Article

Improving cumulative effects assessment: alternative approaches based upon an expert survey and literature review

Taylor & Francis on behalf of the International Association for Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Cumulative effects assessment has been a longstanding challenge and is perhaps the most crucial component of project-level impact assessment. Alternative approaches to advance project-level cumulative effects assessment are developed based upon the findings of a literature review and key informant interviews. Alternative approaches are organized around key themes and cover: baselines; hybridization of sequential and integrated assessment; regional environmental assessment; the omnipresence of cumulative effects in project-level assessment; professional culture; and value-centrism.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... While research specifically exploring the application of CEA frameworks to social impacts is quite limited, it is clear that many of the challenges confronting CEA for biophysical impacts are exacerbated for social impacts due to the complexity of human social systems. Joseph et al. (2023) in a survey of experts found a common refrain that human environment Valued Components are more difficult to quantify since they are driven by human perception and more qualitative in nature (Joseph et al. 2023). Mitchell and Parkins (2011) noted that the social impacts typically included in CEA tend to be economic and focused on jobs and potential revenues, a point that has since been echoed by others observing a tendency to focus on indicators or values for which there is available quantitative data, rather than to take an integrative approach or explore social systems and values that may lend themselves to qualitative methodology (Parkes 2016;Parkins 2011;Willsteed et al. 2018). ...
... While research specifically exploring the application of CEA frameworks to social impacts is quite limited, it is clear that many of the challenges confronting CEA for biophysical impacts are exacerbated for social impacts due to the complexity of human social systems. Joseph et al. (2023) in a survey of experts found a common refrain that human environment Valued Components are more difficult to quantify since they are driven by human perception and more qualitative in nature (Joseph et al. 2023). Mitchell and Parkins (2011) noted that the social impacts typically included in CEA tend to be economic and focused on jobs and potential revenues, a point that has since been echoed by others observing a tendency to focus on indicators or values for which there is available quantitative data, rather than to take an integrative approach or explore social systems and values that may lend themselves to qualitative methodology (Parkes 2016;Parkins 2011;Willsteed et al. 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Cumulative effects assessments are often expected to include an analysis of environmental and social effects despite a relative lack of clarity around how include a broad spectrum of social and cultural impacts. In Canda, these expectations are evolving in part in response to the need to consider the impacts of development on Indigenous communities, and the emergence of Indigenous-led Led Impact Assessment. Led by a team from the Tŝilhqot’in National Government and the University of British Columbia’s Centre for Environmental Assessment Research, this project explored how to improve processes for assessing cumulative effects drawing from an Indigenous-led approach. We identify six guiding principles, and discuss how they are integrated in the Tŝilhqot’in Nation’s evolving Impact Assessment and Cumulative Effects Assessment processes.
... However, while CEA has been the subject of well-earned criticism over the years, the main points cited by critics (such as inadequate scoping, weak differentiation between project and regional CEA, etc.) are now evident and being corrected by practitioners (Baxter et al. 2001;Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014). Advances in complex systems science and current research into overcoming the challenges associated with CEA are bringing this concept back to the forefront of holistic and integrated management practices (Preiser et al. 2018;Ehrlich 2022;Joseph et al. 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
Cumulative effect assessments (CEA) for water systems are becoming more necessary as pressures from multiple stressors impact communities, watersheds, and basins. CEA is an important tool for shifting from fragmented to holistic, integrated management as per the Integrated Water Resources Management paradigm. Through a review of scientific literature, this study analyzed the patterns and use of indicators for upstream–downstream linkages. This study found that five categories of spatial scale approaches are used: the national/regional scale, basin scale, watershed scale, local scale, and the specially defined multi-scale approach. It was found that CEA has been applied using a high-level, qualitative approach for national, regional, and multi-scale studies—these undertakings inform strategic planning and sustainable decision-making. Basin, watershed, and local scale CEA studies have focused on quantitative modelling of environmental and human systems. These assessments emphasized the interconnectedness of water systems, as well as the role of policy development and stakeholders in improving system outcomes. Four indicator categories were found to span all five spatial scales: water quality (occurred in 64% of the literature), water quantity (53%), land use (56%), and landscape characteristics (67%). These indicator categories provide a common foundation for understanding stressor interactions, impact response, and upstream–downstream linkages. However, further research is needed on temporal scales and the integration of time into CEA for watersheds. This review found that CEA, a tool which is useful for a variety of scales, can help find a balance between present and future needs and further community sustainability using a holistic and integrated approach.
