The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

23 (2003) 401–414

Viewpoint

The need for subjectivity in EIA:

discourse as a tool for sustainable development

Hugh Wilkins

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5N 1M1

Received 1 July 2002; received in revised form 1 January 2003; accepted 1 February 2003

Abstract

Subjectivity is often viewed as one of the shortcomings of environmental impact

assessment (EIA). Politicized evaluations, narrow boundary setting, data gaps and

simplified assumptions are frequently seen as problems in EIA that must be addressed.

This paper takes a different approach to the issue. It views subjectivity as one of the positive

attributes of the process that should be encouraged in order to promote sustainability and to

inspire confidence in EIA. A satisfactory decision at the end of a specific EIA is not the only

goal of the process. As a forum in which the public, proponents and regulators deliberate on

the design and implementation of development plans, the creation of discourse around the

pertinent issues at stake is also an important result. EIA promotes the development of values

that foster greater social responsibility and has the capacity to increase the importance of

long-term environmental considerations in decision-making.

D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental impact assessment; Subjectivity; Environmental awareness

1. Introduction

The values of the people engaged in an environmental impact assessment

(EIA) play a significant role in its results due to the considerable subjective

decision making upon which EIA is based. From screening projects to final

decision making, discretion has a prominent role in determining the methodo-

logical and practical results of the process. Moreover, the central role of

prediction in EIA makes subjectivity unavoidable due to politicized evaluations,

narrow boundaries setting, data gaps and simplified assumptions. The attitudes

and values of the actors involved in the process are critical to determining the

results achieved.

0195-9255/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00044-1

H. Wilkins / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 23 (2003) 401–414402

The goals of EIA are often viewed as securing a prediction of the future, as

institutionalizing environmental awareness among bureaucrats, or as a tool for

social learning (Wandesforde-Smith and Kerbavaz, 1988, pp. 161–163). It is

within the third context that this article explores. The paper regards EIA as a

system for producing knowledge, not only as a means to make informed

planning decisions, but also as a source of directing the development of social

values. In this manner, it is a crucial tool for promoting sustainable devel-

opment.

The subjective element in EIA aids rather than hinders the process. If the main

purposes of conducting an EIA are to advance sustainable development and to

encourage legitimate decision making through the use of transparency and public

participation, then subjectivity and predictive inaccuracy are not problems, but

elements to promote and engage the process itself. A satisfactory decision at the

end of a specific EIA is not the only goal of the process. As a forum in which the

public, proponents and regulators deliberate on the design and implementation of

development plans, the creation of discourse around the pertinent issues at stake is

also an important result. The discourse that is nurtured through EIA influences the

values people hold regarding the environment and their communities. It promotes

the development of values that foster greater personal and social responsibility and

has the capacity to increase the importance of long-term environmental consid-

erations in decision making. Through subjectivity accompanied by public par-

ticipation and discourse, EIA can produce more environmentally sustainable

assessment decisions. Thus, the legitimacy of EIA should not only be judged

based on its assessment qualities, but rather on its potential to achieve the goals of

sustainable development.

The paper commences with an examination of the criticisms that have been

mounted against EIA as an uncertain and inaccurate regulatory device. It then

analyzes how these apparent weaknesses and the subjectivity in the EIA process

fortify the process as a means of discourse. The paper concludes with an

examination on how discourse in EIA is vital in promoting the goals of long-

term planning and sustainable development.

2. Criticisms of EIA—subjective methodologies in EIA

Predicting the future is difficult, particularly if it requires the determination of

the results of the synergies and interlinkages present in the natural environment. In

fact, if EIA is viewed solely as a tool to make informed decisions on specific

development proposals, then it is virtually unworkable. Jones and Greig sum up

this point well:

A common feature of all environmental impact assessments [is] that they are

doomed to failure. Failure, that is, in the sense that our hopes of accurately

predicting all the impacts of an action that impinges upon the environment

H. Wilkins / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 23 (2003) 401–414 403

are virtually nil. The more we learn about environmental systems the more

we tend to be struck by our profound ignorance of the interactions and

processes which govern their response to perturbations. (Jones and Greig,

1985, p. 21)

Knowledge of the environment will never be sufficient to accurately predict

the exact impacts of a project. Assessors are therefore forced to decide on how

best to make predictions on future impacts. The personal values of assessors are

used in deciding what methodologies to use and how to approach the assessment.

