Introduction and principles - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 14

However, other writings on the theoretical context of EIA have recognized the
importance of the subjective nature of the EIA process. Kennedy (1988) identified EIA as
both a “science” and an “art”, combining political input and scientific process. More
colourfully, Beattie (1995), in an article entitled “Everything you already know about
EIA, but don't often admit”, reinforces the point that EIAs are not science; they are often
produced under tight deadlines and data gaps and simplifying assumptions are the norm
under such conditions. They always contain unexamined and unexplained value
judgements, and they will always be political. They invariably deal with controversial
projects, and they have distributional effects. EIA professionals should therefore not be
surprised, or dismayed, when their work is selectively used by various parties in the
process.
In the context of decision-making theory, this recognition of the political, the
subjective, is reflected most fully in a variety of behavioural/participative theories.
Braybrooke & Lindblom (1963), for example, saw decisions as incremental adjustments,
with a process that is not comprehensive, linear and orderly, and is best characterized as
“muddling through”. Lindblom (1980) further developed his ideas through the concept of
“disjointed incrementalism”, with a focus on meeting the needs and objectives of society,
often politically defined. The importance of identifying and confronting trade-offs, a
major issue in EIA, is clearly recognized. The participatory approach includes processes
for open communication among all affected parties.
The recognition of multiple parties and the perceived gap between government and
citizens have stimulated other theoretical approaches, including communicative and
collaborative planning (Healey 1996, 1997). This approach draws upon the work of
Habermas (1984), Forester (1989) and others. Much attention is devoted to consensus-
building, co-ordination and communication, and the role of government in promoting
such actions as a means of dealing with conflicting stakeholder interests to come to
collaborative action.
It is probably now realistic to place the current evolution of EIA somewhere between
the rational and behavioural approaches—reflecting elements of both. It does include
strands of rationalism, but there are many participants, and many decision points—and
politics and professional judgement are often to the fore. This tends to fit well with the
classic concept of “mixed scanning” advocated by Etzioni (1967), utilizing rational
techniques of assessment, in combination with more intuitive value judgements, based
upon experience and values. The rational-adaptive approach of Kaiser et al. (1995) also
stresses the importance of a series of steps in decision-making, with both (scientific-
based) rationality and (community-informed) participation, moderating the selection of
policy options and desired outcomes.
Environmental impact assessment must also be seen in the context of other
environmental management decision tools . Petts (1999) provides a good overview of the
recent evolution. These tools are additional to the family of assessment approaches
discussed in Section 1.2, and include, for example, life cycle assessment (LCA), CBA,
and environmental auditing. LCA differs from EIA in its focus not on a particular site or
facility, but on a product or system and the cradle-to-grave environmental effects of that
product or system (see White et al. 1995). In contrast, CBA focuses on economic impacts
of a development, but taking a wide and long view of those impacts. It involves as far as
possible the monetization of all the costs and benefits of a proposal. It came to the fore in