Chapter
This research chapter explores the impact of innovative assessment methods on learning outcomes. It examines project-based assessments, portfolios, peer assessment, and self-assessment and their role in nurturing student learning. The paper highlights the advantages, challenges, and implications of these alternative assessment strategies. It emphasizes how innovative assessment methods can enhance student engagement, critical thinking, and essential skills. The research also emphasizes the importance of these methods in fostering a holistic approach to learning. The findings underscore the relationship between assessment practices and learning outcomes, emphasizing the need for educators to embrace innovative assessment methods.
Article
Full-text available
The world now has decades of experience with impact assessment and most assessment regimes have undergone revision over time. A positive consequence of the debates about these revisions is a rich base of experiential evidence about IA successes and failures, apparent core requirements, best practices and promising innovations. We have been working with the concept of next-generation assessment and associated frameworks for a number of years now and feel that there is a package of essential elements that represent a consolidation of lessons from experience. Here, we present a package of 14 essential elements of next-generation assessment that could serve as a set of globally applicable generic components and a working framework of criteria to inform assessment improvement efforts anywhere. This iteration of the essential elements is based on input from an international audience of IA practitioners, proponents, government representatives, and participants. We conclude that implementation of many of the elements in ways suitably tailored for different jurisdictions would result in an important evolution of assessment toward next-generation approaches.
Article
Full-text available
Objective Communities are important settings for health promotion and prevention. The community readiness assessment offers a structured approach to assess resources and opportunities to tackle a health problem within a community. The assessment relies on semi-structured interviews with key informants from the communities. A number of 4–6 key informant interviews are recommended in the literature. However, it is unclear whether this is sufficient to obtain a valid representation of the respective community. This study analysed whether increasing the number of key informants from 4–6 to 12–15 alters the results of the community readiness assessment. Results A total of 55 community readiness interviews were carried out in 4 communities. Overall, the community readiness scores showed little variation after having interviewed 10 key informants in a community. However, even after completing 10 interviews in a community, key informants were still able to identify up to 6 new information items regarding community efforts for physical activity promotion among the elderly, contact and communication channel for informing or approaching the target group, or barriers to participation.
Article
Full-text available
Governments around the world rely on environmental impact assessment (EIA) to understand the environmental risks of proposed developments. To examine the basis for these appraisals, we examine the output of EIA processes in jurisdictions within seven countries, focusing on scope (spatial and temporal), mitigation actions and whether impacts were identified as ‘significant’. We find that the number of impacts characterized as significant is generally low. While this finding may indicate that EIA is successful at promoting environmentally sustainable development, it may also indicate that the methods used to assess impact are biased against findings of significance. To explore the methods used, we investigate the EIA process leading to significance determination. We find that EIA reports could be more transparent with regard to the spatial scale they use to assess impacts to wildlife. We also find that few reports on mining projects consider temporal scales that are precautionary with regard to the effects of mines on water resources. Across our sample of reports, we find that few EIAs meaningfully consider the different ways that cumulative impacts can interact. Across countries, we find that proposed mitigation measures are often characterized as effective without transparent justification, and sometimes are described in ways that render the mitigation measure proposal ambiguous. Across the reports in our sample, professional judgement is overwhelmingly the determinant of impact significance, with little transparency around the reasoning process involved or input by stakeholders. We argue that the credibility and accuracy of the EIA process could be improved by adopting more rigorous assessment methodologies and empowering regulators to enforce their use. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
Article
Full-text available
Environmental assessment is the process that decision-makers rely on to predict, evaluate, and prevent biophysical, social, and economic impacts of potential project developments. The determination of significance in environmental assessment is central to environmental management in many nations. We reviewed ten recent environmental impact assessments from British Columbia, Canada and systematically reviewed and scored significance determination and the approaches used by assessors, the use of thresholds in significance determination, threshold exceedances, and the outcomes. Findings of significant impacts were exceedingly rare and practitioners used a combination of significance determination approaches, most commonly relying upon reasoned argumentation. Quantitative thresholds were rarely employed, with less than 10% of the valued components evaluated using thresholds. Even where quantitative thresholds for significance were exceeded, in every case practitioners used a variety of rationales to demote negative impacts to non-significance. These reasons include combinations of scale (temporal and spatial) of impacts, an already exceeded baseline, model uncertainty and/or substituting less stringent thresholds. Governments and agencies can better protect resources by requiring clear and defensible significance determinations, by making government-defined thresholds legally enforceable and accountable, and by requiring or encouraging significance determination through inclusive and collaborative approaches.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores the opportunities and constraints to project-based environmental assessment as a means to support the assessment and management of cumulative environmental effects. A case study of the hydroelectric sector is used to determine whether sufficient information is available over time through project-by-project assessments to support an adequate understanding of cumulative change. Results show inconsistency from one project to the next in terms of the components and indicators assessed, limited transfer of baseline information between project assessments over time, and the same issues and concerns being raised by review panels–even though the projects reviewed are operating in the same watershed and operated by the same proponent. Project environmental assessments must be managed, and coordinated, as part of a larger system of impact assessment, if project-by-project assessments are to provide a meaningful forum for learning and understanding cumulative change. The paper concludes with recommendations for improved project-based assessment practice in support of cumulative effects assessment and management.
