials (for further information on these aids and others, see Manktelow, 2007).

102

help bring greater clarity on the most important factor(s). It may help select an option, reduce options to a more manageable number, or help in deciding which options to focus on or collect more information about.

PMI (Plus/Minus/Interesting) is an improved version of the age old pro/con list. It is used to determine if an action will improve the situation. This is something a project proponent might use, for example, in order to see whether the no-project alternative might be better. In order to use this technique, column headings of ‘plus’, ‘minus’, and ‘interesting’ are used. A score is assigned to each expected outcome, including interesting possible outcomes in the interesting column. A much higher negative than positive score might indicate that the project option should be reconsidered and possibly avoided. Table 10.5 shows a possible diagram (oversimplified for illustration purposes) for a project to build a new cement plant in a given location.

Table 10.5 Sample PMI chart

Plus Minus InterestingGenerate revenue (+5) Environmental impacts (-5) Public opposition? (-3)Generate jobs (+5) Visual impacts, noise, smell (-3) Attracting new investors to the area? (+4)+10 -8 +1

(PMI can also be used as a visualisation tool in participatory settings, allowing opposing views to be expressed without too much conflict (see SFC, 2007 for an alternative type of PMI diagram).

Force Field Analysis is useful for looking at all the forces for and against a given plan decision. For a significant or complex plan, the diagram might look like Figure 10.5, but with many more forces identified. With this technique, different forces are assigned weights and totalled, allowing one to gauge whether or not the project seems viable and worth implementing, based on relative weight of supporting and opposing forces. In projects where implementation will definitely occur, there are two options; (a) increase the forces for a project or (b) decrease those against, perhaps by addressing and defusing some of the associated concerns. Clearly identifying forces against change may help in signalling areas that should be addressed. Problems may be dealt with through communication, training, or other strategies to address concerns of the public, employees, or other relevant parties.

Cost Benefit Aanalysis (CBA) is perhaps the most well known tool in economics, and it is often used by public agencies. Public agencies tend to be highly concerned about cost, both, because they are resource-constrained and because much of their resources derive from the public (tax payers)! CBA is done by calculating how much a change will cost and then calculating the expected financial benefit from it. Where the benefits are accrued over time, one would then calculate how much time would be needed (payback time) to reach the ‘break even point.’

CBA is a powerful tool. Nevertheless, it is important that it be seen as a tool (not as providing the answer), as there are other social, environmental, and political factors that may be excluded from the analysis because it is difficult to quantify them. In the end then, other important factors need to be weighed in with the cost-benefit results in order to make a sound decision.

Fig. 10.5 Force field diagram

103

10.4 THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC DECISION MAKINGNow we turn to public decision making, i.e. decision making by public bodies. After defining terms, this section

explores what may be understood by the ‘public interest’, while also considering the heterogeneous nature of ‘the public’ and stakeholders (Section 10.4.1 and 2). Subsequently, the history and rationale for changing models of public decision making and greater public involvement are reviewed (10.4.3). Then, legislation pertaining to EA and public decision making is briefly examined (10.4.4). Finally, guidance for choosing appropriate levels of public participation in environmental decision making (10.4.5) and for evaluating public participation processes within EA (10.4.6) is offered. These last two sections complement discussion of public participation in Chapter 15.

10.4.1 The ‘public’ and ‘public interest’

The meaning of the ‘public’Before moving forward with the decision making aspect of this section, it is worth taking a closer look at the meaning

of the public. The ‘public’ is clearly not a monolithic entity, but rather a diverse set of people and groups with a wide range of interests. Is it possible to speak of a ‘public interest’ more than merely the sum of individual interests? Nigel Taylor (1994), a British planner and academic, asserts that planning for sustainability, addressing environmental issues (including ozone depletion, global warming, and pollution and resource depletion generally) that threaten health and survival, and enhancing public spaces are certainly in the public interest. By extension, due to addressing precisely these areas, EA can also be construed as an activity in the public interest. This being the case, a closer look at ‘public interest’ is warranted.

Is there a public interest?The notion that there is a ‘public interest’ at all has been hotly contested for many decades, going back at least to Arthur

Bentley (1908). The so called ‘father’ of interest group theory in political science, Bentley asserted that “society is nothing other than the complex of groups that compose it…” He concluded: “We shall never find a group interest of … society as a whole (in Taylor, 1994, p88).” Political theorist David Truman echoed his sentiments some 50 years later, writing that:

“we do not need to account for a totally inclusive interest, because one does not exist” (in Taylor, 1994, p89). These ideas have been promoted even more forcefully since the late 1950s, when public interest started to be identified

as an ‘essentially contested concept’. Today, authors with postmodern leanings are following in Bentley and Trumans’s footsteps, contesting and deconstructing the concept, and ultimately denying the existence of a common welfare or ‘public interest’ (see discussion and references in Campbell and Marshall, 2000).

Nigel Taylor (1994, p89) suggested that the fallacy of such arguments against the existence of a public interest lies in “the twin assumptions that society is composed only of groups with conflicting interests, and that where conflicts of

interest exist between groups there cannot also be areas of consensus co-existing within the conflicts.” He explored several cogent arguments around these two ideas, including that some interests are so fundamental that

they must be recognised to some degree in any community. Taylor rejects the argument that there can be no conceptually coherent theory of the public interest. The many different groups with different interests notwithstanding, he proposes that the interests shared in common by any group or person constitutes the public interest.

Is the public interest always more important than sectional interest?Following this conclusion, Taylor makes perhaps his most insightful comments of all. He reflects that planning (and by

extension EA) should not always, or even always primarily, promote things which are in the public interest. He says that there may be occasions when an action is in the public interest, but where, say, due to limited resources,

“we think it morally right (or of greater moral priority) to do something which promotes the interests of a particular group – say, a group which is especially disadvantaged…”

He then quotes Benditt, writing in 1973, who asserts:“Not even the fact that a policy x is in the best interest of the public is conclusive on the question of whether or not x

should be adopted. The public interest is just one consideration among many that go into deciding what to do. Considerations such as fairness, equality, and others compete with consideration of the public interest in determining what to do (in Taylor 1994 p110).”

One may argue that promoting a sectional interest over the public interest goes against professional ethics which insists on serving the general public interest. Yet, here, too, Taylor points out that medical practitioners’ professional ethics require providing healthcare to anyone in the public without discrimination. Yet in pursuing this goal in a world of limited resources, for example, there is a strong argument for medics attending to the neediest first (i.e. emergency care), them being typically those most disadvantaged with respect to health. Taylor (1994, p111) ultimately concludes that, while on occasion there may be

“some moral tension between a commitment to the public interest and a commitment to the interests of a particularly needy group, in general the fact that some policy or action would benefit anybody (and thus potentially everybody) in the public can constitute a compelling moral reason for implementing that policy or action.”

He then cites environmental issues and enhancing public spaces as two such issues.

104

Implications for EAThese particular arguments have resonance with EA in two ways. First, it shows that there is appropriate space for

consideration of and prioritising the needs of those most disadvantaged with respect to the environment, among others. Second, it establishes a firm basis on which to defend environmentally sound decision making and actions, as they are in the public interest. Though the concept of public interest will continue to be contested (and in many cases justifiably so) and practitioners should be vigilant for signs of its misuse (as discussed in Taylor, 1994; Ashcroft, 2004), it can be argued that the concept of a public interest is useful and necessary if professional endeavours are to have any coherence at all and be anything other than partisan and arbitrary.

10.4.2 The ‘public’ and stakeholders

A heterogeneous publicPetts and Leach (2000, p2) assert that no single group or interest can be defined as ‘the public.’ Rather the term “provides a convenient catch-all to describe those with an interest in a decision other than a proponent, operator or

responsible authority.” Since in EIA and SEA it is not possible to consult everyone that might be considered to constitute ‘the public,’ current

practice is to identify stakeholders who can collectively be seen to represent the public (Abaza et al, 2004). Stakeholders are individuals and groups who have a ‘stake’ or ‘interest’ that may be affected by a decision on a proposed PPPP (Abaza et al, 2004, p69). Often, when stakeholders are being identified, broad categories will be defined and individuals assigned to one of them. Stakeholders are commonly divided into primary and secondary stakeholders, where the former are likely to experience direct effects and the latter may be indirectly affected or have the ability to influence the decisions taken (i.e. international conservation NGOs or media). For further reading on this topic, Abaza et al. (2004, chapter 4) provide a list of typical stakeholders in EA contexts and discuss ways to improve stakeholder involvement.

Definition of public participationPublic participation is defined as “any of several ‘mechanisms’ intentionally instituted to involve the lay public or their

representatives in administrative decision making” (Beierle and Cayford 2002, p6).As used here, it refers to organised bureaucratic processes and excludes individual actions or power politics. Public

participation is sometimes distinguished from stakeholder involvement, where the former connotes “a popular democratic notion of lay citizens’ involvement in local issues and the latter … a more pluralist notion of

interest group involvement in policy questions” (Beierle and Cayford 2002, p6). But in this section, public participation is used as more of an umbrella term encompassing both concepts.

Definition of public decision makingPublic decision making is decision making carried out by public bodies. It concerns the public sector (as opposed to the

private), which has been defined as the part of economic and administrative life that deals with the delivery of goods and services by and for the government (national to local). The public sector includes government social services, urban planning, national defense, and others. This is in contrast to private companies. One cannot say that public decision making happens in this or that way, because it is so diverse, even within countries or agencies. Within a given context, ideas from organisational behaviour can go a long way in elucidating public agency decision making processes. From a perspective within an agency, such ideas can be used to improve public agency decision making processes. From the perspective of an agency outsider, understanding of OB ideas can shed light on public processes and how one might best and most effectively engage with them. One thing that is common between public decision making processes is that there is a role for the ‘public.’ It might be almost insignificant, but in most cases it is increasingly becoming larger and more meaningful. Involvement of the public in public decision making may run the gamut from simple reporting and minimal public involvement to collaborative decision making, and in rare cases even fuller decision making powers. Because the role of the public is a common theme in public decision making processes, it will be given special emphasis in this chapter.

10.4.3 History and rationale for public decision makingVarious authors have written about the history and reasons for public involvement in decision making and particularly

environmental decision making in the 20th Century (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Abaza et al., 2004; Petts and Leach, 2000; Webler and Renn, 1995). Combining their various perspectives gives a fuller view of the history being examined, and will thus be reviewed briefly.

Public participation, an evolving aspect of participatory democracyWebler and Renn (1995), in their Brief Primer on Participation: Philosophy and Practice, make several interesting

points pertinent to the historical development of public participation in environmental decision making. They assert that:In countries of Anglo-Saxon tradition, public participation is synonymous with participatory democracy – that people in

such countries “associate the very concept of democracy with the activity of participating in governmental decision making” (Webler and Renn, 1995, p17).

105

• Public participation has been a major topic of debate in the U.S. and all European countries since the beginning of the 19th Century – that the early development of democracy in the aftermath of the French and American revolutions resulted in gradual integration of citizens in the political system, starting with voting.

• In addition to citizens fighting for equal rights in the political sphere, attention also turned to participation within the economic system (i.e. labour movements)

• Although social movements and citizens initiatives have been advocating for more direct influence in political decision making since the 1920s, their efforts (with few exceptions) were not effective until the ecological movements of the 1970s.Webler and Renn (1995) argue that recent popular demand has caused American and European governments to enhance

possibilities for direct citizen input in government decision making, and that new legal requirements for public access to information have further strengthened citizen power. They conclude that significant cross fertilisation is occurring between Europe and America with regard to experiences with direct participation. In further exploring said cross fertilisation, they provide a relatively balanced treatment of experiences on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Expanding role for the public Petts and Leach (2000) see a convergence of different pressures for public participation, including the need to consider

sustainable development, the failing trust in experts, public fears about risks to the environment and health, among others. They trace the roots of growing interest in public participation in various areas such as land use planning and regeneration, among others. In a development cooperation context, still other factors are identified as the impetus for greater public participation. These include trends at the global political levels, policies in multi- and bilateral development organizations, and lessons learned from evaluations of PPPPs. One of the most important reasons cited in the development literature is that PPPPs are seen as less likely to fail if the public is involved (Abaza et al, 2004). Public involvement and consultation have been integral to EIA since 1970, while its use in SEA has been less formal and systematic because of the different nature of SEA.

Progression and coexistence of three models of public decision makingBeierle and Cayford (2002) write about the history of public participation from a U.S. perspective, which

simultaneously appears to mirror global trends in democratic societies. They chart a historical progression from managerialism (late 1800s to 1950s) to pluralism (1960s to 1990s) to popular democracy (1990s to present). Managerialism rested on the managerial model in which government administrators were entrusted with identifying and pursuing the common good, specifically in the form of social welfare maximisation (i.e. the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time). Pluralism began to supplant managerialism when government administrators ceased to be seen as objective decision makers in the public interest and started to be seen as arbiters among different interests within the public. Unlike welfare maximisation, pluralism did not recognise an objective sense of the ‘public good’ but rather a “contingent public good to be debated and arrived at by negotiation among interests” (2003, p4). The third stage resting on popular democratic theory stresses the importance of the act of participation, “not only in influencing decisions but in strengthening civic capacity and social capital” (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, p4).