Much too often, the assessor will rely on his or her own values to decide what is

important in the EIA and what considerations to take into account in the process

(Morgan, 1998, p. 180).

Values are ‘‘beliefs, either individual or social, about what is important in life’’

(RCEP, 1999, p. 21). These values play a direct role in the development of

positions taken in an assessment, the scoping of assessment boundaries, the data

to be examined and the assumptions used in an assessment’s methodology

(Morgan, 1998, p. 180). Most human activities are inspired by judgments and

assumptions based on values (Beattie, 1995, p. 112). To make this point, Robert

Beattie uses the example of an EIA for a proposed waste treatment facility. The

obvious solution to reducing the environmental impacts of waste is to reduce

waste; however, this option is usually outside the scope of a project and its EIA.

Value assumptions assert the values underlying the treatment of the waste rather

than the elimination of the need for treatment (Beattie, 1995, p. 111). Such

assumptions are prevalent in EIAs from the use of cost–benefit analysis (which

reflect a ‘‘set of value assumptions about [the] nature of human motivation and

behavior’’) to risk analysis (which is a determination of what risks are acceptable

as determined by the values held by the assessor) (Beattie, 1995, p. 111). Branko

Kontic states:

The influence of personal value systems and beliefs is unavoidable when

creating an expert evaluation and interpretation. Expert belief is present in

opinion and judgments, in particular when there is not enough evidence for a

certain phenomenon or when a probabilistic understanding of the

phenomenon is required without any record of frequency. (Kontic, 2000,

pp. 427–434)

EIAs often contain value assumptions, which ‘‘originate in a particular societal

value system at a specific time in the frames of reference of culture and the goals

of society and has nothing to do with expertise and science’’ (Beattie, 1995, p.

111). These value assumptions are used to solidify positions taken in the

decision-making process (Beattie, 1995, p. 112). As soon as an assessor is

required to interpret, evaluate or predict, the EIA shifts to the realm of

subjectivity allowing personal values and political preferences to guide the

process (Lawrence, 1993, p. 7). This is apparent in the politicized evaluations,


narrow boundary setting, data gaps and simplified assumptions that are often

present in an EIA.

2.1. Politicized evaluations

Although studies differ in opinion (Culhane et al., 1987; Kontic, 2000), there

appears to be a public perception of bias and inaccuracy in the EIA process. In

England, the Essex County Council has found that 82% of the public in Essex

believes that EIAs are biased toward proponents (Essex Planning Officers

Association, 1995, p. 6; Construction Industry Research and Information Asso-

ciation, 1995, p. 4).1 Environmentalists distrust EIAs because the proponent

carries out the work, while proponents themselves dislike the process because it

constitutes a bureaucratic hurdle, costs money and delays projects (Gilpin, 1995,

p. 158). Bias may creep into the qualitative methods used in EIA in the selection

of an approach that is familiar to the assessor, in making value judgments while

completing checklists and matrices involving significance assessments (Beattie,

1995, p. 124), in the limited ability of an assessor to manage data, in deliberate

misrepresentations (Lawrence, 1993, p. 4), due to limited experience of an

assessor, or from too much experience (Conover et al., 1985, p. 373). Moreover,

the evaluation of the impacts of a specific proposed action inherently biases an

EIA because the assessments are confined to their own defined scopes (Beattie,

1995, p. 111).

Environmental impact statements (EIS) should not favour one point of view

over another (Modak and Biswas, 1999, pp. 12–13); however, the appearance

of subjectivity is difficult to avoid as long as assessors are employed by

proponents to conduct assessments (Gilpin, 1995). Bojorquez-Tapia and Garcia

argue that to avoid creating perceptions of subjectivity, assessors must

substantiate their findings and explain their positions clearly. However, as part

of a decision-making process, EIAs are political by their very nature (Bojor-

quez-Tapia and Garcia, 1998, pp. 233–234). Politicized evaluations are fueled

by the fact that EIAs are often used to support, oppose or mitigate publicly

controversial projects. An example is the Kiambere Gorge case in Kenya. In

1971, the Kenyan Government conducted an EIA to secure World Bank

funding for its construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Tana River at the