Article
Full-text available
Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is a sub-discipline of environmental impact assessment that is concerned with appraising the collective effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment. Aspirations for CEA have been expressed by many authors since 1969, when the foundation of environmental appraisal was laid by the US National Environmental Policy Act. This paper’s purposes are (i) to review aspirations for CEA, relative to current practice; and (ii) to fully explain and critique the logic that connects CEA’s operational steps and underlying philosophies. A literature review supports the following statements: Some conceptualizations emphasize the delivery of information to support decision making as the key purpose of CEA; others deem collaboration, debate, and learning as most important. Consensus on CEA’s operational steps has been reached, but each step requires practitioners to make analytical decisions (e.g., about the scope of issues to include or the time horizon to consider) and objective rules for how to approach those decisions are lacking. Numerical methods for assessing cumulative effects are largely available, meaning that CEA’s biggest problems are not scientific. CEA cannot succeed without substantive public engagement, monitoring, and adaptive management. CEA is best undertaken regionally, rather than project-by-project. CEA and planning are complementary, and should be merged. In its most enlightened form, CEA is a useful tool for ensuring that human undertakings ultimately conform to Earth’s finite biosphere, but current practice falls short of the ideal, and CEA’s logical derivation is not entirely sound. As regards CEA’s big problems, sustainability has not been defined clearly enough to make criteria for judging the significance of cumulative effects indisputable; legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks are poorly aligned for CEA; and objective criteria for judging the adequacy of CEA’s scope, scale, and thresholds do not exist, which makes the question of how to provide general guidance to practitioners intractable. Recommendations call for sustainability goals to be clearly expressed as measurable targets. Furthermore, precaution in human enterprise should be exercised by avoiding, minimizing, restoring, and offsetting negative cumulative effects. CEA can assist by quantifying and optimizing trade-offs.
Article
Full-text available
This paper reflects on the state of cumulative effects research in Canada and future directions and challenges. The assessment and management of cumulative effects has been an enduring theme in the impact assessment literature, and scholars have consistently identified the challenges to assessing and managing cumulative effects under regulatory, project-based impact assessment. Current research on cumulative effects is focused largely on the development of frameworks and methodologies to advance cumulative effects assessment and management from individual projects to broader regional scales, and on developing the science and tools for assessing and monitoring cumulative effects. Ensuring that scholarly research continues to shape cumulative effects practice in the future requires that scholars not only attempt to improve practice under current existing regulatory processes, but also push the boundaries to ensure that decision processes also evolve so as to be accommodating of new and innovative approaches to cumulative effects at regional scales. This requires interdisciplinary approaches and sustained research funding, both of which present practical challenges to scholars, and research programmes that are developed in collaboration with industry, governments and communities.
Book
Full-text available
Published by the International Association for Impact Assessment, this 100-odd page document will become the definitive statement on best practice in social impact assessment. For those of you who will be at IAIA'15 in Florence, there will be an official launch at a theme forum on Monday 20 April, 11.00 -12.30. We would like to see you there. However, it is now available for downloading from the International Association for Impact Assessment http://www.iaia.org (under Notables). Please bring this to the attention of anyone who may be interested. The purpose of the Guidance Note is to provide advice to various stakeholders about what is expected in good practice social impact assessment (SIA) and social impact management processes, especially in relation to project development. Project development refers to dams, mines, oil and gas drilling, factories, ports, airports, pipelines, electricity transmission corridors, roads, railway lines and other infrastructure including large-scale agriculture, forestry and aquaculture projects. This Guidance Note builds on IAIA’s (2003) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. While the International Principles outline the overarching understandings of the SIA field, including the expected values of the profession, this document seeks to provide advice on good practice in the undertaking and appraisal of SIAs and the adaptive management of projects to address the social issues. The intended users of this document include: SIA Practitioners/Consultants who want to know how their practice compares with international best practice; Project Developers/Proponents (private sector or government) to assist them in evaluating SIA consultants and in knowing what to expect from consultants; Regulatory agencies in terms of judging the quality and acceptability of SIA reports and in determining what procedures and expectations will be; Social specialists in the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the African Development Bank (AfDB), European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB); Social staff in other financial institutions, especially Equator Principles banks; Development cooperation agencies; Government planning agencies; Communities and local peoples; Civil society organizations; People responsible for SIA regulatory frameworks.