While these perspective’s relative importance seems to have followed the aforementioned progression, all three perspectives continue to coexist and compete in contemporary debates regarding how environmental policy should be made and implemented. The strength of commitment to each of the three models varies by country and relates to cultural traits as identified in Hofstede’s model (section 10.2.1), agency organisational culture, and sector (e.g. transport planning tends to be driven by a more managerial approach). In effect though, society’s expectations about what public participation should accomplish have evolved.

Beierle and Cayford (2002) summarise the main justifications for public involvement in each of the three perspectives. During the managerial era, public participation’s purpose was to ensure that government agencies were acting in the public interest. In pluralism and popular democracy, public participation is seen as necessary for establishing what the public interest really is. In these latter contexts, public participation’s purpose is not to merely provide accountability but help develop the substance of policy. This characterisation of the changing role of public participation is reflected in many literatures, including EA. It comports with the most recent emphasis on social learning (Sinclair and Diduck 2001), which is becoming even more prominent since the Beierle and Cayford’s 2003 publication. In addition to increasing the quality of decisions (Beierle, 2002), it could be argued that public participation rationales are now going even one step further with the expectations around social learning (i.e. mutual learning and transformation of values) (see Sinclair and Diduck, 2001; HarmoniCOP, 2005).

Importance of public participation in public decision makingIn Table 15.1 of this handbook, a selective summary of rationales for public participation in the EA process is provided.

Among them are ‘enhancing the transparency of decision-making processes’ and ‘enhancing the completeness, validity and reliability of the relevant information’. The belief that public and participation is important and helps create better decisions is not only a theoretical idea. An analysis led by Beierle (2002) of over 239 U.S. published case studies of stakeholder involvement in environmental public decision making indicates that the quality of decisions tends to improve with

106

stakeholder involvement.Not listed in the table, but also important are issues raised by Hugh Wilkins (2003) in relation to the subjective elements

of EA. Specifically, he argues that EIA opens opportunities for social learning and development of less individualistic and more communitarian values. EIA, he says, provides

“a temporary community forum at which various perspectives and viewpoints can be considered in the decision-making process and in discourse, likely resulting in stronger community values and the possibility that longer-term environmental discourse can be fostered and generated in other forae” (Wilkins 2003, p410).

He sees EIA’s strengths, and thus also the objectives it fulfils, as its qualities of public participation, transparency, promotion of discourse, social learning, and transformation of values. These latter kinds of ideas are still young in EA, but are becoming increasingly popular.

10.4.4 Legislation pertaining to EA and public decision making

International legislation and the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’ Rio DeclarationLegislative changes parallel public participation’s historical development. Francis-Nishima (2003) traces the

development of international instruments that govern information access and participation in environmental decision making, starting from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, elaborated by the UN General Assembly. She cites over two dozen instruments, but particularly singles out the 1992 Earth Summit’s Rio Declaration on Environment and Development as the most historically important. The importance of international acceptance (178 nations adopted it at the Earth Summit) and particularly its Principle 102 on participation in environmental matters cannot be understated. They underpin numerous subsequent regional initiatives and national laws, as well as international institution procedures and approaches to public participation. Agenda 21, a comprehensive action plan to be taken globally, nationally and locally, also was launched at the Rio Summit. It

“relied heavily on the role of civil society in developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental laws and policies … [and it also emphasized] access to information, public participation, and access to justice (Francis-Nishima, 2003, p10).”

Francis-Nishima (2003) reviewed regional agreements in addition to international ones. Although the Aarhus Convention (to be discussed below) is the only regional agreement of its kind, there are a couple of others deemed significant overall.

Pertinent EU legislationPetts and Leach (2000) described public decision making requirements specifically in the UK context, while

Aschemann (2004) reviewed the instruments relevant to the European context (2004), citing the legislation depicted (Fig. 10.6).

Fig. 10.6 European legislation pertinent to public participation in EA

2 Principle 10 states: “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided (UNCED, 1992).”

107

1973 1977 1980 1983 1987 1990 1993 1997 2000 2003

EU legislation pertinent to public participation in EA

1st InternalSEA Directive

Proposal(1990)

Directive onpublic

participationin certainplans and

programmesrelated to

environment(2003)

EU EIADirective(1985)

1st EuropeanEnvironment

ActionProgram

(1973-1976)

EU SEADirective(2001),effective

2004

UNECE EspooConvention on

EIA in aTransboundary

Context(1991),

effective 1997

1st OfficialSEA Directive

Proposal(1996)

UNECEAarhus

Convention(1998),effective

2001

UNECEKiev SEAProtocol(2003)

The First European Action Program in 1973 was already mentioning public participation in an environmental context. Directives starting in 1985 further specified the type of participation that would be required in EIA and SEA3. The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) and SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) both enumerate requirements for public participation in decision making, as does the Espoo Convention in transboundary EIA contexts. The Aarhus Convention (alternatively spelled Århus) is particularly significant, as pointed out by Francis-Nishima (2003), Petts and Leach (2000), and Aschemann (2004).

The UNECE Aarhus ConventionThe United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public

Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25 June 1998 in Aarhus, Denmark at the Fourth Ministerial Conference in the 'Environment for Europe' process. More commonly referred to as the Aarhus Convention, it entered into force on 30 October 2001. As of 28 September 2007, there are 41 parties to the convention and it has been ratified by nearly all European countries (UNECE, 2007).

Although regionally focused, the Aarhus Convention has global significance. The former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, called it an “impressive” elaboration of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and “the most ambitious venture in the area of environmental democracy so far undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations" (UNECE website). The Aarhus Convention’s significant features include:

• linking environmental rights and human rights and government accountability and environmental protection;• establishing that sustainable development can be achieved only through the involvement of all stakeholders; and• granting rights to the public and imposing obligations on Parties and public authorities regarding information access,

public participation and access to justice.

These features make the Aarhus Convention more than an environmental agreement, but also a Convention about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. Both, EIA and SEA are covered in the Convention; EIA in Article 6: Public participation in decisions on specific activities; and SEA in Article 7: Public participation concerning plans, programmes, and policies relating to the environment. Several principles are common to both EIA and SEA sections, including reasonable time-frames for participation, early public participation, and that decisions need to take due account of the outcome of the public participation. It is noteworthy that the Convention specifies that “the public which may participate shall be identified by the relevant public authority” (UNECE 2007; see also Chapter 15 of this handbook), thus recognising the diversity of publics from which an appropriate ‘public’ will need to be chosen and involved.

Recent directives and the Kiev SEA Protocol Regarding the two most recent items on the timeline, Directive 2003/35/EC on certain plans and programmes amends

two previous directives to be consistent with the Aarhus convention, specifically the 1985 EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) and Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control. The Kiev (SEA) Protocol supplements the Espoo Convention to include not only EIA, but also SEA. It builds on the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions to strengthen public participation in government decision making in a wide range of sectors, including land use planning and transport. It also goes beyond existing legislation in the considering the impacts of plans and programmes on human health (UNECE website).

10.4.5 Choosing appropriate participation techniques

Stakeholder analysis There are plentiful and diverse ways to involve the public in public decision making. Many academics and practitioners

involved with EA consider a stakeholder analysis to be a prerequisite first step for sound public participation (World Bank 2007; Schwartz and Deruyttere 1996). A stakeholder analysis can be done, using various straight-forward methodologies (DFID 1995, section 2) and is undertaken in order to

“identify and understand the subgroups within the population to be consulted, relations of power among these subgroups, and the extent to which community organizations represent all interest groups” (Schwartz and Deruyttere, 1996).

The outcome of a stakeholder analysis thus informs the mix of methods to be used for consultation (see DFID 1995, section 2, for example). International development agencies naturally place a high importance on stakeholder analysis, as it is needed for orientation to the situation on the ground and to understand the needs, interests, and relative strength of the various stakeholders.

Prominent methods and techniques

3 An EU directive is a legislative act which requires member states to enact national legislation to give the directive effect. The member states must achieve a particular result, though a directive allows member states a certain degree of flexibility regarding the means chosen to achieve that result.

108

Prominent participation methods and techniques include: • public meetings; • advisory panels; • focus groups;• workshops; and• interviews and surveys.

Specific techniques commonly utilised to facilitate public participation at in-person gatherings include: • visioning and scenarios; • visual models including GIS; and• SWOT analysis.

Visioning and scenarios are processes to describe plausible future conditions, and they help participants better understand and envision alternatives and trade-offs associated with different development pathways, thereby helping them better articulate their own values and preferences. Visual models and projections can often be helpful to participants in a participation process, such as when GIS maps overlay different layers of information to give a spatial sense of potential impacts and potentially affected areas and populations. A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis is an excellent way to gain participant knowledge of contextual and background issues associated with a given proposal or PPPP.

A number of public participation techniques are described in greater detail in Chapter 15 and so will not be further developed here. Additionally, there is an extensive assortment of other methods and techniques that could also be employed singly or in combination (see, for example, USDOT, 1996).

Recommended resources for more informationA brief review of other helpful resources on this topic follows. The International Association of Impact Assessment

(IAIA) offers a concise background statement on various dimensions of public participation in EA (Andre, 2006), and the World Bank (WBED, 2007) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA, 2007) each offer a collection of resources pertinent to public participation in EA processes. IAP2 (2004) summarises key points and what can go right/wrong in a wide range of techniques; it sorts them by the nature of participation and number of participants. Rauschmayer and Risse (2005) undertook an analysis of certain techniques, and the OECD DAC (2006), CIDA (2007) and the World Bank (2007) discuss participation techniques in a development cooperation context. Useful sources of guidance for designing and undertaking a participation process in the context of EA and public environmental decision making have been developed by Petts and Leach (2000), Beierle and Cayford (2002), and the World Bank (1999).

Deciding appropriate levels of public engagement in decision makingSeveral authors provide guidance on selecting the appropriate level of public engagement in decision making (Beierle

and Cayford, 2002; Petts and Leach, 2000). In the context of setting up public participation, Beierle and Cayford (2002) suggest that before setting up anything at all, decision makers must consider two commitments that go hand in hand with seeking participation (2003, p64):

• committing to some degree of flexibility and open-mindedness regarding the nature of the process and its outcomes, as participants may want to redefine a problem or bring the focus on to other issues; and

• recognising the legitimacy of public values and understanding that those values may lead to priorities and conclusions that agencies find undesirable or inconsistent with their perception of the public interest.

A third commitment might be to keep in mind that creative options may be possible, such as the famous case of siblings fighting over the last lemon, and then finding out one wanted to make lemonade and one a lemon cake using the rind, so their needs could in fact both be met. And a further fourth commitment, in the context of EIA and SEA regulations is the commitment to take the public contribution into account in decision making and mention in reports how public concerns and issues were addressed or reasons why certain issues could not be addressed.

Defining the levels of participant ‘empowerment’James and Blamey (1999) observed that most typologies for distinguishing participation types tend to be based on the

level of power accorded to participants. However, they do observe that alternative classification schemes can be envisaged, based on the participatory methodologies employed, the stage of the project cycle at which participation occurs, and the extent of legislative support for participation. In distinguishing and identifying appropriate techniques for public participation in decision making, all the authors surveyed here differentiate between various types or levels of public participation by relating them to degree of empowerment of participants.

Some authors establish two categories (Beierle and Cayford, 2002), others three (Heiland, 2005 as will be described in Ch. 15.3), still others four (Fischer, 2007; Petts and Leach, 2000), and up to eight in the Vroom-Yetton model of group decision making from OB. Beierle and Cayford (2002) distinguish between two kinds of public participation; information sharing and deliberation. Information sharing is a two-way exchange of information that might take place at a public

109

meeting, for example. Deliberation is a more iterative and intensive exchange that stresses well reasoned arguments and group problem solving. Participation based on the information sharing model has certain advantages in terms of cost, ease of use, and shorter time commitments. In some cases, information sharing types of participation in decision making are sufficient for meeting goals of informing citizens and agencies. Where goals are more complex or require resolving conflict and building trust, deliberative types of participation are more apt to be needed. Deliberative processes create a forum in which participants can discuss values and identify or forge areas of common ground. Deliberation does not necessarily require a goal of complete consensus. The decision of whether consensus is required, Beierle and Cayford (2003, p68) suggest, should be an instrumental one, i.e. whether

“implementation can move forward on a single agreed upon solution or whether agencies and the public can tolerate more than one possible solution”.

They summarise the appropriate use of these two different techniques in table form (Table 10.6).

Table 10.6 Planning Public Participation in Three Types of Projects

Project or phaseStep Fact finding Visioning and setting

goalsImplementation planning

Step 1: Determine the need for public participation

Substantive rationale Normative rationale Instrumental rationale

Step 2: Identify the goals of the process

Increase the substantive quality of decisions

Identify and incorporate public values into decisions

Reduce conflict, build trust, implement decisions

Step 3: Answer design questionsWho are the participants?

Everyone Interested citizens Interest groups

Appropriate level of engagement?

Information sharing Deliberation Deliberation

Influence public should have?

Input Recommendations Agreement

Role government should play?

