Conditional criteria for identifying effective subnational environmental impact assessments in federalist systems

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Loomis, John James
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Positivo; Brasil; Pós-Graduação; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão Ambiental; UP
• Palavras-chave em Português: Environmental management; Environmental impact analysis - Paraná (Brazil : State); Environmental impact analysis - California; CNPQ::CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS; CNPQ::ENGENHARIAS::ENGENHARIA SANITARIA
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/2534

Environmental impact assessments (EIA) remain a principal tool of sustainable development throughout the world, yet they are routinely criticized for poor practice and lack of effectiveness. Most of the scientific literature focuses on national level EIA systems, yet often EIA is implemented at the regional and local levels. This study evaluates the effectiveness of EIA systems administered at the subnational level across two federalist countries: Paraná, Brazil and California, United States. While continually evolving, the scientific literature has established four dimensions of effectiveness in EIA: procedural, substantive, transactive, and normative effectiveness. This study proposed a fifth dimension entitled transformative effectiveness. The conditions, based upon a literature review, that are either necessary or sufficient for these effectiveness dimensions in the case studies are evaluated via fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). The relative importance of each effectiveness dimension is evaluated via the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Data were obtained by reviewing the scientific literature, document analysis, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews with four major stakeholder groups (the regulatory authority, project proponents, non-governmental organizations, and the scientific, academic, and consulting community). The study found that the normative (Paraná) and the substantive (California) effectiveness dimensions ranked highest for stakeholders. Public participation was found to be a necessary condition for both of these dimensions, while early project definition was found to be a sufficient condition for substantive effectiveness and a necessary condtion for normative effectiveness. Stakeholder coordination was found to be a sufficient condition for both dimensions. While transactive effectiveness consistently ranked lowest, efforts to streamline EIA processes, happening in both case studies at the time of writing, should focus on means of standardizing procedures and integrating public participation earlier into the process (screening and scoping phases) instead of focusing on arbitrary timelines. Using the fsQCA method, procedural effectiveness’ presence was highest across the two cases, and it ranked fourth in California and second in Paraná via AHP. This suggests that as EIA systems develop, stakeholders are able to begin to consider more challenging aspects of EIA such as substantive and normative dimensions. Neither case shows a strong presence of transformative effectiveness and therefore all conditions were identified as necessary. The study conludes that the scientific literature should shift its focus more towards understanding how substantive and normative aspects of EIA can be better implemented.