IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v64y2021i11p1940-1962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why are projects rarely rejected in environmental impact assessments? Narratives of justifiability in Brazilian and Canadian review reports

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Fonseca
  • Robert B. Gibson

Abstract

Projects that undergo environmental impact assessment (EIA) are rarely rejected. Online registries and anecdotal evidence suggest that authorities approve almost all proposed and assessed projects, though often with mitigation requirements. The objective of this study was: 1) to identify the rules or criteria that reviewers and authorities must observe when considering the acceptance or rejection of projects; and 2) to understand how rare cases of rejection decisions are justified by reviewers. Data were collected through literature and regulatory reviews, and content analysis of review reports related to five Canadian and seven Brazilian rejected projects. Reviewers from Canada and Brazil adopted similar approaches to decision-making based on qualitative reasoning. Rejection recommendations were based on reasons, such as significance of biophysical impacts, sensitivity of locations and community values. The influence of reviewers’ recommendations on final decisions remains unknown. The study highlights practical implications and calls for greater transparency and rigor in EIA decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Fonseca & Robert B. Gibson, 2021. "Why are projects rarely rejected in environmental impact assessments? Narratives of justifiability in Brazilian and Canadian review reports," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(11), pages 1940-1962, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:64:y:2021:i:11:p:1940-1962
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1852073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09640568.2020.1852073
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2020.1852073?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jenpmg:v:64:y:2021:i:11:p:1940-1962. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    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.