High control Moderate control Low control

Step 4: Select and modify a process

Public comments, public meetings and hearings

Series of advisory committees not seeking consensus; workshops, citizen jury

Advisory committee seeking consensus; negotiation and mediation

Step 5: Evaluate the process

Were decisions based on better information or ideas?

Was a common vision formulated among participants and the wider public? Was the vision incorporated into decisions?

Was conflict resolved and trust increased? Were decisions implemented?

Source: Beierle and Cayford (2002, p72)

Petts and Leach (2000) divide participation levels into four categories or degrees of involvement, rather than two, namely:

• education and information provision;• information feedback;• involvement and consultation; and• extended involvement.

The last two roughly correspond to Beierle and Cayford’s notion of ‘deliberation’ while the first two approximate their concept of ‘information sharing.’ In a roughly parallel manner, Fischer (2007) distinguishes between participation, consultation, communication, and reporting. Each word implies a different level of commitment to and involvement of the public in decision making. Drawing on their classification system, Petts and Leach recommend ‘fitting methods to purpose’ along the lines described in Table 10.7.

110

Table 10.7 Matching public participation aims with appropriate involvement levels

Aim Applicable method levelTo satisfy statutory requirements to consult 1: Education and information provision and/or

2: Information feedbackTo resolve conflicting views 4: Extended involvementTo increase transparency 1: Education and information provision and/or

2: Information feedback and/or3: Involvement and consultation and/or4: Extended involvement

To increase defensibility 2: Information feedback and/or3: Involvement and consultation and/or4: Extended involvement

To change people’s views about an issue through education

1: Education and information provision and/or4: Extended involvement

To improve services 2: Information feedback and/or3: Involvement and consultation

To determine needs and desires 2: Information feedback and/or3: Involvement and consultation and/or4: Extended involvement

To empower citizens 1: Education and information provision and 4: Extended involvement

To enable social learning 1: Education and information provision and/or4: Extended involvement

Source: Petts and Leach (2000, p20)

Petts and Leach (2000, p20) point out that there may be different aims at different stages of the EIA process, for example, ranging “from the elicitation of values relevant to site selection at a project design stage to the optimisation of trust and credibility at the monitoring stage.”

Like Beierle and Cayford (2002), Petts and Leach caution against using public participation in certain contexts where it would be inappropriate. For example, they discourage involving the public when objectives are unclear or contested. They also observe that involving the public when decisions have already been made and will not be able to change as a result of public comment, that such a situation would naturally be unconducive to a positive public participation process and would breed distrust on the part of the public.

10.4.6 Evaluation of public participation in decision makingAs yet, there is no established method for evaluating public participation processes. Beierle and Cayford (2002, p16-17)

review the various types of evaluations of public participation in environmental decision making that have been conducted to serve a variety of purposes. Some include evaluating the extent to which they democratise decision making, others as a way for particular interests to achieve their goals, others in relation to achieving broad social goals, and some on specific parameters like reducing litigation, saving time, building capacity, and resolving conflicts. As well, there are resources for evaluating participation in a social learning context (HarmoniCOP 2005). Beierle and Cayford’s method falls into the broad social goals category. After extensive study of cases spanning decades, they judge and consider participation processes have a social value added to the extent that they:• incorporate public values into decisions;• improve the substantive quality of decisions;• resolve conflicts among competing interests;• build trust in institutions; and• educate and inform the public.

Other authors have identified similar features of successful public participation and have suggested various metrics for evaluating participation effectiveness. A recently published study (Webler and Tuler, 2006) found that even within a specific assessment or decision making effort, participants have differing perspectives on what constitutes appropriate elements for the participation process. Participants differed on how strongly to emphasize science and information, the amount of leadership and direction needed, proper participant behaviour, how to tackle issues of power and trust, and what should be the outcome-related goals of the process. Participants from all 10 of their case studies agreed however, that good processes:

111

• reach out to all stakeholders; • share information openly and readily; • engage people in meaningful interaction; and • attempt to satisfy multiple interest positions.

Such findings present a reminder and challenge to researchers and practitioners to attend to certain core areas as well as (Webler and Tuler 2006, p699)

“consider the diversity of participant needs in addition to the broad context when conceptualizing or carrying out participatory processes”.

They also support Webler’s (1995) argument that it is not appropriate to evaluate a public participation technique’s success based on outcomes4 or participant assessments. Rather, they argue that a participation technique needs to be judged against an ideal, leading to a “procedural normative model of public participation”, based on fairness and competence. The four consensus areas identified above, and much additional literature (see excellent discussion of evaluation criteria in Petts and Leach (2000, p46-48), appear to affirm Webler’s argument for a procedural normative model based on justice and competence.5 In a similar spirit of a fair and respectful process, U.S. SEA practitioner Charles Alton suggests that the goal of an environmental participation process is not always perfect agreement, but could always be ‘perfect understanding’ (personal communication).

10.4.7 Recommended reading for this moduleRecommended reading for the first section of this module includes any locally available textbook on OB. For the

second section on decision making, recommended works include those by Richard Butler (1991, chapter: Ch. 3), John Hammond et al. (1999), and Lone Kørnøv and Wil Thissen (2000). Pertaining to the third section, particularly helpful texts are those by Nigel Taylor (1994), Judith Petts and Barbara Leach (2000), Thomas Beierle (2002), Thomas Beierle and Jerry Cayford (2002), Thomas Webler and Ortwin Renn (1995), and Hussein Abaza et al. (2004). It is also highly recommended that students familiarize themselves with the UNECE Aarhus Convention and web resources online (i.e. CIDA 2007; World Bank 2007).

REFERENCES

• Abaza, H.; Bisset, R. and Sadler, B. (2004) Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach, United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi. Available at: http://www.unep.ch/ etb/publications/EnvImpAss/textONUBr.pdf, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Ashcroft, R. E. (2004) From public interest to political justice, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13 (1): 20-27.

• Andre, P. (2006) IAIA Special Publication Series No. 4: Public participation best practice principles. International Association of Impact Assessment. Available at http://www.iaia.org/modx/assets/files/SP4%20web.pdf, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Argyris, C. and Schön D. A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

• Beierle, T. C. and Cayford J. (2002) Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

• Beierle, T. C. (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions, Risk Analysis, 22 (4): 739-749.

• Brooks, I. (2003) Organisational Behaviour, 2nd Ed., Pearson Education, Harlow, England.

• Butler, R. (1991) Designing Organizations: A Decision-making Perspective, Routledge, London.

• Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2000) Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest: a commentary on current British practice, Environment and Planning B, 27 (2): 297-312.

4 Outcome is not an appropriate way to evaluate a public participation process because implementation of decisions and outcomes happen over a longer time period than the participation process itself. More importantly still, implementation and outcomes depend on many factors other than public participation, including regulatory power, political will, and funding.

5 Fairness is specifically in relation to access to the participative process. Competence, as summarized in Petts and Leach (2000, p46), relates to the ability of the participation process to “provide participants with (i) access to knowledge, explanation of terms, and access to interpretations of understanding and (ii) the best procedures for resolving disputes about knowledge and interpretations and for checking the authenticity and sincerity of claims.” Fairness and competence were later expanded to also include social learning (Webler, Kastenholz, and Renn, 1995).

112

• Cohen, M. D.; March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1):1-25.

• Connelly, S. and Richardson, T. (2005) Value-driven SEA: time for an environmental justice perspective? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25 (4): 391-409.

• Daft, R. L. (1992) Organizational Theory and Design, 4th Ed., West Publishing, St. Paul, MN.

• DFID (1995) Technical note on enhancing stakeholder participation in aid activities. Department for International Development, London. Available at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/sddstak.pdf, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Faludi, A. (1973) Planning Theory, Pergamon, Oxford.

• Fischer, T. B. (2003) Strategic environmental assessment in post-modern times, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 (2): 155-170.

• Fischer, T. B. (2007) Theory and Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards a More Systematic Approach, Earthscan, London.

• Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, S. Sampson (translator), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

• Francis-Nishima, K. (2003) An evolving environment: environmental information and public participation, Environmental Law Center, Victoria, BC. Available at: http://www.elc.uvic.ca/projects/2003-2/EnvInfoAndPublicParticipation.pdf, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Friend, J. and Hickling, A. (2005) Planning Under Pressure, 3rd Ed., Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

• Glasson J.; Therivel, R. and Chadwick, A. (1994) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd Ed., UCL Press, London.

• Gustavo, V. and Partidario, M. R. (2006) SEA – Enhancing communication for better environmental decisions, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26 (8): 696-706.

• Hammond, J. S.; Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1999) Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Life Decisions, Broadway Books, New York.

• Hannigan, J. (2006) Environmental Sociology, 2nd Ed., Routledge, London.

• HarmoniCOP (2005) HarmoniCOP Handbook, Learning together to manage together, improving participation in water management. Harmonising Collaborative Planning Team. Available in various languages at: http://www.harmonicop.info/handbook.php, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Healey, P. (1996) The communicative turn in spatial planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formulation, Environment and Planning B, 23 (2): 217-234.

• Healey P. (1999) Deconstructing communicative planning theory: a reply to Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, Environment and Planning A, 31 (6): 1129-1135.

• Healey, P. (2004) Making policy debate matter: practical reason, political dialogue, and transformative learning, History of the Human Sciences, 17 (1): 77-106.

• Heiland, S. (2005) Requirements and methods for public participation in SEA. In Schmidt, M, Joao, E and Albrecht, E (Eds) Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment, Springer, Berlin.

• IAP2 (2004) The IAP2 public participation toolbox. International Association for Public Participation. Available at: http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/toolbox.pdf, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• James, R. F. and Blamey R. K. (1999) Public participation in environmental decision-making – rhetoric to reality? Paper presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Brisbane, Australia, 7-10 July.

• Kørnøv, L. and Thissen, W. A. H. (2000) Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18 (3): 191–200.

• Kingdon, J. W. (1995) Agendas. Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd Ed., Harper Collins, New York.

• LBS (2007) Organisational behaviour webpage, London Business School. Available at: http://www.london.edu/organisationalbehaviour.html, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Manktelow, J. (2007) Decision making techniques: how to make better decisions, Mind Tools website available at:

113

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/main/ newMN_TED.htm, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Nilsson, M. and Dalkmann, H. (2001) Decision making and strategic environmental assessment, Journal of Environ Assess Policy and Management, 33 (3): 305-327.

• Owens, S.; Rayner, T. and Bina, O. (2004) New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research, Environment and Planning A, 36 (11): 1943-1959.

• Petts, J. and Leach, B. (2000) Evaluating methods for public participation: literature review. R & D Technical Report E135. UK Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.corwm.org.uk/pdf%5C0549%20%20-%20litrev~1.pdf, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Pischke, F. and Cashmore, M. (1996) Decision-oriented environmental assessment: an empirical study of its theory and methods, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26 (7): 643-662.

• Renn, O.; Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (Eds) (1995) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Kluwer, Boston.

• Richardson, T. (2005) Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25 (4): 341-365.

• UNCED (1992) Rio Declaration. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Available at: http://www.unep.org, last accessed on 15 Nov 2007.

• Robbins, S. P. (1984) Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 3rd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

• Schmidt, M.; Joao, E. and Albrecht, E. (Eds) Implementing Strategic Environmental Assessment, Springer, Berlin.

• Schwartz, N. and Deruyttere, A. (1996) Community consultation, sustainable development and the Inter-American Development Bank: A concept paper. IADB, Washington, DC. Available at: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx? docnum=362163, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• SFC (2007) Tools for meetings, PMI. Seeds for Change website. Available at: http://seedsforchange.org.uk/vcs/tools, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Sinclair, A. J. and Diduck, A. P. (2001) Public involvement in EA in Canada: a transformative learning perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21 (2), 113-136.

• Taylor, F. W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Brothers, New York.

• Taylor, N. (1994) Environmental issues and the public interest. In H. Thomas (Ed), Values and Planning, Avebury, Aldershot, UK.

• Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning, Environment and Planning A, 30 (11): 1975-1989.

• Thomas, H. (Ed) (1994) Values and Planning, Avebury, Aldershot, UK.

• UNECE (2007) Introducing the Aarhus Convention. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe website available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/, last accessed on 15 Nov 2007.

• USDOT (1996) Public involvement techniques for transportation decision making. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/contents.htm, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• WBED, World Bank Environment Department (2007) Resources for public participation and participatory tools. In the SEA Toolkit. Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/KP4VTWN2P0, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• Webler, T. and Tuler, S. (2006) Four perspectives on public participation process in environmental assessment and decision making: combined results from 10 case studies, Policy Studies Journal, 34 (4): 699-722.

• Webler, T.; Kastenholz, H. and Renn, O. (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15 (5): 443–463.

• Webler, T. and Renn, O. (1995). A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. In Renn, O, Webler, T, and P Wiedemann (Eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Boston.

• Weston, J. (2000) EIA, decision-making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 43 (2): 185-203.

• Wilkins, H. (2003) The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development,

114

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 (4): 401-414.

• World Bank (1999) Environmental Sourcebook Update No. 26, Public consultation in the EA process: a strategic approach. World Bank, Washington, DC. Available from http://go.worldbank.org/KP4VTWN2P0, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

• World Bank (2005) Integrating Environmental Considerations in Policy Formulation: Lessons from Policy-based SEA Experience, World Bank, Washington, DC.