Article
Full-text available
Recognizing that each additional disturbance in a region can represent a high marginal cost to the environment, there is an increasing awareness of the need to better asses and manage cumulative environmental effects. Yet, cumulative effects are one of the most perplexing issues in environmental assessment and natural resource management, and the practice of cumulative effects assessment has been falling significantly short of its promise. Practiced largely in the context of project-based decision making, the current approach to cumulative effects assessment does not provide the results needed to understand broader environmental change or to make longer-term decisions concerning the sustainability of current and future development actions. This paper attempts to unpack the current approach to cumulative effects assessment, and to identify a means to move toward more meaningful practice. It argues that cumulative effects assessment requires a much more integrative and strategic framework that what is currently practiced, operating at a regional scale and both informing and informed by higher level policies and plans and lower level project actions. In order for this to happen we must rethink our assumptions about the nature of cumulative effects; move toward the integration of assessment, science, and management; and invest in the capacity needed to implement and sustain cumulative effects assessment systems and practices.
Article
Full-text available
This paper reviews progress in environmental impact assessment (EIA) over the last 40 years, with particular emphasis on the last 15–20 years, and poses the question: is EIA ready to meet future challenges? The first part of the paper briefly examines the spread of EIA around the world, recent trends in the uptake of EIA, and the continuing emergence of variants of impact assessment. The second part of the paper concentrates on current issues in EIA, under three broad headings: theory and EIA, practice issues and EIA effectiveness. An important thread running through the second part of the paper is how discussions about EIA theory, a feature of the last 15 years, are affecting the different areas of EIA practice and evaluation.
Article
Full-text available
HighlightsInsights from PracticeDefining the Problem and Deciding on a DirectionComposite Regulatory FrameworksMatching Process and ContextProcess InterconnectionsComposite EIA ProcessesChallenges and PrioritiesScenario PostscriptSumming Up
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents the findings of a critical evaluation of 12 Canadian cumulative effects assessment (CEA) documents, and offers responsive interpretation and recommendations. The evaluation focused on environmental impact assessment (EIA) documents for which CEAs have been required. A variety of types of document have been reviewed — different jurisdictions (both provincial and federal), different types of project, and different levels of EIA (comprehensive studies and major panel reviews). Findings show that: CEA is inadequately distinguished from EIA; scoping is inadequate; and cumulative effects analysis and follow-up are weak. Based on the results of the evaluation, four actions are recommended to improve the professional practice of CEA: include CEA considerations in terms of reference; use context scoping; use more follow-up studies; and link project and regional CEA.
Article
Full-text available
The historical, current and future international practice of cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) is addressed. The ‘context’ of CEAM is explained and challenges from scientific and policy issues and numerous uncertainties are described. A six-step generic process for carrying out CEAM is provided. Opportunities for mitigation and management are highlighted, with emphasis given to ‘collaboration’ as a foundational element for dealing with cumulative effects. This state-of-practice review concludes by noting six ‘ugly lessons’ which result from lack of appropriate attention, eight ‘bad lessons’ which reflect practices that need improvement, and 12 ‘good lessons’ which can be used to articulate good practice principles related to CEAM. In many situations some modification of EIA methods and tools may be necessary. In summary, the practice of CEAM is growing out of its infancy. As experience is accrued, it is anticipated that good practice principles will be further articulated and utilized on an international basis.
Article
Full-text available
Addressing cumulative effects (CE) has been widely recognized as a key purpose of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). In EU member states, the assessment of CE in SEA is prescribed by the SEA Directive. This paper investigates whether and how CE are currently treated in SEA of Italian and English spatial plans. This is based on the results of (1) a questionnaire survey and (2) a systematic review of SEA reports of local and regional Italian and English spatial plans. It is found that, opposite to what even some experts think, while CE remain unsatisfactorily addressed, there is ample space for improving current practice. In this context, better scoping, future-oriented approaches to SEA and more effective tiering are identified as key elements that can enable more effective CE assessment.
Article
Full-text available
Scenarios and scenario analysis have become popular approaches in organizational planning and participatory exercises in pursuit of sustainable development. However, they are little used, at least in any formal way, in environmental impact assessment (EIA). This is puzzling because EIA is a process specifically dedicated to exploring options for more-sustainable (i.e., less environmentally damaging) futures. In this paper, we review the state of the art associated with scenarios and scenario analysis, and describe two areas where scenario analysis could be particularly helpful in EIA: (a) in defining future developments for cumulative effects assessment; and (b) in considering the influence of contextual change – e.g. climate change – on impact forecasts for specific projects. We conclude by encouraging EIA practitioners to learn about the promise of scenario-based analysis and implement scenario-based methods so that EIA can become more effective in fostering sustainable development.
