IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v64y2019i2d10.1007_s00267-019-01182-7.html

Response to Critique of “The Insignificance of Thresholds in Environmental Impact Assessment: An Illustrative Case Study in Canada”

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald G. Singh

    (University of British Columbia, Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, Institute for Oceans and Fisheries)

  • Jackie Lerner

    (University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)

  • Cathryn Clarke Murray

    (University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)

  • Janson Wong

    (University of British Columbia, Forest Sciences Centre)

  • Megan Mach

    (Center for Ocean Solutions)

  • Bernardo Ranieri

    (University of British Columbia, Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, Institute for Oceans and Fisheries)

  • Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent

    (University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)

  • Alice Guimaraes

    (University of British Columbia, Norman B Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering)

  • Kai M. A. Chan

    (University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability)

Abstract

Our paper, “The Insignificance of Thresholds in Environmental Impact Assessment: An Illustrative Case Study in Canada” received a critique that challenged us on a number of grounds. Namely, that we defame EIA practitioners, that we advocate EIAs to become a scientific enterprise, that we do not recognize the complexity inherent in EIA, and that EIA undergo an independent assessment by regulators. We respond to all of these points, and argue that conflict of interest is an institutional issue (not one of corrupt practitioners), and that we critique the science that forms the basis of evidence in EIA. Further, we show that the complexity and uncertainty in the critique cannot explain the findings from our paper that all cases of impact threshold exceedance were determined to be not significant in EIA. Finally, we compare the significance determinations in proponent reports to final regulator decisions and determine that they are overwhelmingly identical (93–95%). Regulators are financially independent of proponents, but their decisions on significant are heavily dependent on the information and analysis provided by the proponent reports. As regulators rely on these reports, environmental impact assessments must be based on rigorous and transparent analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald G. Singh & Jackie Lerner & Cathryn Clarke Murray & Janson Wong & Megan Mach & Bernardo Ranieri & Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Alice Guimaraes & Kai M. A. Chan, 2019. "Response to Critique of “The Insignificance of Thresholds in Environmental Impact Assessment: An Illustrative Case Study in Canada”," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 133-137, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:64:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-019-01182-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s00267-019-01182-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00267-019-01182-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00267-019-01182-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:64:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-019-01182-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.