• World Bank (2007) SEA Toolkit online website. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/seatoolkit or http://go.worldbank.org/XIVZ1WF880, last accessed 15 Nov 2007.

115

Part 3:

Key sources for some key EA issues

116

11 The importance of considering the specific cultural and social context when designing environmental assessment systems

By Chiara RosnatiCultural and social context analysis represents an essential phase of spatial planning and management, without which

no action can be effectively designed. Cultural heritage is a strategic resource, which may not only favour social and economic development, but also enhancing the quality of life of a country. From the standard definition of Cultural Heritage as ‘material evidence containing the values of a civilization’, it is easy to understand that the cultural historical heritage is inextricably linked with the territorial context to which it belongs. This is especially true for a country like Italy, where natural conditions and human activities have left traces going back thousands of years that are inseparably stratified throughout space. The problem of the protection, conservation, and valuation of these resources involves a wide range of disciplines and techniques from different areas. Diagnostics, monitoring of phenomena and conservation techniques are involved, and even more so are territorial, landscape and economic planning, and the diffusion of knowledge (Boriani, 2004).

11.1 INTRODUCTION – THE MEANING OF LANDSCAPE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A CITIZEN VALUES ASSESSMENT.

The European Landscape Convention (signed Florence, October 20th, 2000) emphasizes the close relationship between landscape and culture, and the contribution of the landscape to the formation of local cultures. Landscape is considered a basic component of the European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human well being and to the consolidation of a European identity. In a society in which communication tends to generalize and reduce many things to models, cultural heritage and landscape are able to provide for some degree of specificity and diversity.

Landscape is more than just a visual factor. It is also culture and communication, because it represents and shows not only the habitats that had nourished and influenced human life, but also, through human transformations, their culture and history. In the definition proposed by the European Landscape Convention, landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of action and interaction of natural and/or human factors. A somewhat more concise definition of landscape is ‘nature seen through culture’ (Serres, 2004).

The landscape components, considered as natural and cultural resources, are of great importance in the definition of a ’state of environment’, aimed at assessing the sustainability of the development promoted by the European Union. One of the problems of cultural landscape conservation is that landscapes often remind people of harder lives of the past. As a result, people at times find it difficult to recognize their true value. Much of the destruction of cultural heritage is due to the undervaluation of its role as a historical document, rather than as a consequence of exploitative actions.

An innovative approach to the analysis of the relationships between landscape and culture has been proposed by Farina and Belgrano (2006), who developed the concepts of ‘eco-field’ and ‘Cognitive Landscape’. In the spirit of the theory of biocomplexity and of the non-linear emergent characters of ecological systems, ‘eco-field’ is a new paradigm that integrates the vision of the landscape as a neutral matrix (like a habitat) in which organisms are living, and as a product of the human mind. This interaction can be studied by analysing the way people live and feel about their living environment.

Expert opinions of environmental values and impacts can differ from the way citizens feel about the state of their living environment, and how proposed activities may impact on the various components of that environment. At the different levels of EA, therefore, it is necessary to investigate the way people judge their living environment, and how they feel a development may affect environmental quality. This is the reasoning behind the development of a new approach, the Citizen Values Assessment (CVA), by the Netherlands’ Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (Stolp et al. 2002). This approach differs significantly from traditional public involvement, which is aimed at building credibility for a project and the assessment process through the discussion of alternatives with representatives of community groups and other stakeholders. CVA, instead, is neither influenced by public resistance nor by the interest of specific groups, because it is focused on the identification of the key values of the living environment, rather than on opinions about alternatives (Stolp, 2003). CVA provides valuable additional information that can be used in EIA for incorporating social considerations, thereby assisting in the integration of social aspects within EA (Stolp et al. 2002), and contributing to an increase in EA credibility from the perspective of the public (van Vliet, 2006). Table 11.1 provides a generic reading list for the lecturer.

117

Table 11.1: Generic reading list for cultural and social context analyses

Becker, H. A. and Vanclay, F. (2003) The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Bogaert, J.; Farina, A. and Ceulemans, R. (2005) Entropy increase of fragmented habitats: A sign of human impacts?, Ecological Indicators, 5: 207-212.Burdge, R. J. (2004) The Concepts, Process and Methods of Social Impact Assessment, Social Ecology Press, Middleton, Wisconsin.Farina, A. (2006) Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology, Towards a Science of the Landscape, Springer: Landscape Series, vol. 3.Farina, A. (2000) The Cultural Landscape as an Example of Integration of Ecology and Economics, Bioscience, 50(4): 313-320.Farina, A.; Bogaert, J. and Schipani, I. (2005) Cognitive landscape and information: new perspectives to investigate the ecological complexity, Biosystems, 79(1-3):235-40.Morrison-Saunders, A. and Arts, J. (2004) (eds) Assessing Impact, Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up, Earthscan, London.

11.2 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTThe importance of considering the social and cultural context and the social consequences of a planned intervention

stimulated the initial development of Social Impact Assessment (SIA), which officially began with the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“Social Impact Assessment is the process of analysing (predicting, evaluating, and reflecting) and managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human environment of planned interventions (policies, programmes, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions so as to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment” (Vanclay, 2002).

SIA guidelines and ‘International Principles for Social Impact Assessment’ (Vanclay, 2003 a, b) have subsequently been proposed. In these, activities of good SIA practice are defined, particularly highlighting the importance of SIA involvement in:

• environmental design of a planned intervention;• identification of interested and affected people and coordination of participation process; and• documentation and analysis of local historical settings of a planned intervention, so as to be able to interpret

responses to the intervention, and assess cumulative impacts.SIA can thus contribute to the achievement of a complete picture of the local cultural context, and help develop an

understanding of local community values, in particular how they relate to the planned intervention. Its involvement in the scoping and prediction phases could further increase the credibility of the EA system. Table 11.2 summarizes the potential positive effects of public participation in the decision making process (adapted from van den Hove, 2003).

Table 11.2: Potential positive effects of participatory approaches

Approach

Potential effects

Substantive• more pertinent choices from the environmental point of view;• more pertinent choices from the economic point of view;• more pertinent choices from the technical point of view;• more socially acceptable choices;

Procedural

• improvement of the quality of the informational basis of decision processes and better use of information;

• better integration of the wider context that determines the range of choices for the decision;• opening up the domain of choices considered;• more dynamic processes;• better conflict management;• increased legitimacy of the decision process;• improvement of the effectiveness of the process in terms of cost and time;• improvement of the power of influence of less organised interests;• better information to stakeholders and/or the public;• improvement of strategic capacity of decision-makers;

118

Contextual • changes in the perception and conceptualisation of the social context;• modification in traditional power relations and conflicts;• reinforcement of democratic practices and citizens’ involvement in public domains;• increased confidence in institutional players.

119

11.3 THE SPECIFIC CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS THAT MAY INFLUENCE – THE DESIGN OF AN EFFECTIVE EA SYSTEM IN ITALY

In Italy, an important aspect of culture is its historical landscape, formed in equal measure by nature and by the long-standing presence of humans. This makes it particularly varied, articulated and interesting. For these reasons, it is unanimously recognized as a valuable asset, in addition to the value of single elements (natural and historical-cultural) that form it. Consequently, the landscape is also included in the environmental heritage that, since the 1980s, has been perceived as a limited resource and as such worthy of preservation. In the 1990s, thanks to the impact of the concept of ‘sustainable development’, goals relating to the conservation of the environment and landscape in Italy were introduced, which have gained priority in legislation and regional planning.

In Italy, there is a plethora of planning instruments available for the control of the territory, for example at the regional level: Regional Co-ordinated Territorial Plan – PTRC, Regional Land Plan – PTR, Regional Land Safeguard Plan – PTPR, Regional Landscape Plan – PPR, etc). This has generated a large number of guidelines. Unfortunately, these are frequently inconsistent with each other, and have led to a paralysis of transformations, resulting in unauthorized activities. Paradoxically, one of the effects of these inconsistencies has been a divergence between the goals of ecological protection politics and those aimed at the protection of the landscape. In effect, environmental politics aim to preserve the quality of the environment. Respecting this quality often entails the decentralization and delocalization of some activities, thereby invading less compromised landscape areas and expanding degradation. EIA is, paradoxically, a procedure that permits and accepts this land consumption. In the so-called ‘environmental compatibility judgment’, the landscape aspects are often marginalized and the consultation between the Italian EIA Commission and the Cultural Heritage Commission concerns only the verification of the abidance of landscape restrictions. The real potential of landscape and territory is not considered, because the EIA procedure follows the location choice and does not precede it. As a consequence, there is a need for new guidelines to overturn this destructive approach towards the landscape.

The experience developed by the research group surrounding Virginio Bettini (University of Venice) in several years of EA analysis has highlighted the shortcomings in the evaluation of the impacts on landscape. Associated case studies have been regularly presented at the annual IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment) conferences since 2002. One of the results is that EAs are often unable to recognize the importance of the discriminating function of the landscape component in choosing the best alternative. Another frequent shortcoming in the analysis of landscape impacts concerning mitigation and monitoring measures. Mitigation proposals, often limited to the visual component, appear to only have had a ‘cosmetic’ function. However, instead of defining monitoring strategies after the realization of a project, visual impacts should be considered during the early stages of design. Thus, mitigation measures should be integrated into the project planning process. Furthermore, the importance of monitoring should be highlighted.

Landscape impacts are immediately visible, beginning at the construction phase. However, this does not coincide with the time of realization for the adopted mitigation measures. Monitoring should therefore control the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, allowing for a temporal evolution of the landscape. Improving the assessment of the cultural context in EIA procedures would require:

• a close examination of the differences between visual impacts and landscape impacts; and• the experimentation of methods of public involvement in the assessment of the landscape changes caused by the

realization of the proposed project.6

• In the following section, a case study is presented, showing how the cultural and social context is often ignored in project development. Consequences in terms of people’s opposition are described.

11.4 CASE STUDY: THE PROJECT OF THE ALEMAGNA NATIONAL ROAD 51- VARIANT TO ‘CORTINA D’AMPEZZO’ TOWN

Linear infrastructures carry with them significant effects on social and cultural aspects in addition to ecological impacts. These are due to the complex interactions with the territory they cross. The complexity of the infrastructure design depends not only on the specific features of the sites affected, but also on the type of project that tends to concentrate social and environmental costs at a local level, whereas the proposed economic and social benefits are spread over a wider area.

The project would involve the construction of an 11 Km ring road (most of it in a tunnel) to relieve traffic congestion that, particularly during the high tourist season, suffocates the town of Cortina D’Ampezzo, the famous tourist resort in the Italian Alps, which is characterized by a unique natural and cultural landscape and a very strong fabric of social cohesion. For thousands of years, the collective property of forests and pasturelands had been the main source of sustenance for the people living in the mountains. The ‘Regole’, an ancient social contract, were born with the first inhabitants of the valley, most likely Celtic tribes. In the XIV century, the oral ‘regole’ were transcribed. Aims of the ‘Regole’ were to regulate the relationship between humans and nature, to define an observant, collective use of natural lands to guarantee the survival and well-being of the valley’s people. This tradition is still at the heart of the community. The ‘Regole’ represents, even now, a self-rule form of Cortina government. This association is composed of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Ampezzo valley. In 1990, the Natural Park of Dolomiti d’Ampezzo was established. Its management was assigned to

6 Landscape, in fact, represents the environmental component that values, more than any of the others, the role of the public in the EIA.120

the ‘Regole’ Community, which has shown great capacity in territorial administration. The national road 51 was built at the beginning of the 1800s. It is one of the most ancient routes connecting the Veneto Plain and the German speaking countries, as its name, ‘Alemagna’, suggests.

The following considerations summarize the results of a master dissertation carried out in the Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning in the IUAV University of Venice (Cagliani and Marsura, 2007). Here, whether the project could solve traffic congestion and related problems of pollution and noise was examined. Furthermore, it was established whether integration into a highly sensitive environment and landscape may be possible. This resulted in recommendations on how to consider the social and cultural context in conjunction with environmental aspects in order to develop an effective environmental assessment system.

According to a study carried out by Legambiente, Italy’s most important environmental association, the level of fine dust pollution is the same as that recorded in Milan: 50 µg /m3, and should be compared to the national threshold level of 40 µg/ m3. This problem has been known for years. Whilst several projects have been proposed for remedying the problem, no positive solution has yet been found. The latest proposal, rather than revealing a light at the end of the tunnel, has brought about some strong reactions of citizen and several environmental experts who judged the ring road to be a high impacting solution, over-dimensioned and inefficient regarding the real needs of Cortina, which is suffocated more by internal traffic and lack of parking in its urban centre than by traffic crossing the town. The coalition against the project is mainly made up of residents and environmental experts, while non residents that are in the town for a few days per year only, generally are in favour of the bypass. They consider it to be a solution both, to the traffic problem and to the chronic shortage of parking spaces. An interview with residents and non residents noted that 70% were against the project, and 90% of these were residents.

In the opponents’ opinion, the project will not solve the traffic problems of the town and will not contribute towards the reduction of pollution. Rather, it will attract even more visitors, particularly those traveling towards Austria. Therefore, the project might end up becoming a relief road for heavy trucks, parallel to the Brenner motorway. Furthermore, it could generate irreversible impacts on the landscape, compromising the very features that have contributed to the reputation of Cortina as the ‘Pearl of the Dolomites’. This goes against the 1991 International Convention on the Protection of the Alps (the Alpine Convention), in which the Alpine Countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Slovenia, Switzerland and the European Union) committed themselves to the protection of the Alpine region. These countries signed an agreement aimed at avoiding the increase of road transport, and at promoting actions to implement alternative means of transport, in particular railways. However, the Alpine convention is not the only document that has been overlooked in the development of the project. National laws (e.g.: the Dolomiti d’Ampezzo Natural Park plan and the General Transportation Plan) as well as European directives (e.g.: SEA directive 2001/42/CE) have also been ignored. Furthermore, the opponents suggest that the construction of the ring road would cause, in the immediate future, a slump in the housing market, which is currently comparable with that in Venice or Paris.

The economic and environmental costs are striking: 441 million Euros, mainly from European funding, for a project that involves 1650 m3 of mountain removal and 160 thousand heavy truck movements, which means 1400-1600 lorries per day for 5-6 years. The environmental and landscape impacts of the project consist mainly of ecological fragmentation, destruction of habitats and biotopes of great value and sensitivity and modification of visual perception. The analysis of hydrological, geological and geomorphological features shows that the project involves areas subjected to hydrological restrictions which are characterized by unstable lands affected by landslide hazards. The consequences on cultural heritage are also significant. One of the side effects of the project will be the transformation of a historical route into a service road for the work site during the construction phase.

The project does not involve directly the land owned by the ‘Regole’. For this reason, the members of the ‘regole’, named ‘Regolieri’, did not officially express their view on the project. However, in their role of inhabitants, most of them have taken part in the opposition movement. The associated citizen committee asked advice from environmental experts and organized a round table in Cortina titled: ‘Environmental and landscape values and road system’, with the patronage of the Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning of Venice University. Photo-simulations of the ring road were developed to analyse interactions of the project with the territorial context in terms of visual and ecological impacts. The experts highlighted environmental risks of the project. Furthermore, they did not verify potential benefits in terms of pollution reduction.

The decision makers and the project proponent (ANAS: National Agency for Road Management) did not organize any public consultation events, nor did they explain whether other alternatives had been analysed and compared with the proposed solution. In this context, the University of Venice suggested to concentrate efforts into rethinking the valley’s transportation system and into the definition of sustainable alpine transportation politics. In particular, if it was suggested that an SEA should be carried out instead of a project EIA which is too limited in terms of the temporal and spatial scales. On a local level, the construction of a reduced bypass in a tunnel and the reorganization of an existing arterial road, which could divert long haul traffic away from the town, would be less impacting, representing an efficient alternative strategy to improve traffic flows. Considering European experiences, the following alternatives would also be available:

121

• to promote public transportation through the implementation of a more efficient service and the application of special fares;

• to improve the integration of public transport (trains and buses) and to introduce a universal travel ticket;• to define economic tools to regulate the transport system (road pricing, parking prices, etc.); and• to promote car-free tourism (tourist tickets, extension of pedestrian areas, etc.).

Another strategy that could improve the quality of public transport is the re-establishment of the old Dolomites Railway, built during the First World War. This was one of the most famous and attractive railways of the alpine arch, and for a forty-year period it represented the principal connecting route of the valley, playing a key role in tourism growth. For political and economic reasons, in 1964, the railway was abandoned, without considering its cultural and tourist importance. The blue and white train ended its run because of the increasing importance of private transport.

The project proposed by ANAS was approved by the Regional EIA Commission in 2006, even though this project category should still be made subject to national EIA requirements. At the moment, the project is at a standstill, particularly due to the strong oppositions of citizens, environmental experts and many Italian and international celebrities.

11.5 CONCLUSIONSThe design of a good EA system requires the careful analysis of the social context, for example, through a SIA and

possibly through Citizen Values Assessment (CVA). Although SIA is said to be a fully recognized component of EIA (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995), the analysis of social context, fundamental in SIA, is rarely included in EA. The failure to adequately consider the social and cultural context affected by policies, plans, programmes and projects and the limits of traditional public involvement procedures reduces the effectiveness of EA. Furthermore, consideration of citizen judgments is not routinely undertaken in EA. Currently, in Italy, as in many other countries, EA tends to remain technocratic in orientation, avoiding any detailed consideration of the way in which people are affected (Burningham, 1995; Dale and Lane, 1994; Ortolano and Sheperd, 1995). This contributes to widespread and growing community opposition, particularly to projects that involve localized costs and non-localized benefits. CVA could be included in every EA, replacing a mere formal announcement of a development with the effective participation of the public.

The cultural context influences the way in which communities think about projects that potentially affect their quality of life and wider environmental aspects. The awakening of a public environmental consciousness is stimulating strong reactions against certain types of projects. The associated NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome is also due to an ingrained lack of trust in project proponents, which is most evident in the long experience of EIA procedures. However, it is also becoming apparent in the first applications of SEA, which are following the same pattern, coming to the same dead end in which EIA is trapped.

It is essential to apply the theoretical principles contained in the guidelines to develop effective EA systems, and to reduce the chronic distrust of the people for projects which frequently presented as a ‘fait accompli’. In order for the public involvement to be truly effective, it should:

• start in an early stage of planning;• contribute to the choice of indicators to be used in the selection of alternatives and the weight to be attributed to

the indicators; and• actively involve all the interested stakeholders.

REFERENCES

• Boriani, M. (2004) Cultural heritage and the Politecnico di Milano, Politecnico n.8, Polipress Milano.• Burningham, K. (1995) Attitudes, account and impact assessment, The Sociological Review, 43(1):100-22.• Cagliani, M. and Marsura, K. (2007) La variante della S.S. 51 di Alemagna nell’abitato di Cortina d’Ampezzo:

analisi critica ed alternative di intervento (The Alemagna’s National Road 51 – variant to Cortina D’Ampezzo town: a critical analysis and alternatives proposal) Specialist Degree Thesis, Faculty of Urban and Regional Planning, IUAV University of Venice, Venice.

• Dale, A. and Lane, M. (1994) Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure for participatory and political social impact assessment, Society and Natural Resources, 7(3): 253-68.

• Farina, A. and Belgrano, A. (2004) The eco-field: A new paradigm for landscape ecology, Ecological Research, 19: 107-110.

• Farina, A. and Belgrano, A. (2006) The Eco-field Hypothesis: Toward a Cognitive Landscape’, Landscape Ecology, 21(1): 5-17.

• Ortolano L. and Shepherd, A. (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment, in Vanclay, F. and Bronstein, D. (eds) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Wiley, Chichester.

• Serres, M. (2004) Nature seen through culture, The Centre Naturopa of the Council of Europe. Naturopa, 102: 6. • Stolp, A.; Groen, W.; Van Vliet, J. and Vanclay F. (2002) Citizen values assessment: incorporating citizens’ value

122

judgements in environmental impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(1): 11-23.• Stolp, A. (2003) Citizen Values Assessment, in Becker, H. A. and Vanclay, F. (eds) The International Handbook of

Social Impact Assessment: conceptual and methodological advances, Edward Elgar, London.• Vanclay, F. (2002) Social Impact Assessment, in Tolba, M. (ed) Responding to Global Environmental Change,

vol.4 of Encyclopaedia of Global Environmental Change, series ed.: Ted Munn, Wiley, Chichester.• Vanclay, F. (2003a) SIA principles - International Principles for Social Impact Assessment, Impact Assessment and

Project Appraisal, 21(1): 5-11. • Vanclay, F. (2003b) Principles and guidelines for social impact assessment in the USA, Impact Assessment and

Project Appraisal, 21(3): 231-250.• Van den Hove, S. (2003) Participatory approaches for environmental governance: Theoretical justifications and

practical effects, OECD/NEA, (5): 18-25.• Van Vliet, J. (1996) The added value of citizen values profiling in EIA, Directorate General of public works and

water management, Civil Engineering Division, Utrecht.

123

12 Environmental assessment effectiveness – what does it mean?

By Francois Retief

From a recent high level discussion between a transport minister and his environmental advisor - somewhere in a country far far away …Minister: Our deadlines are getting tight on the national road network development programme. They tell me that

the EIAs have not been completed and are delaying processes? Advisor: Yes minister, however, EIA is a legal requirement to ensure that we incorporate environmental

considerations in our developmental decisions.Minister: People are stuck in traffic every day and it is costing the economy millions – how will this EIA

requirement assist in dealing with this?Advisor: Well, EIA is able to highlight the best environmental options and alternatives for the new road network.Minister: Will anybody use the information?Advisor: Well, yes they should – they are required toMinister: How do we know that they use it – do we have proof?Advisor: Well, no - actually minister, indications are that EIA is not being considered in decision making as it

should be.Minister: Are you saying we are spending all this time and effort – delaying projects - and then ignore the results?Advisor: I suppose to answer this, we will have to conduct a study on the effectiveness of EIA to clarify exactly

how effective it has been in influencing decisions.Minister: You do that and make sure that the results are empirically sound. I will not be able to argue the case for

EA much longer if I do not have proof of the value it is adding - in some form or another!

12.1 INTRODUCTIONInternationally, environmental assessment (EA) is currently experiencing increased pressure from decision makers and

politicians to argue and prove its added value. The mere acceptance of traditional assumptions and perceptions that EA is a vitally important tool to ensure that environmental considerations are incorporated into decision making, does not seem to suffice any longer. After years of application, no clear picture has yet arisen and politicians, as well as decision makers now ask for empirical evidence and proof on how effective EA has been in achieving its goals. Associated debate have started to raise fundamental questions such as:

• is EA a good idea – why? • how do we know it adds value? • can we prove that EA is not a waste of time? and • is EA as a decision support tool succeeding?

These are all very pertinent and extremely relevant lines of enquiry which go to the heart of EA debates. Sometimes, engaging with these questions can be uncomfortable especially for those already convinced of the need to incorporate environmental considerations into decision making. To some extent, dealing with effectiveness can be considered the most pertinent and fundamental line of enquiry, linked and underlying all other EA debates.

Since the early days of EA, performance evaluation has been regarded as one of the most important components of any well functioning EA system , yet the area has also been one of the most difficult to conceptualize and least explored empirically. Dalal-Clayton and Sadler state that to take EA and especially strategic environmental assessment (SEA) forward, there is a need to,

“… undertake reviews of SEA effectiveness and performance, using a systematic framework and criteria to evaluate the lessons of practical experience (learning by doing). This should apply both to the micro level of SEA of an individual policy or plan proposal and to the macro level of the implementing SEA systems. In both cases, the focus should be on the contribution of SEA to decision-making and, as far as possible, on the results achieved. Ultimately, the outcomes of the SEA process define how well it works and whether it meets its fundamental purpose(s).”

For the purpose of this chapter, EA is defined to include all levels and types of assessment from strategic to project level. The difference between strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and project level environmental impact assessment (EIA) is, however, not covered here (see chapter 6). This chapter aims to provide a general overview of environmental assessment effectiveness. It does not claim to provide for an exhaustive discussion. Rather, it attempts to introduce the main debates and highlight key literature as the basis for further more in depth study. The chapter is organized as follows:

• the first section provides for an initial conceptualization of the effectiveness debate within the broader EA

124

debates;• secondly, terminology required to engage with the effectiveness theme is introduced;• in order to conceptualize the concept of effectiveness, a brief description is provided of different evaluation

frameworks, developed for different types and levels of assessment in the third section; • the fourth section highlights some of the mainstream effectiveness criteria that have been developed to date;• the fifth section discusses how effective EA appears to have been by exploring available empirical evidence; and• finally, factors contributing towards more effective EA practice are highlighted.

12.2 EXPLORING EFFECTIVENESS WITHIN BROADER EA DEBATESThe challenge in dealing with the effectiveness debate is that it is a cross cutting theme, which cannot be considered in

isolation from fundamental debates on the identity of EA and its application. A broad overview of the literature suggests that key EA debates revolve around the three main interrelated themes, as is illustrated in Figure 12.1.

Figure 12.1: International themes for debate in EA

Source: Retief, 2005

The first theme deals with the identity of EA and asks the fundamental question, ‘What is EA?’. Underlying debates concern the need for EA, what it aims to achieve and, ultimately, its definition. It is evident that perspectives on these aspects should provide the basic understanding when considering effectiveness. Because EA is still a relatively new field of research, theory on EA is still somewhat limited. Although a wealth of literature on EA developed over the past almost four decades, the content and related debates tend to be very practice orientated with at times very limited theoretical grounding. The evolution in EA thinking thus was not based on, or driven by theory, but rather by practice. In recent years, a trickle of progress in theory building has emerged between the fields of environmental assessment, planning and decision making , which suggests that some progress is being made. However, in many contexts, EA practice is blossoming without much reflection on past literature to trace the development and evolution of thoughts, which results in cases of redesigning the wheel, but also in ad hoc academic debate.

Since the early inception of EA, debates have focussed on, ‘How can EA be applied?’, which forms the second main theme of debate. It covers macro level, issues, such as system requirements as well as micro level issues concerning process requirements and methodologies. The sheer wealth of literature dealing with this theme illustrates how it has been dominating the EA debate.