Article
Full-text available
Advancing cumulative effects assessments (CEA) to the regional scale, spatially and strategically, has been well argued but slow to evolve. Part of the problem is that "regional" CEA is a flexible concept, varying considerably in form and function from the project to the more strategic levels. This paper steps back from current discussions of assessment frameworks and methodologies to present a typology of regional approaches to CEA based on its multiple characteristics, functions, and expectations. Drawing upon current literature and interviews with international practitioners, we conceptualize regional CEA from two broad perspectives: EIA-driven approaches and SEA-driven approaches, illustrated with Canadian case examples. Each approach to CEA has its own merits that make it suitable to address particular types of cumulative problems at different tiers of assessment, and each of which can be expected to deliver different types of assessment results. The failure to fully recognize this "one concept–multiple form" characteristic is, in part, why the EA community has struggled in developing supportive methodological and institutional frameworks for regional CEA. We demonstrate that many of the disappointments with CEA are not the result of EIA-driven applications per se, but rather the result of mismatched CEA frameworks and expectations.
Article
Full-text available
Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) in Canada is in dire straits. Despite a huge amount of talk and a flurry of developmental activity associated with CEA concepts, it has not lived up to its glowing promise of helping to achieve sustainability of diverse valued ecosystem components. This article aims to articulate that failure, to examine it in terms of six major problems with CEA, and to propose solutions. The six problem areas include (1) application of CEA in project-level environmental impact assessments (EIAs), (2) an EIA focus on project approval instead of environmental sustainability, (3) a general lack of understanding of ecologic impact thresholds, (4) separation of cumulative effects from project-specific impacts, (5) weak interpretations of cumulative effects by practitioners and analysts, and (6) inappropriate handling of potential future developments. We advocate improvements not only within the purview of project-specific EIAs, but also mainly in the domain of region-scale CEAs and regional environmental effects frameworks (or perhaps land use planning). Only then will the CEA begin to approach the promise of securing sustainability of valued ecosystem components.
Article
Systems thinking is a way to better assess the collective effects of impacts arising from an individual project. Organizational silos have led to individual project-specific impacts being assessed in isolation, often ignoring the systemic interactions between impacts from the same project. This myopic approach does not properly capture the interrelated collective and systemic impacts of individual developments. This paper explores the problem, looks at addressing it through systems thinking, provides practical examples, and reflects on what this means for impact assessment.
Chapter
This chapter reviews the cumulative effects requirements and practices in selected developed and developing countries (including Canada).
Article
The potential contribution of cost-benefit analysis to environmental assessment is assessed through a case study of a proposed Canadian oil project and a comparison of results with those of the method of economic impact analysis. While the latter concludes that the project would generate substantial economic benefits, the cost-benefit analysis concludes that the project would be a net loss to society and that new oil mining is uneconomic. The case study demonstrates that economic impact analysis can help inform decision-makers of projects’ economic impacts, but the cost-benefit analysis should be used to help inform decision-makers with respect to the contribution of projects to the public interest. It is time to move beyond relying solely on economic impact analysis to measure project benefits in environmental assessment decision-making.
Article
Most environmental assessment (EA) processes are based on a rational technocratic paradigm, in which experts are expected to review value-neutral scientific evidence and objectively assess project impacts. Critics argue that this model is flawed even with increased public participation because it does not recognize the significant role of subjectivity in EA and assumes that expert analysis and judgement can be objective and value free. This paper re-evaluates the assumptions of the rational technocratic model by examining new evidence from a case study in which scientific experts in two separate, but concurrent, EA reviews of the same project came to opposite conclusions even though they relied on the same terms of reference and similar information and evaluation criteria. The case study analysis provides new evidence showing that subjective judgments of expert assessors are an important determinant of the EA findings and that there is inconsistency in the exercise of subjective judgement by experts that can result in fundamentally different conclusions, even if the experts are assessing the same project and similar evidence. The nature of the subjective judgements is assessed in detail and implications of the findings for EA are discussed.
