Skip to main content

Integrating Multilevel Adaptive Models to Develop Systematic, Transparent, and Participatory EIA Practice

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Data Science and Intelligent Systems (CoMeSySo 2021)

Abstract

European Directive 85/337/EC introduced Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a process governed by administrative rules with the aim of reducing environmental degradation and associated health problems generated by projects. Generally, the EIA process involves analyses and evaluations of the potential impacts that human activities may have on the environment by considering approaches such as the precautionary principle, prevention of conflicts, loss of natural resources, and environmental degradation. EIA influences decision-making at local, national, and transboundary levels, with the following overall objectives: potentially screen out environmentally harmful projects, predict significant adverse impacts, suggest measures to reduce or prevent major impacts, identify feasible alternatives, and engage communities or individuals potentially affected by the implementation of the project. Several issues obstructing the proper implementation of the EIA process are common in developing countries: low quality of assessment reports, lack of public participation, insufficient equipment, and trained staff, inadequate institutional framework, and low cooperation between policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders. The number of research studies focused on the investigation of EIA collaboration process through network analysis and multilevel adaptive models is worryingly limited, considering that the implementation of EIA procedures is deficient in most developing countries, and the contribution of science that envisages the collaboration between the actors involved to the process is minor at best. This paper aims to use Multilevel Network Reification to create Higher-order Adaptive Network Models. The results of multilevel network analysis will contribute to reshape impact assessment procedures and create opportunities for better communication and transparency between practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Therefore, integrating Multilevel Adaptive Models in EIA helps to raise the policy efficiency and define the dynamic interplay between EIA actors and diagnose the organizational structures that strongly influence this procedure. Thus, by using an adaptive computational network model, we aim to understand the roles of each actor and the connections established in different EIA networks. The findings will provide innovative information to find solutions and design a collaborative EIA procedure to improve projects under evaluation considering the current threats to society and the environment.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gavrilidis, A.-A., Nita, A., Niculae, M.-I.: Assessing the potential conflict occurrence due to metropolitan transportation planning: a proposed quantitative approach. Sustainability 12 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020527

  2. Toro, J., Requena, I., Duarte, O., Zamorano, M.: A qualitative method proposal to improve environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 9–20 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kolhoff, A.J., Driessen, P.P.J., Runhaar, H.A.C.: Overcoming low EIA performance - a diagnostic tool for the deliberate development of EIA system capacities in low and middle income countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 68, 98–108 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dangi, M.B., Fernandez, D., Born, U.B., Belbase, S., Kaphle, R.: Evaluation of environmental impact assessment report preparation and public participation in landfill projects in Nepal. Habitat Int. 46, 72–81 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.10.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hasan, M.A., Nahiduzzaman, K.M., Aldosary, A.S.: Public participation in EIA: a comparative study of the projects run by government and non-governmental organizations. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 72, 12–24 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Niţă, A., Buttler, A., Rozylowicz, L., Pătru-Stupariu, I.: Perception and use of landscape concepts in the procedure of environmental impact assessment: case study—Switzerland and Romania. Land Policy 44, 145–152 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berardo, R., Alcaniz, I., Hadden, J., Jasny, L.: Policy networks and environmental governance. In: Victor, J.N., Montgomery, A.H., Lubell, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. European Commission. Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects: Rulings of the Court of Justice, 72 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Khosravi, F., Jha-Thakur, U., Fischer, T.B.: Evaluation of the environmental impact assessment system in Iran. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 74, 63–72 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nita, A.: Empowering impact assessments knowledge and international research collaboration - a bibliometric analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 78, 106283 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106283

  11. Bratman, E., Dias, C.B.: Development blind spots and environmental impact assessment: tensions between policy, law and practice in Brazil’s Xingu river basin. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 70, 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Li, W., Liu, J., Li, D.: Getting their voices heard: three cases of public participation in environmental protection in China. J. Environ. Manage. 98, 65–72 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.12.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nita, A., Ciocanea, C.M., Manolache, S., Rozylowicz, L.: A network approach for understanding opportunities and barriers to effective public participation in the management of protected areas. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 8(1), 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-018-0509-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jha-Thakur, U., Fischer, T.B.: 25years of the UK EIA system: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 61, 19–26 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Simpson, N.P., Basta, C.: Sufficiently capable for effective participation in environmental impact assessment? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 70, 57–70 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hodgson, I.D., Redpath, S.M., Fischer, A., Young, J.: Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts. J. Environ. Manage. 231, 1065–1075 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Treur, J.: Dynamic modeling based on a temporal–causal network modeling approach. Biol. Inspired Cogn. Archit. 16, 131–168 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bica.2016.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wood, G., Glasson, J., Becker, J.: EIA scoping in England and Wales: practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26, 221–241 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Commu, C., Theelen, M., Treur, J.: Modeling enabling learning of social interaction based on an adaptive temporal-causal network model. Neurocomputing 338, 349–360 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2018.05.127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Llopis-Albert, C., Palacios-Marques, D., Soto-Acosta, P.: Decision-making and stakeholders’ constructive participation in environmental projects. J. Bus. Res. 68, 1641–1644 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hossu, C.A., Ioja, I.C., Susskind, L.E., Badiu, D.L., Hersperger, A.M.: Factors driving collaboration in natural resource conflict management: evidence from Romania. Ambio 47(7), 816–830 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1016-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Crossley, N., Bellotti, E., Edwards, G., Koskinen, J., Tranmer, M., Everett, M.: Social network analysis for ego-nets, p. 208 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Barabási, A.-L.: The Formula: The Science Behind Why People Succeed or Fail. Macmillan (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bodin, O.: Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357, eaan1114 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114