125

Theme 3: Performance evaluation:

How well is EA being done?

Theme 2: Application of EA: How can EA be applied?

Theme 1: Identity of EA: What is EA?

Need

Purpose

Definition

Methodology Process

System

Effectiveness Quality

System

SEA follow-up

Following on, the third EA theme deals with performance evaluation. This theme has gained prominence in recent years and asks the questions, ‘How well is EA being done – and – what is EA achieving?’ with the understanding that by answering the latter, both themes 1 and 2 could also be clarified and further refined.

12.3 DEALING WITH TERMINOLOGYOne of the main challenges when exploring the growing body of literature on effectiveness is the often confusing use of

terminology. Awareness and understanding of terminology is not only important from an academic perspective striving towards consistency in argumentation, but also to allow for international comparison of results. However, when comparing terminology, there is potential for confusing the reader. For this reason the explanations provided below should not be viewed as the final word on the matter, but rather to highlight areas of concern and to provide a basis for further debate and consideration. A review of the literature suggests the following overlap in terminology:

• effectiveness vs success: Although the large majority of literature indeed uses the term ‘effectiveness’, some authors have preferred the term ‘success’. Specific recent examples are Sadler (2004) and Runhaar and Driessen (2007). From these examples, it is evident that effectiveness and success are used interchangeably, reflecting exactly the same meaning. This inconsistency is not an ideal situation and it is difficult to determine the reasons for why authors switch terminology. However, some authors have found it necessary to make a distinction and have specifically indicated that the term ‘effectiveness’ should be preferred to the term ‘success’ (. It is felt that the term ‘success’ generally denotes something unambiguous with little room to equivocate. Something is either successful or it is not. On the other hand, ‘effectiveness’ implies something that is adequate and useful, but not necessarily perfect, and so does not rely on hard and fast evaluation and measurement in recognition of the potential complexities and qualitative nature of effectiveness enquiries;

• effectiveness vs impact: The use of the term ‘impact’ when referring to the contribution EA has made to decision making, has a potential to entangle with reference to environmental impact. To avoid confusion, it is recommended that the term influence be used instead of impact;

• effectiveness vs efficiency: These two terms are also used interchangeably causing some confusion. There is, however, an important distinction to be made. Generally speaking, effectiveness asks the question ‘are we doing the right things?’, while efficiency asks, ‘are we doing things right?’. The emphasis clearly differs;

• effectiveness vs quality: Some authors (Lawrence, 1998; Thissen, 2000; Retief, 2007b) suggest that a clear distinction should be made between ‘quality’ at the level of ‘inputs’ to the EA (dealing with application of regulations, application of methods, information products resulting from the EA), and ‘effectiveness’ at the level of ‘outputs’ of implementation (considering the degree of influence of SEA on decision-making, and, ultimately, on environmental sustainability). There is a general assumption that good quality inputs would lead to effective outputs;

• effectiveness review vs performance evaluation: It is important to understand effectiveness review as a form of performance evaluation, and that performance evaluation could potentially incorporate a much broader understanding to include, for example, quality reviews of reports, processes and methodology. Sadler (2004) argues that effectiveness means whether the process works satisfactorily to meet the intended purpose. Performance, on the other hand, connotes the successful accomplishment or achievement of the task or activity. Effectiveness is thus a yardstick for the manner of performance; and

• effectiveness review vs EA follow-up: Since the mid to late 1990s, the concept of EA follow-up has emerged, initially focusing mainly on project level EIA but in recent times expanding to also deal with strategic level assessment (Partidario and Fischer, 2004). The definitions describing follow-up suggest it is difficult to make a clear distinction with a review of EA effectiveness. Essentially, follow-up is interested in what happens after a decision on a policy, plan, programme or project has been made, which is clearly also the domain for effectiveness review. The only slight difference might be that effectiveness review also considers the effect of EA during policy, plan and programme formulation and/or project design. The distinction, however, remains tedious and not well defined.

To deal with terminology, a need thus exists to conceptualize effectiveness. The conceptual frameworks proposed in the following section should go some way to standardize terminology and clarify the existing confusion.

12.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKSOne way of dealing with confusion in terminology is to develop holistic conceptual frameworks which deal with

terminology in a consistent manner. The lack of a generally agreed conceptual basis for EA performance evaluation has been one of the key factors limiting empirical and systematic EA research . The development of a conceptual approach and framework is essential as a first step to unpack the true nature of EA and to provide justified reference points for analysis and interpretation of results. Not much work has been done in developing frameworks for evaluation of EA effectiveness, however four contributions are highlighted here. They are presented here, starting from those dealing with a more strategic perspective down to those focusing on project level EIA. The purpose of this section is not to provide a detailed description

126

of each framework but merely to introduce examples to the reader to then further consult the primary references to gain a more in-depth understanding.

The first framework is proposed by Sadler (2004) and depicts the levels and dimensions of so-called ex-post evaluation of EA – see Figure 12.2. This framework could provide a holistic point of departure when designing effectiveness studies. In an effort to conceptualize ex-post EA evaluation, the framework depicts categories of activity subdivided in accordance with their primary purpose and main elements of approach as well as their relationship to different levels (meta, macro and micro). The understanding is that for rounded coverage, the effectiveness of EA needs to be considered at all three levels in relation to the institutional, methodological and practical dimensions. It is argued that EA effectiveness is a complex jigsaw puzzle which relies on all pieces to gain a holistic perspective.

Figure 12.2: The anatomy of success – scales and dimensions of ex-post evaluation

Source: Sadler, 2004

The second framework is proposed by Thissen who adapts experience in the field of policy analysis to strategic level assessment - see Figure 12.3. The framework is particularly useful as a means of structuring evaluation criteria. It was derived from evaluation criteria for policy analytic activities and reflects six categories of evaluation criteria, namely input criteria, content criteria, process criteria, results criteria, use criteria and effect criteria. Thissen argues that it is not feasible to aim for a single set of criteria to be applied unequivocally, but rather a subset to be adapted to individual cases. As could be expected for policy level evaluations, the framework seems more flexible than the EIA related framework presented by Lawrence, although it also presents a formal distinction between different components and, importantly, between input quality and output effectiveness. To conclude, Thissen suggests that agreement has been reached that a distinction is needed between evaluations at the institutional or systems level, and evaluations at the individual project or assessment level. Furthermore, EA evaluation criteria can and should be defined as attributes of the activity itself, of the direct results of the activity, of the way these results are being used, and of the eventual influence of the analysis on decision-making and problem resolution. Thus, the results, how they are being used, and their influence relate to determining overall effectiveness.

Figure 12.3: Framework for structuring evaluation criteria for policy analytic activities

127

Source: Thissen, 2000

The third framework was developed by Retief (2007) and specifically focuses on performance evaluation of SEAs for plan and programme level assessments. The approach is borrowed from policy and programme evaluation methodologies , which includes a triangulation test, structured around the so-called ‘effectiveness triangle’ . Essentially, it conceptualises the decision-making process by linking theory with practice and then with performance. It is an iterative approach, whereby the findings in terms of practice and performance should ultimately be related back to theory in a cyclical way. The review framework structures the complexities associated with SEA by breaking it down into components relating to the local SEA context, as well as SEA inputs and outputs. It supports two key understandings, namely that the particular context provides the basis or point of departure for the SEA review framework and criteria design; and that a distinction exists between ‘quality’ at the level of application of regulations, application of methods, information products resulting from the SEA, and ‘effectiveness’ at the level of implementation, referring to the degree of influence of SEA on decision-making.

Finally, Lawrence proposed a holistic framework for what he termed the ‘ideal EIA quality/effectiveness analysis’ – see Figure 12.4. It was developed by building on the plethora of different approaches, criteria and review focus areas that existed for EIA at the time . The framework initially requires that the macro context be defined, after which the micro level (or case study) review is conducted for quality of process, methods and documentation, as well as effectiveness through review of direct and indirect outcomes. A feature of the framework is that it is very structured, making clear differentiation between levels (macro and micro), as well as components relating to quality and effectiveness respectively.

Figure 12.4: The ideal EIA quality/effectiveness analysis

Source: Lawrence, 1997

The effectiveness criteria discussed in the following section should be developed within a specific context and also in relation to a specifically designed conceptual framework to ensure a structured and systematic approach which also clearly defines its scope.

12.5 EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIAWhen considering evaluating or gauging EA effectiveness, two main challenges need to be addressed. Firstly, the

identification and formulation of criteria, and secondly, finding ways and methods to quantify and measure conformance to the criteria. In the latter case proving / arguing causality stands out as a particular challenge, especially for more strategic level assessments , as highlighted by Sadler and Verheem (1996, p19):

“Many aspects of EA effectiveness are difficult to evaluate. … This is especially the case with SEA… because often the

128

Define scope and place in context

Assess institutional arrangements

Assess direct outputs

Assess process

Assess methods

Assess documents

Assess indirect outputs

Feedback

Macro level

Micro level

Macro and

micro level

EIA quality

analysis

EIA effective-

ness

chain of cause and effect is unclear or attenuated.”

Based on an interpretation of NEPAs original intention for environmental assessment, which was about influencing decision making (which is measurable only subjectively and qualitatively), and not explicitly to control specific kinds or sources of pollution, some have argued that quantification of effectiveness might not be possible . Moreover, empirical research has shown that not all criteria are equally valid for all contexts (Annandale, 2001; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006). Marsden provides a good basis for the design of context specific effectiveness criteria when he argues that a three tiered understanding of the interactions and links between objectives, principles and criteria is required. Thus, criteria should be used to determine to what extent principles are complied with and ultimately objectives achieved. Since EA debates have reached a point where there is some agreement within most national contexts on EA principles, this approach to develop criteria has great potential.

When considering the range of criteria to date, a distinction needs to be made between criteria designed to measure enabling conditions that would support effectiveness and criteria designed to actually measure if EA was effective. This is an important distinction because a wealth of criteria have been proposed to evaluate enabling conditions such as EA systems , EA reports as well as EA processes . In view of the conceptual frameworks presented in the previous section, such criteria would broadly speaking be classified rather as ‘input quality’ criteria than ‘output effectiveness’ criteria. It is important to also highlight at this point that research for a particular context has disproved the assumed positive correlation between input quality and output effectiveness (Retief, 2005c). The level of effectiveness is thus influenced by factors that extend well beyond the quality of the EA itself.

Notwithstanding the complexity and diversity shaping effectiveness criteria, it is save to state that there is general agreement on the ‘litmus test’ for EA effectiveness, which is whether better decisions were made if environmental objectives were realised. Another main purpose of EIA highlighted in the literature is to restore and maintain environmental quality. In this regard, there are obvious problems with making comparisons with environmental quality with and without EIA. This comparison would be very hypothetical and difficult to define. Linked to environmental quality is the objective of improving sustainability, which remains elusive and ill-defined at best (Jay et al, 2007). Notwithstanding these challenges, tentative steps have been taken towards refining this understanding and proposing criteria relating to general effectiveness . However, the viability of these criteria has not been tested widely and their application within different contexts still needs to be determined.

In terms of EIA, Sadler (2004) recently proposed an extensive effectiveness package consisting of a framework and a checklist to be used as an aide memoire, organised in five parts. Firstly, a preliminary audit of the adequacy of institutional arrangements; secondly, a step by step review of EIA implementation and operational performance; thirdly, a review of the technical, consultative and administrative components of the EIA process; fourthly, a review of the influence of EIA on decision making and finally, an overall review of EIA effectiveness and performance. The package provides a good point of departure for EIA effectiveness review, although the criteria will probably have to be tweaked to correspond with the requirements of different contexts.

Research dealing with the effectiveness of SEA has also emerged, mostly focussing on particular contexts or sectors. Therivel and Minas reviewed the effective-ness of SEA for development plans in the UK and proposed the following criteria:

• comparing the strategic action before and after the SEA is carried out, noting any sustainability or environment related changes;

• testing whether the post-SEA plan achieves a range of agreed environmental objectives or targets, stemming from the application of SEA;

• asking SEA practitioners whether the SEA was effective, in other words a subjective view from a specific role player;

• measuring the quality of the environment before and after the SEA is carried out, noting any sustainability- or environmental-related changes which can be attributed to the influence of the assessment;

• measuring changes to the plan or strategic action resulting from SEA; and• comparing cases in systems where some plans require SEA and others don’t.

Considering developing countries, Retief (2007a) also reviewed the effectiveness of SEA within the South African context. The effectiveness criteria were formulated in relation to context specific SEA principles and objectives, as is shown in Table 12.1. Ultimately, nine key performance indicators (KPIs) were developed in relation to four key performance areas (KPAs). Conformance to the indicators was evaluated through triangulation of data obtained from documentation reviews and interviews with key role players. Due to the qualitative nature of the evaluation only three scales of measurement were used, namely, conformance, partial conformance and non-conformance.

129

Table 12.1: Summary of SEA effectiveness criteria for the South African context

SEA PRINCIPLES“Basic building blocks for

the context specific perspectives on SEA in

South Africa”

SEA OBJECTIVES“Indication of what needs to be achieved”

KPAsKey

performance areas

“Topic related to principles”

KPIsKey performance indicators

“Questions that provide an indication if SEA objectives were achieved”

SEA influences the contents of plans and programmes.