Article
There is a recognized need to advance cumulative effects assessment to regional and ecologically meaningful scales, but such initiatives are often critiqued for being isolated from management contexts and the regulatory practices of project-based environmental assessment. A major challenge is that there has been limited attention devoted to understanding decision-making at the project level, and the value of monitoring data to support cumulative effects analysis. This article examines how cumulative effects are considered during environmental assessment decision-making within the context of freshwater management in the Mackenzie Valley, Northwest Territories. Interviews with representatives from organizations involved in environmental assessment, regulation, and monitoring are used to identify challenges to applying information about cumulative effects at the project scale. Results reinforce the need for regional approaches and improvements in information and monitoring capacities to support cumulative effects analysis, but also the need to address institutional and organizational deficiencies to ensure that the data and information generated are useful to and applied within project-based decision-making.
Article
A longstanding critique of project-level environmental assessment is that it is weak at addressing cumulative effects, and because of this many argue that cumulative effects are best managed at a regional scale. However, in the absence of regional management it is important that project-level assessment supports cumulative effects management as best as possible. In this paper we present case study socio-economic impact assessments of liquefied natural gas development on Aboriginal groups on Canada's west coast. The case studies use an analytical structure modified from typical Canadian practice including unambiguous and non-arbitrary significance thresholds grounded in stakeholder values to focus baselines, impact assessment, and significance determination on cumulative effects. This approach is found to be more capable of informing decision-makers on cumulative effects as well as more rigorous and transparent than typical assessments. Much of this approach is not conceptually new, but at least in western Canada such an approach is not typically used or meaningfully implemented by practitioners. As such, the case studies serve to illustrate how practice can bolster project-level assessment.
Chapter
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has developed from its origins in US legislation in 1970 to become one of the most important and widely used environmental management tools. Its purpose is to ensure that the wider implications of proposals are considered before final commitments are made to proceed with an action, whether a policy or a project. Many forms of impact assessment have emerged over the last 50 years, raising the question of how to ensure coherent, integrated assessments of policy or project impacts, while recognizing the diversity and complexity of the environment potentially affected. Although EIA owes its underlying form to the rational decision-making approaches of the second half of the twentieth century, in fact the more recent literature on best-practice impact assessment promotes a participatory and inclusive approach, sensitive to issues of social and environmental justice and to the role of power in decision-making.
Article
The cumulative effects of increasing human use of the ocean and coastal zone have contributed to a rapid decline in ocean and coastal resources. As a result, scientists are investigating how multiple, overlapping stressors accumulate in the environment and impact ecosystems. These investigations are the foundation for the development of new tools that account for and predict cumulative effects in order to more adequately prevent or mitigate negative effects. Despite scientific advances, legal requirements, and management guidance, those who conduct assessments—including resource managers, agency staff, and consultants—continue to struggle to thoroughly evaluate cumulative effects, particularly as part of the environmental assessment process. Even though 45 years have passed since the United States National Environmental Policy Act was enacted, which set a precedent for environmental assessment around the world, defining impacts, baseline, scale, and significance are still major challenges associated with assessing cumulative effects. In addition, we know little about how practitioners tackle these challenges or how assessment aligns with current scientific recommendations. To shed more light on these challenges and gaps, we undertook a comparative study on how cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is conducted by practitioners operating under some of the most well-developed environmental laws around the globe: California, USA; British Columbia, Canada; Queensland, Australia; and New Zealand. We found that practitioners used a broad and varied definition of impact for CEA, which led to differences in how baseline, scale, and significance were determined. We also found that practice and science are not closely aligned and, as such, we highlight opportunities for managers, policy makers, practitioners, and scientists to improve environmental assessment.
Article
Despite all the effort that has gone into defining, researching and establishing best practices for cumulative effects assessment (CEA), understanding remains weak and practice wanting. At one extreme of implementation, CEA can be described as merely an irritant to the completion of a project-specific environmental assessment (EA). At the other extreme, the conceptual view is that all effects in EA should be deemed cumulative unless demonstrated otherwise. Our purpose here is to consider how we might reconceive CEA as a mindset that is at the heart of absolutely every assessment of valued ecosystem component (VEC) to ensure that we understand the relative contributions of various stressors and can decide when cumulative effects may foreclose future activities due to impacts on VECs. Conceptually, we ground the CEA mindset in the context of three lenses that must all be functioning and working together for the mindset to be operative: a technical lens; a law and policy lens; and a participatory lens. Our arguments are based on a review of the CEA, strategic effects assessment (SEA) and regional effects assessment literatures, an examination and consideration of Canadian EA and SEA case practice, and our combined professional experiences. Through using the Bay of Fundy in Canada as a case example, we establish the concept of the CEA mindset and an approach for moving forward with implementation.