Kiambere Gorge. The Government was anxious to obtain a favourable EIA and

secure funding. One of the key issues relating to the project was how the dam

would affect local peoples. The Government estimated that only 3000 people

would need to be resettled, while the World Bank independently found that the

correct figure was closer to 10,000 people that would need to move (Hirji and

Ortolano, 1991, p. 163). Such differing estimates and results leave the public

feeling that the process did not take into consideration their own needs or the

1 CIRIA states that there is a general public perception that EIAs are biased toward the proposals.


true state of affairs. They leave people with the impression that the EIA lacked

credibility because it was biased, even where efforts are made to address these

issues.

2.2. Narrow boundaries

Setting boundaries is a crucial step in the EIA process. Too narrow a scope

will leave out important issues, while too broad a scope may make an

assessment either superficial or too difficult to manage and incomprehensible

(Modak and Biswas, 1999, p. 42). Distinct from the politicization of the process,

subjectivity may occur in scoping due to practical constraints leading to the

assessor’s reliance on his or her own values. Time, interest and financial

restrictions place assessors in the unenviable position of prioritising consider-

ations and narrowing the boundaries of assessments (Beattie, 1995, p. 111).

Pressures to have an assessment completed as quickly as possible may restrict

the study from observing impacts at different times of the year or in extreme

cases can exclude crucial elements to the EIA. For instance, in the 1976 EIA of

the Masinga Dam Project proposal in Kenya, consultants were given only 2

months to conduct their work. As a result, assessors did not have time to

consider the effects of siltation from the dam on downstream fisheries or effects

of changing water levels on downstream farming practices, but focussed on

other issues that they believed where more important at the time (Hirji and

Ortolano, 1991, p. 157).

The narrowing of boundaries may also occur if the assessors lack the

necessary expertise to address pertinent issues or set boundaries based on purely

subjective decision making in the assessment. For instance, the EIA conducted

for the Cheviot Mine near Jasper National Park in Canada was ordered by the

Federal Court of Canada to be re-held because the assessors had chosen to

narrow the scope of the EIA and not take into account the cumulative impacts or

to thoroughly consider the alternative means of undertaking the proposed

project.2 Fisret Berkes asserts that for similar reasons of subjectivity in scoping,

Hydro Quebec’s assessment of the Grande Riviere hydroelectric project in the

early 1980s was inaccurate (Berkes, 1988). Morgan and others state that scoping

should combine a process of gathering information on public concerns relating

to a project with a scientific review of what may be the significant impacts

caused by the project (Morgan, 1998, pp. 103–104). However, the decisions

regarding issue and impact definition are left to the assessor based to some

degree on his or her own social values (Shopley and Fuggle, 1984, p. 42). As a

result, the values of the assessor play an important role in determining the scope

of the assessment.

2 See Alberta Wilderness Association et al. v. Cardinal River Coals [1999] 3 F.C. 425 (F.C.T.D.),

paras. 69, 76 and 80–82.


2.3. Data gaps

Practical limitations leading to the reliance on values are also experienced in

data collection and measurement. Assessors are often required to make predic-

tions based on irrelevant or incomplete data sets or deal with situations in which

there is an over-abundance of information requiring them to subjectively select

among data for use in the assessment (Munn, 1979, p. 95). Data gaps can be

caused by insufficient collection by the assessor, inaccuracy in measurement and

sampling, variability in the sample, poor selection of available resources,

inability to secure data, strict timelines, or budgetary pressures (Beattie, 1995,

p. 111; Glasson et al., 1994, pp. 105–107; Lee, 1989; New Zealand Ministry of

the Environment, 1992, p. 18). Accurate data is often difficult to locate (De

Jongh, 1988, pp. 67–68). Social values affect the extent to which assessors seek

to obtain data and the degree to which assessors allow data gaps to widen. A case

in point was the spraying of insecticide on spruce forests in the Northeastern

United States from 1972 until 1981 to eradicate the threat to its timber industry

posed by the spruce budworm. Spraying was permitted because of a set of

cultural values held by the assessors and stakeholders to the project, which

refused to make decisions based on precaution. Instead, proponents and assessors

sought the most profitable means unless environmental harm could be proven.