• To influence the contents of plans and programmes.

1. Policies, plans and programmes

KPI 1.1: Were any plans or programmes amended based on the proposals of the SEA?KPI 1.2: Did the SEA facilitate the incorporation of sustainability objectives into relevant plans or programmes?

SEA facilitates the achievement of sustainability objectives.

• To achieve the SEA project objectives.

• To achieve the SEA sustainability environmental objectives.

2. SEA objectives

KPI 2.1: Were the SEA project objectives achieved (as described in the TOR)?KPI 2.2: Were the sustainability / environmental objectives achieved (as might be described in relation to the vision)?

SEA influences decision making.

• To influence decision making.

3. Decision making

KPI 3.1: Were decisions changed or amended based on the outcomes and proposals of the SEA?KPI 3.2: Was the SEA implemented as a decision-support guideline for future development proposals?KPI 3.3: Did the SEA inform/guide subsequent project level decision making (such as EIA or water licensing)?

SEA improves environmental quality.

• To improve environmental quality.

4. Environmental quality / sustainability

KPI 4.1: Were changes to the environment observed since the completion of the SEA process, which could be attributed to the influence of the SEA?KPI 4.2: Did the SEA accurately identify the key significant strategic environmental issues?

The emergence of SEA follow-up has also contributed significantly to the literature and debates on EA effectiveness. The so-called ‘multi track’ approach, which explores a range of different EA ‘effects’ proposed by Partidario and Arts (2005), provides a particularly useful point of departure for designing effectiveness criteria by highlighting five possible ‘pathways’ or ‘tracks’ – see Figure 12.6.

Figure 12.6: Multi-track approach in SEA follow-up

Source: Partidario and Arts, 2005

130

These tracks include the following and could with minor amendments be equally valid for EIA:• Track 1: Monitoring and auditing;• Track 2: Evaluating achievement of stated objectives;• Track 3: Evaluation of the performance of the strategic initiative;• Track 4: Checking conformance of subsequent decision making with the strategic initiative and SEA; and• Track 5: Monitoring and evaluation of the actual impacts of a strategic initiative on the environment and

sustainability.Another consideration in terms of effectiveness criteria highlighted by a number of authors is the need to distinguish

between what is considered ‘direct’ effectiveness criteria and ‘indirect’ effectiveness criteria (Thissen, 2000; Jay et al, 2007; Retief, 2007a). This understanding relates to the potential so-called ‘splash effect’ described by Partidario and Arts (2005). The direct criteria would relate to the litmus test for EA and other specific EA objectives, while indirect effectiveness would consider possible unintended effects of effects not generally considered within the main purpose or objective of the EA.

Clarifying the main objectives for EA that would define effectiveness requires possibly a more in-depth debate on theory about the nature and operation of diverse causal processes. More effort is furthermore required to deal with the concepts, methods and substantial analytical challenges presented by effectiveness review . Finally, calls have also been made for more ‘action’ and ‘reflexive’ research in environmental assessment generally to provide explanations for the intrinsic and complex interactions between content, process and outcome .

12.6 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO DATE

During the early years of EA, a lot of confidence was expressed about the potential of EIA to ensure environmental protection and better decision making. It must be stressed that EIA has always been described as a decision aiding, rather than decision making tool. Nevertheless bold statements were made, for example:

“At the US federal level, impact assessment works. We know it works to influence project selection and design and to mitigate environmental impacts” (Wandesforde-Smith and Kerbavaz, 1988, p162)

The spread and adoption of EA in more than 100 countries over the past three decades has been impressive. This wide adoption has been highlighted as indicative that the benefits of EA must be perceived to outweigh its costs (Wood, 2003, Jones et al, 2005). However, empirical research suggests that the high and often ambitious expectations of what EA can realistically achieve have not been fully realized in practice. The report on the success of EIA and SEA as policy instruments produced by Sadler (2004) suggests mixed success (see Table 12.2). The wide adoption of EA, innovation and improvement in the application and the inclusion of new areas and concepts have been graded as fully and well achieved. However, when considering the added value to decision making and means of achieving environmental protection EA seems to fall short. This analysis supports the notion that the quality of inputs to EA is generally improving but achieving its main purpose remains elusive.

Table 12.2: Report card on success of EIA and SEA as policy instruments

Aspect Evaluated Score / ratingEIA SEA

Test 1: Wide adoption and use B+ CTest 2: Record of process innovation or improvement B BTest 3: Inclusion of new areas and aspects A- B-Test 4: Added value to decision making and condition setting C+ C-Test 5: Effective means of achieving environmental protection C- C-?

Evaluation scaleA = The feature is represented fully and completelyB = The feature is represented well but there are minor qualificationsC = The feature is represented but there are a number of reservationsD = The feature is not represented wellE = The feature is represented only minimally or incipiently

Source: Sadler, 2004

Concentrating on EIA, a study by Wood (2003) compared the influence of EIA reports on decisions for seven countries (see Table 12.3). It was found that the regulatory provisions of all seven countries require the EIA report to be considered in decision making. However, in practice six countries could only demonstrate partial influence while for one (South Africa), the EIA report demonstrated very little to no effect on decision making. It was concluded that although all countries had

131

differing mechanisms for ensuring EIA gets considered, decision makers circumvent these mechanisms in favor of political or social agendas. This conclusion seems to be confirming the results of other studies which found that the influence of EIA both on consent decisions and to project design, is generally moderate rather than substantial (Wood and Jones, 1997; Cashmore et al, 2004; Christensen et al, 2005; Jay et al, 2007)

Table 12.3: Consideration of EIA in project level decision making

Criterion question: Must the findings of the EIA report and the review be a central determinant of the decision on the action?Jurisdiction Criterion met? Comment

United States Partially Consideration in, and explanation of, decision and disclosure of environmental effects mandatory. In practice, EIS often influences decisions

United Kingdom Partially Environmental information is a material consideration but not necessarily a central determinant. Practice varies.

The Netherlands Partially Explanation of way environmental impacts considered in decision making mandatory. In practice, EIA generally influences decisions.

Canada Partially Findings of self directed assessment influence ministers decision: reason must be given by relevant authority when cabinet disagrees with recommendations of public review report

Australia Partially Environment Australia’s assessment report based on EIA report must be taken into account in determining Environmental Minister’s decision on approval.

New Zealand Partially Act makes EIA central to decision but, in practice, EIA is sometimes not given appropriate weight. Practice improving.

South Africa No Environmental authorization must be based on scoping report or environmental impact report but decision sometimes narrowly based on nature conservation matters, not on full range of EIR issues. Refusals rare.

Source: Wood, 2003

Jones et al (2005) conducted a comparative study, exploring the influence of SEA on the contents of land use plans or the treatment of environmental issues during decision making for 14 countries. The results are presented in Table 12.4 and show that only three countries could demonstrate effectiveness, namely Denmark, Germany and Hong Kong. A further three, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States indicated partial influence with Canada indicating no influence. For the remaining six countries the actual effectiveness of SEA could not be determined mainly because the outcomes of the SEA procedures have not yet been evaluated or the SEA systems are not yet sufficiently advanced to expect major influence.

Table 12.4: Consideration of SEA in land use planning decision making

Criterion question: Do SEAs have any discernible influence on the contents of land use plans or the treatment of environmental issues during decision making?

Jurisdiction Criterion met? CommentCanada No Little evidence that SEA has discernable influence on the contents of reports or treatment of

environmental issues during decision making. Some indications that early integration of SEA with plan development yields best results

Denmark Yes SEAs have discernable influence on plan preparation and decision makingGermany Yes Post-SEA Directive practice is expected to achieve, at least, standard of pre-Directive

practiceHong Kong Yes SEAs have often had significant influence on planning decisions, development of strategies

and policiesHungary ? Not yet possible to judge outcome. SEA might facilitate more systematic incorporation of

various stakeholder concerns into land use planningIreland ? Very few formal SEAs undertaken to date, and little evidence of influence on decision

makingThe Netherlands ? Will become clear only after years of implementation although pilot studies show positive

resultsNew Zealand Partially Difficult to discern extent of influence given wide number of parties and other factors

involved in decision making processPortugal ? No system yet in placeSouth Africa ? Preliminary research suggests that influence of SEA on decision making varies considerablySweden ? Influence of previous SEA system uncertain. Environmental benefits probably greater for

DDPs than MCPs. New legislation requires description of modifications to plan to reflect SEA findings

United Kingdom Partially To early to evaluate. Environmental sustainability appraisal (EA/SA) led to minor modifications to some land use plans

United States Partially NEPA primarily procedural. Federal agencies may approve plans despite their resulting in significant environmental impacts

World Bank No Has happened in the past but not routinely. Influence on decision making at core of present and future efforts to make SEA more effective

132

Source: Jones et al, 2005

The mixed success achieved by EA in relation to its fundamental or direct purpose of influencing decisions prompted researchers to also explore other more ‘indirect’ potential benefits or contributions of EA outside of its traditional role as a decision support tool. Many of these so-called indirect effects are more difficult to quantify, more subtle and only emerges over the medium to longer term. A number of studies have highlighted the following examples of indirect effects in relation to EA (Christensen et al., 2005; Jones et al, 2005; Jay et al, 2007, Retief, 2007a):

• environmental learning amongst communities and other stakeholders;• greater environmental awareness amongst decision makers;• influencing changes in institutional environmental values, rules and priorities;• identifying and highlighting gaps in policy and legislation; and• source of information generation and sharing.

The challenge thus is to expand the traditional remit for EA outside it traditional role as an information tool to also consider its wider effect. EA effectiveness should possibly not be straight-jacketed within the so-called litmus test, but embrace the full spectrum of potential effects it is able to deliver. In future more emphasis should possibly be placed on identifying and explaining these indirect effects of EA. Here might lay the significant long term benefits towards ensuring a more sustainable society.

12.7 HOW TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE EAThere is a wealth of literature on how to improve EA practice for both EIA and SEA in the form of best practice

guidelines, local context specific guidance, best practice principles, etc. Moreover, training courses and capacity building programmes are widely available and well developed. Indeed, the often stated recommendations for improvement in EA practice are typically expressed as a need for improved legal provisions, more detailed guidance, in depth training and expanded capacity building. Sadler (2004) summarizes the requirements into two broad components. Firstly, the requirement for appropriate institutional arrangements, ensuring sound administration, management and review of the EA process. Secondly, the required competence for conducting the assessment, also referred to as the ‘three Rs’ of good practice, namely, rigorous analysis, responsive consultation and responsible administration.

A number of studies have reviewed the literature with a view to comparing criteria put forward for effective practice and to distil commonalities and duplication. In this regard, two recent studies focusing specifically on SEA are considered important, namely a study by Runhaar and Dreissen (2007) comparing 15 publications (see Table 13.5) and by Fischer and Gazzola (2006) comparing 45 publications. The latter study concluded that two broad categories could be distinguished for criteria which would support effectiveness namely:

• Context criteria for effective SEA application:o the existence of an established institutional framework for the effective consideration of the environment

(including, in particular, biophysical aspects) in PPP making, including an awareness for environmental problems as well as the existence of a sustainable development framework that provides for SEA objectives;

o the existence of effective co-operation and public participation in PPP making; ando the existence of an effective project EIA system with which SEA can be tiered.

• Methodological criteria for effective SEA application:o a high degree of accountability and quality control in SEA;o a stakeholder driven, focused, iterative, flexible and adaptable SEA process that is open to the input of the

general public; ando cost and time efficient generation of sufficient, reliable and usable information on environmental

baseline, impact and alternative assessments in SEA making.

133

Table 12.5: Factors contributing to SEA influence on decision making

Factor Authors How often mentioned?Flexible SEA that fits into the decision making context

Arbter, 2003; Elwell, 2002; Fischer, 2004; Hildén et al, 2004; Knigge and Leipprand, 2003; Knigge, 2005; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003; NGOs, 2000; Sheate et al, 2003; Thérivel and Minas, 2002; Zerbe and Dedeurwaerdere, 2003

11 out of 15

Stakeholder participation Arbter, 2003; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Elwell, 2002; Fischer, 2004; Hildén et al, 2004; Knigge and Leipprand, 2003; Knigge, 2005; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003; NGOs, 2000; Sheate et al, 2003; Zerbe and Dedeurwaerdere, 2003

11 out of 15

Transparency of SEA process

Arbter, 2003; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Elwell, 2002; Fischer, 2004; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003; Sheate et al, 2003

6 out of 15

Binding character of SEA Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2005; Fischer, 2004; Hildén et al, 2004; Knigge and Leipprand, 2003; Knigge, 2005; Sheate et al, 2003

6 out of 15

Quality of the assessment Elwell, 2002; Fischer, 1999, 2004; Hildén et al, 2004; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003 5 out of 15Values in SEA should reflect values in policy context

Arbter, 2003; Elwell, 2002; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003, Partidário, 2000 4 out of 15

‘Openness’ of decision makers to environmental / sustainability

Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2004; Elwell, 2002; Fischer, 1999; 2004 4 out of 15

Tiering of SEA with other assessments

Hildén et al, 2004; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003; Sheate et al, 2003 3 out of 15

Adequate resources Fischer, 2004; Sheate et al, 2003; Thérivel and Minas, 2002 3 out of 15Effective communication Aschemann, 2004; Fischer, 2004; MEGJ/MIRI, 2003 3 out of 15

Source: Runhaar and Driessen, 2007

From a specific developing country perspective, Retief (2007c) explored possible explanations for the ineffectiveness of SEA practice in South Africa. It concludes that a combination of factors, such as an enabling legal framework combined with a strong consultancy sector, can introduce extensive SEA practice on a wide front in a voluntary SEA system. In contrast to some international views, this expansion in practice can occur even amidst a lack of clarity on the identity of SEA , lack of explicit SEA legislation and even without a strong commitment from politicians and a lack of capacity within the public sector . However, expansion in practice does not necessarily imply effectiveness. A distinction between ‘conducting’ and ‘implementing’ SEA is needed. The research results suggest that the need for clarity on the identity of SEA, explicit legal provisions and political commitment has more to do with implementation and effectiveness than with initiating and conducting SEA. This is especially true for developing countries with voluntary SEA systems where, with external funding and expertise, these countries can ‘conduct’ extensive SEA, but they can not implement its recommendations. It is tempting to conclude that the expansion of SEA practice internationally means that SEA must be working. This assumption first needs to be tested against effectiveness criteria within different contexts.