Article
Environmental assessments (EAs) predict project environmental effects with varying degrees of certainty. Articulating prediction uncertainty and linking it to EA follow-up is a best practice for reducing uncertainty. This study examines predictions from Canadian oil projects off Newfoundland and Labrador between 1985 and 2012 concerning seabirds, the valued ecosystem component identified as the most vulnerable to oil exploitation in an area frequented by millions of migratory birds. We asked if these EA predictions: (a) reported uncertainty ratings; (b) for those reporting medium and high uncertainty ratings whether the predictions were addressed by EA follow-up; and (c) if prediction uncertainty was reduced by EA follow-up and reflected in subsequent EAs. Prediction uncertainty reporting was rare and uncertainties were not resolved through EA follow-up. Assumptions of negligible or low environmental effects on seabirds off Newfoundland and Labrador from offshore oil and gas extraction have been supported through decades by sustaining uncertainty.
Article
Valued ecosystem component (VEC) selection is a core component of cumulative effects assessment (CEA) and gives direction to impact analysis, mitigation and monitoring. Yet little is known about CEA VEC selection practices. This paper examines 11 Canadian road infrastructure project CEAs completed between 1995 and 2011 to determine how VEC selection in CEA is performed, and whether these practices are sensitive to the linear project development context. Document review and semi-structured interviews reveal an absence of VEC selection guidance, late timing of cumulative effects considerations in impact assessment, lack of sensitivity in CEA VEC selection to the unique, linear nature of the road construction projects and a general lack of insightful, creative approaches to CEA VEC selection - ones that better reflect potential impacts to social and economic aspects of the environment - despite it being shown to be a values-driven, subjective process. There is a clear need for regional databases to support consistent CEA VEC selection processes, and the development of CEA-specific VEC selection guidance.
Article
The concept of significance is fundamental to environmental impact assessment (EIA). Even though there are many guidelines describing technical characteristics of impacts (such as magnitude, geographic extent, extent and frequency) that should be considered, there has remained a long-standing need for increased clarity on how significance determinations are ultimately reached by significance determiners, those who, on behalf of governments, make a legal determination of significance in EIAs. This involves the application of societal values, in the form of subjective informed judgement, about the acceptability of the predicted impacts. This paper introduces the significance spectrum, a graphic model that illustrates a process for determining significance, using the following steps: (1) determining the threshold of significance for each valued component; (2) weighing the evidence and considering predicted impacts; (3) deciding which side of the threshold the predicted adverse impact falls on; and (4) for unacceptable impacts, deciding if mitigations can make the residual impact acceptable. Concepts such as ecological significance should not be confused with significance in EIAs, which may not only include ecological significance but also considers societal values. We provide specific steps for determining significance that help clarify this fundamental aspect that lies at the core of EIA decision-making.
Article
Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) for environmental impact assessments are required by some Canadian and American legislation. However, there is confusion concerning exactly what CEA involves. This clarifies the requirements of CEA and illustrates its use in a number of case studies. Practitioners must: identify valued ecosystem components (VECs) affected by the proposed project; determine what other past, present and future human activities have affected or will affect these VECs; predict the impacts on the VECs of the combined activities; and suggest how to manage these cumulative effects.
Sustainability assessment is a recent framing of impact assessment that places emphasis on delivering positive net sustainability gains now and into the future. It can be directed to any type of decision-making, can take many forms and is fundamentally pluralistic. Drawing mainly on theoretical papers along with the few case study examples published to date (from England, Western Australia, South Africa and Canada), this paper outlines what might be considered state-of-the-art sustainability assessment. Such processes must: (i) address sustainability imperatives with positive progress towards sustainability; (ii) establish a workable concept of sustainability in the context of individual decisions/assessments; (iii) adopt formal mechanisms for managing unavoidable trade-offs in an open, participative and accountable manner; (iv) embrace the pluralistic inevitabilities of sustainability assessment; and (v) engender learning throughout. We postulate that sustainability assessment may be at the beginning of a phase of expansion not seen since environmental impact assessment was adopted worldwide.
Article
Analyses of environmental impacts, and descriptions of methodologies for conducting them, have not always been explicitly cognizant of the subjective value-judgements that must be made in the process of collecting, refining, assessing, and presenting, objective scientific information. This paper has outlined the types of objective and subjective judgements that are made in each of the following major steps of the analysis: identifying major activities; selecting environmental components; selecting types of impacts; assessing the possibilities and/or probabilities of occurrences; determining the degree of the impacts; determining the time-frame of impacts; designating impacts as positive, neutral, or negative; and determining trade-offs among activities and impacts. The subjective judgements that must be made are based on values, feelings, beliefs, and prejudices, and are functions of the personal, institutional, professional, and societal, contexts of the analyst. If great care is not taken in making these judgements, and in making very explicit the value-framework used, the effectiveness and credibility of the analyst may be sharply reduced. There is also the danger that society and its decision-makers will be presented with an analysis having so many built-in biases that the legitimate role of the decision-makers in assessing the analysis and then making important value trade-offs is seriously compromised. This paper has attempted to make the nature of the process of analysis explicit with respect to the introduction and treatment of values, so that these problems can be understood and, it is hoped, properly managed by both scientists and decision-makers.