By 1981, environmental consciousness had increased and more accurate

information had been ascertained on the impact that the insecticides had on

forests and on the insects in question. The harm caused by spraying over the

previous decade allowed more precautionary values to prevail and alterations to

the spraying to be made based on the findings of new EIAs (Irland, 1984). Cases

of subjectivity over the use of data have also been found in developing states

where budgets are often tight and the pressure to secure a positive EIA may be

high to obtain official development assistance (Bojorquez-Tapia and Garcia,

1998, p. 237).3

2.4. Simplified assumptions

Subjectivity is further exposed in EIA by the limitations of science. Any

model of the real world is a simplification requiring assumptions on how natural

and anthropogenic factors interact (Morgan, 1998, p. 42). Beattie states that in

EIAs. . .

3

impa

(. . .) data of varying degrees of quantity and quality are gathered, causal

explanations with varying degrees of validity and robustness are applied to

the data, and projections for different scenarios of action are created. Each of

For instance, Bojorquez-Tapia and Garcia found that, in Mexico, ‘‘the average environmental

ct statement consists of incoherent descriptions, unused data and unsubstantiated conclusions’’.


these steps requires the practitioner to make assumptions, to select certain

approaches, and to limit the inquiry. (Beattie, 1995, p. 110)

Simplified assumptions are structural errors that occur through the use of

models that simplify environmental systems by eliminating variables that are

viewed as less important (De Jongh, 1988, pp. 68–70). By simplifying a

problem, the likelihood of making an accurate prediction increases, but also

makes it less precise (Buckley, 1989, p. 52), spurring issues of credibility and

public confidence. Given the complex synergies and interlinkages inherent to

the natural world, it is impossible not to simplify the assumptions made in an

EIA; however, the results are often significant. In 1971, Hydro Quebec had

conducted an extensive EIA relating to its construction of a series of dams

along the Grande River in Northern Quebec. The assessors concluded that river

levels after the dam was completed may increase due to water releases from the

dam, but the assessors assumed that such releases would be rare and the effects

of water changes would be minimal. In practice, water releases became frequent

resulting in flash floods that in 1984 killed over 100,000 caribou and impacted

the food security of local aboriginal hunters (Berkes, 1988, p. 204). In Kenya,

similar problems resulted in relation to an EIA conducted for the Munyu Dam

Project on the Athi River near Nairobi. Water from the river traditionally was

used as a source of domestic water supply. In the EIA, the assessors assumed

that local peoples would be able to continue to use this resource by taking

water accumulated in the reservoir that was created by the dam. The assessors

also assumed that local municipal waste from Nairobi would be treated prior to

being pumped into the river. The municipal waste was not adequately treated

and the reduction in the river current caused the water in the reservoir to be

non-potable depriving local peoples of a safe source of water (Hirji and

Ortolano, 1991, pp. 161–162). In both cases, assessors were forced to make

assumptions based on their own experiences and beliefs, which prioritized some

concerns over others. Simplifying assumptions on the natural world are

necessary; however, like any other subjective enterprise, they are tied to the

value judgments of the assessors.

3. Subjectivity promotes discourse in EIA

People define themselves and their beliefs through both language and actions.

The exchanges of views among people (discourse) influence within individuals

the things that they believe are important in life (values) (RCEP, 1999, p. 21;

Hajer, 1995, pp. 65–67). The parameters of values are based on the experiences

that people have and the influences to which they have been subjected. In turn,

the values and perspectives that people hold are created by the discourse in which

they engage. EIA, as a forum for discourse, therefore invigorates and shapes

values.


Morgan views public participation as important in EIAs because it provides a

validation role, which addresses the needs of good governance, has an internal-

ization function of bringing public values and preferences into the process

(resulting in better planning decisions and political legitimacy), assists to educate

stakeholders and the public, reduces or avoids conflict, and helps the public in

becoming more responsive and democratic citizens (Morgan, 1998, pp. 148–

149). In this manner, public participation in EIA allows people to learn about

themselves and their communities. Webler, Kastenholz and Renn refer to this

process as ‘‘social learning’’. Social learning is. . .