  25. Armitage, D.R.: Collaborative environmental assessment in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25, 239–258. (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.012

  26. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G.: Network analysis of 2-mode data. Soc. Netw. 19, 243–269 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00301-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brandes, U., Erlebach, T.: Network Analysis - Methodological Foundations – Introduction, 1st edn. LNCS, vol. 3418 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/b106453

  28. Bodin, O., et al.: Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol. Soc. 21, 40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5751/Es-08368-210140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bodin, Ö., et al.: Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat. Sustain. 2, 551–559 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0308-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Manolache, S., et al.: Governance networks around grasslands with contrasting management history. J. Environ. Manage. 273, 111152 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111152

  31. Bonacich, P.: Power and centrality - a family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 92, 1170–1182 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1086/228631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Leydesdorff, L.: Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J. Informetr. 6, 403–412 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gao, Z., Liu, R., Ullah, N.: A temporal-causal network model for age and gender difference in choice of emotion regulation strategies. In: Nguyen, N.T, Chbeir, R., Exposito, E., Aniorté, P., Trawiński, B. (eds.) ICCCI 2019. LNCS, vol. 11683, pp. 106–117. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28377-3_9

  34. Ullah, N., Gao, Z., Liu, R., Treur, J.: A second-order adaptive temporal-causal network model for age and gender differences in evolving choice of emotion regulation strategies. J. Inf. Telecommun. 4, 213–228 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/24751839.2020.1724738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Treur, J.: Network-Oriented Modeling for Adaptive Networks: Designing Higher-Order Adaptive Biological, Mental and Social Network Models. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, pp. 3–24. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31445-3

  36. Mitincu, C.-G., et al.: Licensing sustainability related aspects in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Evidence from Romania’s urban areas. Land Policy 108 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105572

  37. Gavrilidis, A.A., Niță, M.R., Onose, D.A., Badiu, D.L., Năstase, I.I.: Methodological framework for urban sprawl control through sustainable planning of urban green infrastructure. Ecol. Indic. 96, 67–78 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.054

Download references

Acknowledgment

AN and LR were supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research (https://uefiscdi.gov.ro), PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-1039.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreea Nita .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Specification of the Adaptive Model by Role Matrices

Appendix: Specification of the Adaptive Model by Role Matrices

In this section, the full specification of the model is provided in terms of role matrices, which is the standard format used for design of a model and which can also be used as input for the software environment. Each role matrix has three color blocks that match the colors in the graphical representation used earlier: pink for the base level, blue for the first-order self-model states and purple for the second-order self-model states.

Connectivity Characteristics Role Matrices

The first role matrix mb (see Table 3) represents the base connections between all the states, as presented in the graphical representation in Fig. 1. For example, row 4 with state NGO (also indicated by X4) has five incoming connections from X4, X1, X2, X7, X9, which are NGO itself, D, PA, LP, and ME. Role matrix mcw (see Table 4) shows the weights ω of the connections presented in role matrix mb. There is a difference in nonadaptive (green) and adaptive connections (peach-red). For example, in row 2 for state PA with ten incoming connections, there are two non-adaptive connection weights with vales (0.5 for the connection from X1 and 1 for the connection from X21, as can be seen in role matrix mb) and 8 adaptive connection weights. The latter 8 ones are represented by states X13 (i.e., WD,PA, a first-order self-model state), and similarly, the other self-model states X14 to X20.

Table 3. Role matrix mb for base connectivity.

Aggregation Characteristics Role Matrices

Role matrix mcfw (see Table 5) specifies which combination function is used for each state. For example, states X1 to X10 and X21 use the combination function alogistic, which is indicated by a combination function weight γ of 1 in the first column. Role matrix mcfp (see Table 6) defines the exact parameters used for each state and function.

Table 4. Role matrix mcw for base connectivity.
Table 5. Role matrix mcfw for combination function weights.
Table 6. Role matrix mcfp for combination function weights.

Timing Characteristics Role Matrix and Initial Values

The speed factors ηY are specified in role matrix ms; see Table 7.

Table 7. Role matrix ms for speed factors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nita, A., Treur, J., Rozylowicz, L. (2021). Integrating Multilevel Adaptive Models to Develop Systematic, Transparent, and Participatory EIA Practice. In: Silhavy, R., Silhavy, P., Prokopova, Z. (eds) Data Science and Intelligent Systems. CoMeSySo 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 231. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90321-3_81

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics