Abstract
Over 40 years of diffusion worldwide, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has acquired an authoritative governance script that says that part of the decision-making process about the licensing or the funding of territorial development projects can be delegated to the instrument. Inscribed in applicable planning and development (hard and soft) law, regulations, and general technical reference documents, EIA affords its use for legitimizing and challenging decisions where a balance between competing environmental and developmental interests is to be struck. Initially associated with information provision for ecologically rational planning, EIAs became enshrined as a means, and ultimately a condition, for the substantiation of sustainable development and participatory governance, whatever these may mean (Cashmore et al. 2007).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Akrich, M. (1992) ‘The De-Scription of Technical Objects’, in Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press), 205–224.
Baya-Laffite, N. (2008) ‘University and Local Government in Metropolitan Environmental Management’, International Social Science Journal, 59(193–194), 381–396.
Baya-Laffite, N. (2015) Gouverner le développement durable. Évaluation d’impact environnemental et meilleures techniques disponibles dans le conflit des usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay, PhD dissertation (Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales).
Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds.) (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press).
Callon, M. (2001) ‘Actor Network Theory’, in Smelser N. J and Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Oxford: Pergamon), 62–66.
Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So’, in Knorr Cetina, K. and Cicourel, A. V. (eds.) Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro-sociologies (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul), 277–303.
Cashmore, M., Bond, A., and Cobb, D. (2007) ‘The Contribution of Environmental Assessment to Sustainable Development: Toward a Richer Empirical Understanding’, Environmental Management, 40(3), 516–530.
Cashmore, M. et al. (2010) ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Impact Assessment Instruments: Theorising the Nature and Implications of Their Political Constitution’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(6), 371–379.
Feldman, M. S. and March, J. G. (1981) ‘Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186.
Glasson, J. (2008) ‘Principles and Purposes of Standards and Thresholds in the EIA Process’, in Schmidt, M. et al. (eds.) Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment. Environmental Protection in the European Union (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag), 3–17.
Goldman, M. (2006) Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization (New Haven and London: Yale University Press).
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., and Thornton, D. (2004) ‘Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go beyond Compliance’, Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307–341.
Hironaka, A. (2002) ‘The Globalization of Environmental Protection: The Case of Environmental Impact Assessment’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(1), 65–78.
Holder, J. (2006) Environmental Assessment: The Regulation of Decision Making (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Jasanoff, S. (2004) ‘Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society’, in Jasanoff, S. (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (London and New York: Routledge), 13–45.
Lascoumes, P. and Le Galès, P. (eds.) (2005) Gouverner par les instruments (Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po).
Lawrence, P. (2009) ‘Equator Principles: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Sustainability’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(1), 3–6.
Manorom, K. (2007) ‘People’s EIA: A Mechanism for Grassroots Participation in Environmental Decision-making’ Watershed, 12(1), 26–30.
Milazzo, P. C. (2006) Unlikely Environmentalists: Congress and Clean Water, 1945–1972 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas).
Modak, P. and Biswas, A. K. (1999) Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries (New York: United Nations University Press).
Segger, M.-C. C. (2009) ‘Sustainable Development in the Courts: The Role of International Forums in the Advancement of Sustainable Development’, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 10, 4–69.
Snell, T. and Cowell, R. (2006) ‘Scoping in Environmental Impact Assessment: Balancing Precaution and Efficiency?’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4), 359–376.
Strathern, M. (2000) ‘The Tyranny of Transparency’, British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321.
Voß, J.-P. and Simons, A. (2014) ‘Instrument Constituencies and the Supply Side of Policy Innovation: The Social Life of Emissions Trading’, Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754.
Woolgar, S. (1990) ‘Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials’, The Sociological Review, 38(1), 58–99.
Wynne, B. (2010) Rationality and Ritual: Participation and Exclusion in Nuclear Decision-Making (London and Washington, DC: Routledge).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 Nicolas Baya-Laffite
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baya-Laffite, N. (2016). Black-boxing Sustainable Development: Environmental Impact Assessment on the River Uruguay. In: Voß, JP., Freeman, R. (eds) Knowing Governance. Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514509_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137514509_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-56476-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51450-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)