4

. . .the process by which changes in the social condition occur—particularly

changes in awareness and changes in how individuals see their private

interests linked with the shared interests of their fellow citizens. This is the

product of individuals learning how to solve their shared problems in a

manner that is responsible to both factual correctness and normative consent.

(Webler et al., 1995, p. 445)

Social learning is achieved through communication between stakeholders and

the public and the reaching of agreements through accommodation and under-

standing. This communication or ‘‘discourse’’ allows people to become acquain-

ted and to learn from others in their communities. It also inspires debate. The

subjective elements in EIA tend to make EISs subject to criticism by stakeholders

who have different views or values relating to the project. In this context, the

structural attributes of EIA foster the production, application and analysis of

knowledge allowing agencies and stakeholders to compete for a role. This

competition within the stable confines of the EIA process promotes learning.

Learning will continue as long as the ‘‘analytical competition’’ among EIA

participants remains strong (Wandesforde-Smith and Kerbavaz, 1988, p. 191).

Through public discussion and debate in which people move beyond self-interest

and reflect on the common good, meaningful decisions can be made (Bohman,

1996, p. 16). Common understanding of community and environmental needs

can evolve through EIAs that include all interested people, giving them equal

opportunities to participate, and the free and open exchange of information

(Bohman, 1996, p. 16).

Through discourse, changes may be made to the positions on all sides in an

EIA. Through the use of reason and understanding, compromises on plans and

work towards solutions which all sides can accept may be achieved. The

proposed development of the Mineral King Valley in California in the late

1960s is a case-in-point. Disney Corporation had planned to construct a ski resort

in the valley, which was opposed by several non-governmental organizations.

After years of legal controversy relating to the proposal,4 the scale of Disney’s

See, for instance, Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), 405 US 727.


resort was gradually reduced and eventually abandoned in 1977 partly due to

growing popular opinion against the project. Through the EIA process and legal

proceedings, views of stakeholders and the public were exchanged, discourse

created and new ideas formed.

4. Discourse and community values

Many environmental issues are those that affect individuals across a com-

munity. The impact on each community member may be small, but the aggregate

effect of an environmental problem on the community may be significant. As a

result, each individual often pays little attention to the problem as its impact on

the individual is slight and there is little motivation to do much about it. Maarten

Hajer, John Dryzek and others suggest that it is the path of discourse around

environmental issues that shapes and directs environmental problems (Hajer,

1995; Dryzek, 1997, 2000). Hajer argues that environmental problems are not

physical but are socially constructed issues. Even the terms ‘‘environment’’ and

‘‘impact’’ are subjective concepts, which are socially defined and created as a

result of the interchange of views and perspectives of a variety of societal actors

(Hajer, 1995, pp. 65–67). The way people think about and discuss ‘‘envir-

onmental issues’’ shape both the problems and their solutions. Without a stimulus

and discourse to attract individuals to the broader needs of the community, there

is an absence of collective or community values and individuals will not see

many environmental problems as being of significant importance.

In modern computerized society, discourse generally has failed to form around

the issues that will lead to sustainable environmental protection because of

competing economic and social interests. Judith Green states that there is a lack

of social cohesion and community focus because there is a shortage of fora in

which members of communities can exchange their views and perspectives.

People have become self-focused. Modern conveniences and television have

allowed people to become more independent and to release their dependencies on

others in the community for survival. As a result, there is a lack of discursive

interaction among members of communities and few opportunities in which

discourse can occur and develop (Green, 1999, pp. 202–204).

EIA is an exception. As a forum for discourse, the range of values that

interplay in EIA are critical to the development of vibrant debate (Webler et al.,

1995, p. 445). EIAs are used to support, oppose or mitigate publicly controversial

projects and, as such, discourse is stimulated in which people can espouse their

views and hear and understand the concerns of others (Beattie, 1995, p. 112). In

this regard, the insertion of subjectivity into the process in fact enhances the value

of EIA. Subjectivity accentuates values and highlights the roots of the issues at

stake. By providing a temporary community forum at which various perspectives

and viewpoints can be considered in the decision-making process and in

discourse, EIA helps to promote community values. It provides a starting point


from which community contacts can be made and from which longer-term

environmental discourse can be generated in other fora.