Article
Sustainable development of the aquatic environment depends upon routine and defensible cumulative effects assessment (CEA). CEA is the process of predicting the consequences of development relative to an assessment of existing environmental quality. Theoretically, it provides an on-going mechanism to evaluate if levels of development exceed the environment's assimilative capacity; i.e., its ability to sustain itself. In practice, the link between CEA and sustainable development has not been realized because CEA concepts and methods have developed along two dichotomous tracks. One track views CEA as an extension of the environmental assessment (EA) process for project developments. Under this track, stressor-based (S-B) methods have been developed where the emphasis is on local, project-related stressors, their link with aquatic indicators, and the potential for environmental effects through stressor-indicator interactions. S-B methods focus on the proposed development and prediction of project-related effects. They lack a mechanism to quantify existing aquatic quality especially at scales broader than an isolated development. This limitation results in the prediction of potential effects relative to a poorly defined baseline state. The other track views CEA as a broader, regional assessment tool where effects-based (E-B) methods specialize in quantification of existing aquatic effects over broad spatial scales. However, the predictive capabilities of E-B methods are limited because they are retrospective, i.e., the stressor causing the effect is identified after the effect has been measured. When used in isolation, S-B and E-B methods do not address CEA in the context necessary for sustainable development. However, if the strengths of these approaches were integrated into a holistic framework for CEA, an operational mechanism would exist to better monitor and assess sustainable development of our aquatic resources. This paper reviews the existing conceptual basis of CEA in Canada including existing methodologies, limitations and strengths. A conceptual framework for integrating project-based and regional-based CEA is presented.
Article
Human alteration of Earth is substantial and growing. Between one-third and one-half of the land surface has been transformed by human action; the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 30 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; more atmospheric nitrogen is fixed by humanity than by all natural terrestrial sources combined; more than half of all accessible surface fresh water is put to use by humanity; and about one-quarter of the bird species on Earth have been driven to extinction. By these and other standards, it is clear that we live on a human-dominated planet.
Article
The concept of adaptive management has, for many ecologists, become a foundation of effective environmental management for initiatives characterized by high levels of ecological uncertainty. Yet problems associated with its application are legendary, and many of the initiatives promoted as examples of adaptive management appear to lack essential characteristics of the approach. In this paper we propose explicit criteria for helping managers and decision makers to determine the appropriateness of either passive or active adaptive-management strategies as a response to ecological uncertainty in environmental management. Four categories of criteria--dealing with spatial and temporal scale, dimensions of uncertainty, the evaluation of costs and benefits, and institutional and stakeholder support--are defined and applied using hypothetical yet realistic case-study scenarios that illustrate a range of environmental management problems. We conclude that many of the issues facing adaptive management may have less to do with the approach itself than with the indiscriminate choice of contexts within which it is now applied.
  • Blakley JAE
  • Blakley JAE
Enabling Cumulative Effects Assessment. 2017 Conference of the Ontario Association for Impact Assessment: the Art and Science of Cumulative Effects Assessment
  • L Greig
Greig L (2017). Enabling Cumulative Effects Assessment. 2017 Conference of the Ontario Association for Impact Assessment: the Art and Science of Cumulative Effects Assessment.
  • Hegmann G
  • Duinker PN
Kitimat Airshed Emissions Effects Assessment. Report Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment
  • Essa Technologies
  • J Laurence
ESSA Technologies, Laurence J, Risk Sciences International, Trent University, Trinity Consultants. 2013. Kitimat Airshed Emissions Effects Assessment. Report Prepared for BC Ministry of Environment. 205.
  • Johnson CJ
If you build it, will they come? Using historical development patterns to better anticipate future development scenarios for cumulative effects assessment
  • J Lerner
Lerner J. 2018. If you build it, will they come? Using historical development patterns to better anticipate future development scenarios for cumulative effects assessment.
  • Olagunju A
  • Sunderland CV
USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation). 1996. Conducting key informant interviews
  • Usaid Cdie
USAID CDIE (USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation). 1996. Conducting key informant interviews. Washington, DC, USA; p. 4.
Achieving Next Generation Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-up and Monitoring. MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba
  • B Andronak
Andronak B. 2017. Achieving Next Generation Environmental Impact Assessment Follow-up and Monitoring. MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba. p. 151 + Appendices.