Skip to main content
Log in

Uncertainty and values: The case of environmental impact assessment

  • Published:
Knowledge and Policy

Abstract

The increasing complexity of policy issues, as well as the centering of environmental issues in the policy arena, has led to an increased dependence on science in public policy. This has, in turn, led to increased attention to, among other things, the science-policy relationship and the way in which scientific uncertainty is treated in the public sphere. This article examines both problems in the field of environmental impact assessment (EIA). Our study reveals that, apart from the epistemic uncertainty concerned with the predictive capability of scientific theories, EIA brings additional components of uncertainty and challenges for the policymaker. We further confirm recent findings with respect to the inadequacy of the traditional rational model to account for extant science-policy relationships. The article also posits an alternative model that allows one to unpack the processual components of the science-policy relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albæk, E. (1995). Between knowledge and power: Utilization of social science in public policy making.Policy Sciences 28:79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asian Development Bank. (1993). Summary environmental impact assessment: Liaoning expressway, (Tieling-Siping Section) Liaoning province, People’s Republic of China. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994). Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice, part 1.Global Environmental Change 4 2:140–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (1985). Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts.Social Studies of Science 15:429–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canter, L.W. (1983).Environmental impact assessment: Current status and future directions. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B.D., Bisset, R. & Wathern, P. (1980).Environmental impact assessment. London: Mansell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culhane, P.J. (1987). The precision and accuracy of US environmental impact statements.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 8, 3:217–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G.S. and Muller, F.G. (1983). A handbook on environmental impact assessment for use in developing countries, Nairobi, Kenya. Report submitted to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

  • Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. (1988). Manual on public involvement in environmental assessment, Hull, Quebec, Canada.

  • Fogelman, V. (1993). Toward a stronger national policy on environment.Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 8, 2:79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg, W.R. (1992). Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general public: Expertise and errorr in the assessments of risks. In: S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.)Social theories of risk. London, Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friesema, H.P. (1982). The scientific content of environmental impact statements: Workshop conclusions. In: L.K. Caldwell, R.V. Bartlett, D.E. Parker & D.L. Keys (Eds.)A study to improve the scientific content and methodology of environmental impact analysis. Bloomington, IN: Bloomington Advanced Studies in Science, Technology and Public Affairs, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S.O. & Ravetz, J.R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. (Eds.)Social theories of risk. London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gariepy, M. and Henault, F. (1994). Environmental assessment and organizational culture: The case of two major developers: Hydro-Quebec and the Ministry of Transport. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment, 14–18 June 1994, Quebec City, Canada.

  • Goodland, R. & Edmundson, V. (Eds.) (1994). Environmental assessment and development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J.A. and Gray, P.J. (1977). The Berger report: Its impact on northern pipelines and decisionmaking in northern development.Canadian Public Policy 3, 4:509–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, B.F. (1985). Choosing how to chose: Comparing amalgamation methods for environmental impact assessment.Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5:301–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, R. et al. (1993).Environmental assessment. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science.Social Studies of Science, 17 2:195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990).The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. (1971).A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C.E. (1980).The policy-making process. Englewood Hills, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litfin, K.T. (1994).Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M.G., & Henrion, M. (1992).Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, R.E. (1979).Environmental impact analysis: Principles and procedures, 2d ed. SCOPE REPORT No. 5. UK: Wiley. Cited in Wathern, P., (Ed.) (1995).Environmental impact assessment: Theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortolano, L. & Sheperd, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment. In: F. Vanclay & D.A. Bronstein Eds.Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. (1995). Public involvement: From consultation to participation. In: F. Vanclay & D.A. Bronstein (Eds.)Environmental and social impact assessment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1957).Models of man. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1983).Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonehouse, J.M. & Mumford, J.D. (1995). Science, risk analysis and environmental policy decisions.Environment and trade. Vol. 5, Switzerland: UNEP Environment and Trade Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L.E. (1983). The uses of negotiation and mediation in environmental impact assessment. In: F.A. Rossini & A.L. Porter (Eds.)Integrated impact assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. (1986). Uncertainty arguments in environmental issues.Environmental Ethics, 8 1:59–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu, S.L. (1993). Environmental impact assessment implementation in Taiwan and Thailand—A comparative organizational examination of state-owned power companies. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, A. (1972). Science and trans-science.Minerva, 10:209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1979).Speaking truth to power. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wondolleck, J. (1985). The importance of process in resolving environmental disputes.Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5:341–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1982). Rationality and ritual: The windscale inquiry and nuclear decision in Britain. Monograph no. 3, British Society for the History of Science, Chalfont St. Giles, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1989). Frameworks of rationality in risk management: Towards the testing of naive sociology. In: J. Brown (Ed.)Environmental threats. London: Belhaven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, S.C. (1990). Acid rain as a social, political and scientific controversy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hellström, T., Jacob, M. Uncertainty and values: The case of environmental impact assessment. Knowledge and Policy 9, 70–84 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832234

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02832234

Keywords

Navigation