5. Long-term planning

Related to the development of community values is the prioritization of long-

term planning. The principle of sustainable development is premised on long-

term planning. The idea that development should meet the needs of the present

generation without compromising the abilities of future generations to meet their

own needs requires decision-makers to look at social needs over the long term

despite the attractiveness of short-term goals. In modern computerized society in

which political planning does not usually extend beyond the election term and

individualism takes priority over community goals, long-term considerations

such as sustainable development are difficult to achieve. This is apparent in the

commonly used tool of discounting used in cost–analysis analysis. Discounting

is based on the idea that the costs of enjoying benefits today are less than saving

the benefits for the future. The rationale behind discounting is that given

economic growth, future generations will be richer and will receive less value

out of each dollar spent in today’s money. Money is therefore worth more now

than it will be in the future. As such, it is reasonable to discount. The concept is

based also on the idea that productivity of capital means that money discounted

today will grow through investment to a greater amount in the future. Discount-

ing reduces the increased value of future money to what it is worth today.

However, if environmental conditions do not remain constant, then economic

growth expressed in financial terms does not mean that in environmental terms,

people are better off (Jacobs, 1991, pp. 81–82).

This emphasis on the short-term is highlighted by Anthony Giddens. He

writes that modern society has become more open and reflexive than in past

generations resulting in a retreat from custom and tradition in everyday life

(Giddens, 1998, pp. 2, 35–37). Due to the increasing environmental risks that

have evolved from industrialization and technological development, people are

more sensitive to individualistic concerns than to out-dated tradition and custom.

Unfortunately, it is often these traditions and customs that find their roots in the

objectives of maintaining long-term social or community cohesion and planning.

Giddens states that people tend to reflect more today on how institutions and

actions affect them personally and are critical of risk and harm arising from those

institutions (Giddens, 1998, pp. 35–37). As result, the needs of looking toward

the long-term concerns of the community and also of the environment are

overlooked.

The integration of long-term community thinking into everyday decision

making can be shaped and directed through public deliberation and discourse

where environmental concerns are not viewed solely as complements to eco-

nomic and development objectives, but as social imperatives. Giddens writes that


there needs to be a new politics that emphasizes the idea that there are ‘‘no rights

without responsibilities’’ (Giddens, 1998, p. 65). As such, each person should

have an individual responsibility to promote the long-term needs of communities,

which include the protection of the environment and sustainable development.

Giddens’ ideas can be related back to the work of Aldo Leopold who believed

also that human beings must take greater responsibility for their actions and in

how they affect the environment. His focus was on ethics. Leopold believed that

human ethics first evolved regarding relations between human individuals.

Gradually over time, ethics grew to encompass human relations between

individuals and society. Leopold believed that the next step in the evolution of

ethics is the creation of sustainable relations between human beings and a healthy

environment (Leopold, 1966, p. 238).5 He called this new ethic ‘‘the land ethic’’.

However, in effect, this ethic is ingrained long-term planning based on the

prioritization of long-term wealth and security. To achieve long-term wealth and

security, the needs of the environment (upon which humankind relies to achieve

these ends) must be accommodated. In modern computerized society, this land

ethic is missing because people refuse to give the environment a role in society,

but rather focus on their own immediate needs.

To effectively address long-term and community issues, people must

understand environmental problems through social learning and support the

mechanisms used to address those problems. The strengths of EIA as such a

mechanism lie in its qualities of public participation, transparency, promotion

of discourse, social learning and transformation of values. The degree to which

these strengths are recognized depends on the willingness of proponents,

regulators and the public to cooperate and assert the necessary efforts to

achieve results that can have beneficial long-term effects. Effective public

deliberation and decision-making will only occur where social conditions and

institutional arrangements foster the public use of reason allowing free and

open dialogue (Bohman, 1996, p. 238). EIA can provide these conditions. For

an EIA system to facilitate free and open dialogue and promote discourse and

sustainable development, the process must reflect local and cultural attitudes to

decision making, be sensitive to the attitudes and opinions of the people

potentially affected by the project, address the needs of future generations

(Morgan, 1998, p. 51) and provide a forum for social learning. Provided that

these conditions are met, EIA can assist in promoting community decisions and

understanding and over time may affect the values held by individuals as they

are exposed to new experiences and beliefs. However, changes in values do not

occur overnight. They require continual discourse to develop and evolve

beyond the short timeframe of an EIA. EIA provides a rare starting point.