The assumption that by merely focusing on macro and micro level input, components such as the EA system performance and report or process quality as an indication of effectiveness, needs to be reconsidered. These are all important enabling conditions but they do not guarantee effective results. A better understanding is required of the link between ‘input quality’ and ‘output effectiveness’ performance of EA. The lack of such research is hampering efforts to move the effectiveness debate forward. Only once we have dealt with the question of causality will we be able to explore the potential array of causal factors influencing effectiveness. For the time being, we have to rely on best practice principles and the growing literature providing context specific lessons learned.

12.8 CONCLUSIONSEffectiveness of EA cannot be considered in isolation from identity and application of EA. The identity of EA will

define its purpose and objectives against which to gauge effectiveness while the application of EA needs to be understood towards optimizing effectiveness potential or providing reasons for ineffectiveness. The different and often confusing terminology used in the EA literature when dealing with effectiveness has hampered progress. When engaging with the effectiveness debate it is important to be aware of the relevant terminology and to conceptualise enquiries accordingly.

A number of conceptual frameworks have been developed to structure performance evaluation enquiries. The main areas of agreement are that firstly effectiveness review deals with different levels (meta, macro and micro) and secondly that a clear distinction needs to be made between ‘input quality’ and ‘output effectiveness’. The litmus test for effectiveness is whether the EA has had influence on decision making. This broad aim has been refined into more detailed sets of criteria. It is, however, acknowledged that criteria usually need to be adapted for different contexts and that there is no one size fits

134

all.

Empirical evidence suggests that the litmus test for EA has not been fully realized in practice and that EA struggles to penetrate and influence decision making processes and outcomes. However, the mixed success achieved by EA has prompted researchers to also explore other more ‘indirect’ effects such as information generation and sharing, capacity building and training as well as influencing changes in institutional values and priorities. A wealth of literature exist dealing with EA best practice aimed at improving effectiveness. However, very little research has been conducted to deal with causality between the EA ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’. This is also the question raised by the transport minister to his advisor at the start of this chapter. We need to understand the effects of EA in relation to the inputs. Without this understanding, the EA fraternity will find it increasingly difficult to justify the need for EA to skeptical politicians and decision makers.

To conclude, it might be appropriate to reflect on the words of Caldwell (1989) during the early years of EIA, which still rings true today and for the future. He highlights that for EIA to be effective it needs to be understood as a value driven concept which also relies on a structured legal, procedural and methodological framework.

“EIA will be most effective where environmental values (1) are implicitly and consensual in the national culture and (2) are explicit in public law and policy” (Caldwell, 1989, p12)

EA is not only a matter of hard science or only about soft issues dealing with decision making and processes. A dichotomy exists which is best articulated by referring to EA as both an art and a science (Kennedy, 1988). Recognizing and dealing with this duality is the main challenge towards gaining a better understanding and addressing EA effectiveness.

REFERENCES

• Annandale, D. (2001) Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(3): 187-193.

• Arbter, K. (2003) SEA and SIA — two participative assessment tools for sustainability, Proceedings of the EASY ECO 2 Conference, 15–17 May, Vienna, pp. 175–181.

• Aschemann, R. (2004) Lessons learned from Austrian SEAs, European Environment, 14(3): 165–174.

• Baker, D. and McLelland, J. (2003) Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia's environmental assessment pro first nations’ participation in mining development, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23: 581-603

• Bartlet, R. and Kurian, P. (1999) The theory of environmental impact assessment: implicit models of policy making, Policy and Politics, 24(4): 415-433.

• Brew, D. and Lee, N. (1996) Reviewing the quality of donor agency environmental assessment guidelines, Project Appraisal, 11(2): 79-85.

• Bonde, J. and Cherp, A. (2000) Quality review package for strategic environmental assessment of land-use plans, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(2): 99-110.

• Buckley, R. (2000) Strategic Environmental Assessment of policies and plans: legislation and implementation, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3): 209-215.

• Caldwell, L. (1989) Understanding impact analysis: technical process, administrative reform, policy principle, in: Bartlett, R. (eds) Policy through impact assessment, Greenwood Press, New York.

• Caratti, P.; Dalkmann, H. and Jiliberto, R. (2004) Analysing Strategic Environmental Assessment: towards better decision making, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.

• Cashmore, M.; Gwilliam, R.; Morgan, R.; Cobb, D. and Bond, A. (2004) The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4): 295-310.

• Christensen, P., Kornov, L. and Nielsen, E. (2005) EIA as regulation: does it work?, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48: 393-412.

• Connelly, S. and Richardson, T. (2005) Value-driven SEA: time for an environmental justice perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4): 391-409.

• Curran, J., Wood, C. and Hilton, M. (1998) Environmental Appraisal of Development Plans: current practice and future directions, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25: 411-433.

• Dalal-Clayton, B. and Sadler, B. (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience, Earthscan, London.

• DEAT (2000) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in South Africa: Guideline Document, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

135

• Elling, B. (1997) Strategic Environmental Assessment of National Policies: the Danish experience of a full concept assessment, Project Appraisal, 12: 161-172.

• Elwell, C. (2002) Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Earth Summit a Canadian perspective, Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. Ontario.

• Fischer, T. B. (1999) Sustainability aspects in transport infrastructure related PPPs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(2): 189–219.

• Fischer, T. B. (2002) Strategic environmental assessment performance criteria - the same requirements for every assessment?, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4(1): 83-99.

• Fischer, T. B. (2004) Having an impact? The influence of non-technical factors on the effectiveness of SEA in transport decision making. Expert paper prepared for the Beacon Network Building Environmental Assessment Consensus on the trans-European transport network, available at www.transportsea.net/docs/ SEAInfluencePaper3.pdf, last accessed on August 15th, 2005.

• Fischer, T. B. and Seaton, K. (2002) Strategic environmental assessment: effective planning instrument or lost concept?, Planning Practice and Research, 17(1): 31-44.

• Fischer, T. B. and Gazzola, P. (2006) SEA good practice elements and performance criteria - equally valid in all countries? - The case of Italy, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4): 396-409.

• Hildén, M.; Furman E. and Kaljonen, M. (2004) Views on planning and expectations of SEA: the case of transport planning, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(5): 519–536.

• IAIA (2002) Strategic Environmental Assessment Performance Criteria, IAIA Special Publication Series No.1, International Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo.

• Jay, S.; Jones, C.; Slinn, P. and Wood, C. (2007) Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27: 287-300.

• Jones, C.; Baker, M.; Carter, J.; Jay, S.; Short, M. and Wood, C. (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment and land use planning: an international evaluation, Earthscan, London.

• Kennedy, W. (1988) Environmental impact assessment in North America, Western Europe: what has worked where, how and why?, International Environmental Reporter, 11: 257-262.

• Knigge, M. and Leipprand, A. (2003) Public participation in Sustainability Impact Assessments, Paper for the workshop Sustainability Impact Assessment of Trade Agreements and New Approaches to Governance, 27–28 March 2003, Centre for Philosophy of Law, University of Louvain, Louvain.

• Knigge, M. (2005) Public participation in the EU’s sustainability impact assessments of trade agreements. Paper presented at the Easy-eco Conference, 15–17 June 2005, Manchester.

• Kornov, L. and Thissen, W. (2000) Rationality in decision- and policy-making: implications for strategic environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3): 191-200.

• Lawrence, D. (1997) Quality and effectiveness of environmental impact assessments: lessons and insights from ten assessments in Canada, Project Appraisal, 12(4): 219-232.

• Lawrence, D. (2000) Planning theories and environmental impact assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20: 607-625.

• Lee, N. and Colley, R. (1992) Review of the Quality of Environmental Statements, Occasional Paper Number 24, 2nd edition, EIA Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester.

• Leknes, E. (2001) The roles of EIA in the decision-making process, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21: 309-334.

• Leu, W.; Williams, W. and Bark, A. (1996) Development of an environmental assessment evaluation model and its application: Taiwan case study, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(2): 115-133.

• Marsden, S. (1998) Importance of context in measuring the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 16(4): 255-266.

• MEGJ/MIRI, (2003) Effective SEA System and Case Studies, Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan, Mitsubishi Research Institute 2003, Tokyo.

• NGOs (2000). Joint NGO statement on sustainability impact assessment of EU trade policy, available at http://www.balancedtrade.panda.org/projectfiles/eur.html, last accessed June 1st, 2005.

136

• Nilsson, M. and Dalkmann, H. (2001) Decision making and Strategic Environmental Assessment, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3): 305-327.

• Nitz, T. and Brown, A. (2001) SEA must learn how policy making works, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 3(3): 329-342.

• Noble, B. (2000) 'Strategic Environmental Assessment: What is it? and what makes it strategic?, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 2(2): 203-224.

• Noble, B. (2003) Auditing strategic environmental assessment practice in Canada, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 5(2), 127-147.

• Owens, S.; Rayner, T. and Bina, O. (2004) New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice, and research, Environment and Planning, 36: 1943-1959.

• Partidario, M. R. (2000) Elements of an SEA framework - improving the added-value of SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20: 647-663.

• Partidario, M. R. and Arts, J. (2005) Exploring the concept of SEA follow-up, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(3): 246-157.

• Partidario, M. R. and Fischer, T. B. (2004) Follow-up in current SEA understanding, in: Morrison-Saunders, M. and Arts, J. (eds) Assessing impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up, Earthscan, London.

• Rauschmayer, F. and Risse, N. (2005) A framework for the selection of participatory approaches for SEA, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(6): 650-666.

• Retief, F. (2005) Quality and effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa, Ph.D. thesis, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester.

• Retief, F. (2007a) Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in South Africa, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(1): 1-19.

• Retief, F. (2007b) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) performance evaluation: A quality and effectiveness review protocol for South African, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, (in press)

• Retief, F. (2007c) Emperor’s new clothes: reflections in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, (in press).

• Richardson, T. (2005) Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25: 341-365.

• Runhaar, H. and Driessen, P. (2007) What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision-making, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25: 2-14.

• Sadler, B. (1996) International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment - Final Report: Environmental Assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance, International Association for Impact Assessment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Ottawa.

• Sadler, B. (2004) On evaluating the success of EIA and SEA, in: Morrison-Saunders, M. and Arts, J. (eds) Assessing impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up, Earthscan, London, pp248-285

• Sadler, B. and Verheem, R. (1996) Strategic Environmental Assessment: Status, challenges and future directions, Report no 53, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague.

• Sheate, W., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R., Palerm, J. and Steen, U. (2003). Integrating the environment into strategic decision-making: conceptualizing policy SEA, European Environment, 13(1): 1–18.

• Sullivan, W., Kuo, E. and Prabhu, M. (1996) Assessing the impact of environmental impact statements on citizens, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16: 171-182.

• Therivel, R. and Minas, P. (2002) Ensuring effective sustainability appraisal, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(2): 81-91.

• Thissen, W. (2000) Criteria for the evaluation of SEA, in: Partidario, M. R. and Clark, R. (eds) Perspectives on SEA, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

• Todd, S. (2001) Measuring effectiveness of environmental dispute settlement efforts, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21: 97-110.

• Von Seht, H. (1999) Requirements of a comprehensive strategic environmental assessment system, Landscape and

137

Urban Planning, 45: 1-14.

• Wandesforde-Smith, G. and Kerbavaz, J. (1989) The co-evaluation of politics and policy:elections, entrepreneurship and EIA in the United States, in Wathern, P. (ed.) Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, Unwin Hyman, London.

• Weston, J. (2004) EIA in a risk society, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(2): 313-325.

• Wood, C. (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, Prentice Hall, Harlow.

• Wood, C. and Jones, J. (1997) The effect of environmental assessment on UK local planning authority decisions, Urban Studies, 34: 1237-1257.

• Zerbe, N. and Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2003) Sustainability impact assessment. Policy brief paper, based on the conclusions of the SUSTRA seminar on sustainability impact assessment, 26–27 March, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain.

138