5 Leopold defined an ethic as ‘‘a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence and

the differentiation of social from anti-social conduct’’.


6. Legitimacy: long-term planning as a tool for achieving sustainable

development

The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannes-

burg in August–September 2002 represented an effort by the international

community to foster the implementation of the sustainable development objec-

tives set out in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit’s Agenda 21. After lengthy

negotiations on issues ranging from health, poverty, water, to energy, the State

participants at the WSSD adopted a Plan of Implementation to promote Agenda

21; however, many non-governmental organizations were disappointed by the

relatively small number of strict timetables and deadlines in the Plan. There

appeared to be a lack of political will on the part of delegates to commit to strict

obligations furthering the objectives of sustainable development.

This stagnation in the fostering of sustainable development is not restricted to

the international level. The efficacy of legal solutions to social, economic and

environmental problems, such as those connected to the WSSD, depends on the

degree of acceptance they achieve within society generally. If a rule is not seen as

legitimate by the people in society at large, the legal device will either not be

obeyed or will persist for only a temporary period of time. The annual fuel tax

escalator in the UK, which was directed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, is a

case in point. In 2000, after public protests over increased petrol prices caused by

the tax, the UK Government abandoned it. This change in policy is an example of

a legal tool addressed to curb a social harm, which was not publicly viewed as

legitimate and thus soon perished. Legal solutions in modern democratic society

will survive only as long as their legitimacy holds true.

To improve the legitimacy of a process or principle, the values of the actors

must be made transparent so that vibrant discourse can take place. Public

participation and transparency aid this objective. In terms of sustainable devel-

opment, its legitimacy will not be secured unless social actors adopt the values

necessary to allow the principle’s goals to be achieved. For sustainable devel-

opment to occur, social values must evolve through discourse to the point where

the public accepts and recognizes the importance of long-term planning as

opposed to short-term thinking. The mechanisms of accountability, transparency

and public participation in EIA provide it with the means to foster discourse and

social learning that can push social values toward a more long-term focus. Thus,

through discourse (and the changing values that it can produce), EIA may

legitimize sustainable development.

The opportunities for subjectivity in EIA may allow proponents, assessors and

public authorities to lose sight of long-term environmental considerations and

concentrate more on cost–benefit analysis and the practical considerations

relating to short time frames and financial limitations. However, public participa-

tion within the EIA process allows other perspectives—those of stakeholders and

non-governmental organizations—to be expressed and exchanged to counter this

trend and inspire the development of discourse. Seen as a source for discourse,


subjectivity in EIA becomes an important tool for achieving sustainable devel-

opment by securing the integration of the views of various stakeholders into the

debate and by invigorating the development of values. If EIA is a process to bring

community planning in line with changing public values, then it is a valuable and

legitimate tool in itself.

7. Conclusions

Uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the EIA process. However, by

subjective decision making throughout the various stages of the process,

assessors have caused the image of the EIA process to suffer. The effects of

personal value judgments are reflected in the politicized evaluations, narrow

boundaries, data gaps and simplified assumptions that are found in EIAs both in

developed and developing states. The key to improving public confidence in the

process is through public participation and the development of the discourse and

social learning that it creates.

Subjectivity in EIA is an important source of discourse by which social values

fostering sustainable development may be inspired. To achieve the long-term

objectives of sustainable development, social values must change toward a long-

term focus. As a forum for discourse, EIA provides the tools by which changes in

social values may evolve. Thus, the value of EIA may not solely lie in its

predictive capacities (or lack thereof), but in its role as a mechanism for

promoting sustainable development and social learning. Examined in this light,

the legitimacy of the process is not in its assessment results, but in its abilities to

promote public participation, transparency, discourse and sustainable devel-

opment. The legitimacy of EIA, therefore, partly lies in the subjective basis

upon which it is rooted.

References

Alberta Wilderness Association, et al. v. Cardinal River Coals Ltd., 1999. 3 F.C. 425 [F.C.T.D.].

Beattie RB. Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit). EIA Review

1995;15(2):109–14.

Berkes F. The intrinsic difficulty of predicting impacts: lessons from the James Bay hydro project. EIA

Review 1988;8(3):201–20.

Bohman J. Public deliberation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1996.

Bojorquez-Tapia LA, Garcia O. An approach for evaluating EIAs—deficiencies of EIA in Mexico.

EIA Review 1998;18(3):217–40.

Buckley R.. Precision in EIA prediction, Canberra: centre for resource and environmental studies.

Canberra: Australian National University, 1989.

Conover SA, et al. An Evolving framework for environmental impact analysis. Journal of Environ-

mental Management 1985;21:343–58.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA). Good practice in environmen-

tal assessment: notes from the environmental forum conference. London: CIRIA; 1995.


Culhane P, et al. Forecasts and environmental decision-making: the content and predictive accuracy of

EISs. Boulder: Westview Press; 1987.

De Jongh P. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment: theory and

practice. London: Allen and Unwin; 1988.

Dryzek J. The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1997.

Dryzek J. Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 2000.

Essex Planning Officers Association. Environmental assessment: the way forward. Chelmsford: Essex

County Council; 1995.

Giddens A. The third way. Oxford: Polity Press; 1998.

Gilpin A. EIA: cutting edge for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1995.

Glasson J, et al. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: principles and procedures, process,

practice and prospects. London: UCL Press; 1994.

Green J. Deep democracy: community, diversity and transformation. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield;

1999.

Hajer M. The politics of environmental discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1995.

Hirji R, Ortolano L. EIA effectiveness and mechanisms of control: case studies of water resources

development in Kenya. Water Resources Development 1991;7(3):154–67.

Irland L. Wilderness economics and policy. Lexington (MA): Lexington Books; 1984.

Jacobs M. The green economy: environment, sustainable development and the politics of the future.

London: Pluto; 1991.

Jones M, Greig L. Adaptive environmental assessment and management: a new approach to environ-

mental impact assessment. In: Maclaren VW, Whitney JB, editors. New Directions in Environ-

mental Impact Assessment in Canada. Toronto: Methuen; 1985. pp. 21–42.

Kontic B. Why are some experts more credible than others? Environmental Impact Assessment Re-

view 2000;20(4):427–34.

Lawrence DP. Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: a false dichotomy? EIA Review 1993;

13(1):3–11.

Lee N. Environmental impact assessment: a training guide. Occasional Paper 18, Department of

Planning and Landscape. Manchester: University of Manchester; 1989.

Leopold A. A sand county Almanac. New York: Oxford Univ. Press; 1966.

Modak P, Biswas AK. Conducting environmental impact assessment in developing countries. New

York: U.N. Press; 1999.

Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment: a methodological perspective. London: Kluwer; 1998.

Munn RE. Environmental impact assessment: principles and procedure. Chichester: Wiley; 1979.

New Zealand Ministry of the Environment. Scoping of environmental effects. Wellington: Ministry for

the Environment; 1992.

RCEP. Setting standards. London: HMSO; 1999.

Shopley JB, Fuggle RF. A comprehensive review of current EIA methods and techniques. Journal of

Environmental Management 1984;18:25–47.

Sierra Club v. Morton. 405 US 727; 1972.

Wandesforde-Smith G, Kerbavaz J. The co-evolution of politics and policy: elections, entrepreneur-

ship and EIA in the United States. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact assessment: theory

and practice. London: Allen and Unwin; 1988.

Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O. Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning per-

spective. EIA Review 1995;15(3):443–63.

Hugh Wilkins has a background in International Environmental Law. He studied Law at Queen’s

University, Canada and at the London School of Economics. Mr. Wilkins is the Managing Editor of

the Review of European Community and International Environmental Law (RECIEL), a writer for the

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and a policy consultant for WWF International.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author. They do not represent the views of

RECIEL, ENB or WWF International.

Documents

The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development