Editorial 1

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/307590691
Impact Assessment Research – achievements, gaps and future directions
Article in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · March 2015
CITATIONS READS
15 2,772
1 author:
Thomas B. Fischer
University of Liverpool
235 PUBLICATIONS 4,333 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reuniting planning and health: tackling the implementation gaps in evidence, governance and knowledge View project
envisage-cc View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas B. Fischer on 26 June 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
Vol. 17, No. 1 (March 2015) 1501001 (12 pages)
© Imperial College Press
DOI: 10.1142/S1464333215010012
IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESEARCH: ACHIEVEMENTS,

GAPS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Introduction to the March 2015 Special Issue of the Journal

J. Env. Assmt. Pol. Mgmt. 2015.17. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

by UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL on 06/11/15. For personal use only.
THOMAS B. FISCHER
University of Liverpool, UK
BRAM NOBLE
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Published 13 April 2015
Welcome to this special JEAPM issue on impact assessment (IA) research, which —
besides this introductory paper — includes 16 short papers contributed by a wide range of
leading IA researchers from around the world. These papers provide for an overview of
achievements, gaps and future directions for IA research. The collection of papers is the
outcome of a targeted call to researchers representing a wide range of IA areas and regions.
This has resulted in what we believe is an impressive compilation of contributions on
environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA), health
impact assessment (HIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) as well as theoretical, applied
and normative aspects of IA, with a particular focus on sustainable development from
European, North and South American, Asian, African and Australian authors.
Keywords: Impact Assessment; Research; EIA; SEA; HIA; SIA.
Introduction
Impact assessment research and practice have advanced in recent decades, and
scholars have addressed a diversity of issues that are of significance to both theory
and practice across a broad range of IA topics. At the same time, some fields of IA
research, including some IA-specific tools, perhaps remain underdeveloped and
1501001-1
T. B. Fischer & B. Noble
slow to be taken up in practice. We believe that it is time to examine the state of IA

research in order to identify enduring and emerging research needs, and under-
stand better how to improve the effectiveness of IA. The papers that follow in this
special issue of JEAPM have resulted from a call, which had been sent to a
selected number of leading IA researchers from all continents. The call for papers
asked authors to reflect on achievements, gaps and future directions in IA research.
Subsequently, first the original call is presented, which had been distributed at the
beginning of October 2014. This is followed by a brief overview of all papers.
Finally, conclusions are drawn and recommendations are provided for future
IA research.
The Call
Ex-ante assessments of impacts from policies, plans, programmes and projects
have been conducted for about half a century. Their formalisation started on the
basis of the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which introduced
environmental assessment (EA) for Federal actions on 1 January 1970. Subse-
quently, EA for planning of projects (environmental impact assessment — EIA)
spread all over the world. EIA is now a formally required decision support in-
strument in nearly all global jurisdictions (Fischer and Nadeem, 2014). Further-
more, EA for policy, plan and programme making (strategic environmental
assessment — SEA) has also been increasingly applied, particularly since the
publication of the European so called SEA Directive in 2000. SEA is now a formal
requirement in well over 50 countries (Fischer, 2014). The maturing of EA over
the past 45 years has been accompanied by the development of other ex-ante
assessment tools (see, Vanclay, 2004) that aim at a better consideration of, for
example, social and health impacts (Vanclay, 2003; Birley, 2011), sustainability
(Gibson et al., 2005), biodiversity (Treweek, 1995), cumulative effects (Noble,
2008), climate change (Sok et al., 2011) and other aspects in decision making.
Impact Assessments (IAs) are applied in practice 100 s of 1000 s of times every
year throughout the world.
Whilst there is therefore some extensive IA practice in most countries glob-
ally, only a fraction of that practice is critically reviewed. Empirical IA research
can be seen as having remained underdeveloped. In this context, it is of particular
importance that funding for IA research appears to be difficult to obtain (Fischer
and Onyango, 2012). The reasons for this have not yet been fully explored, but
1501001-2
Impact Assessment Research: Achievements, Gaps and Future Directions
there are indications that they may be particularly connected with three issues, as
follows:
(1) Whilst IA is slowly becoming a — professional and academic — discipline in

its own right, academic funders still tend to favour traditional subjects, despite
a strong inter- and multidisciplinary rhetoric.
(2) There doesn’t appear to be much appetite amongst politicians, policy and
other decision makers to fund research which may help make IA more ef-
fective, therefore leading to a potentially better understanding of the impacts
of their decisions. In part, this may be because a clearer understanding of the
consequences of decisions may mean an increased liability.

(3) Some of the more established disciplines, such as Geography, Policy Analysis,
and Planning, tend to carefully watch their “turf”, whilst others engage little in
“practice-based” research. This may result in a number of problems, not least
in personal academic and research careers being held back by focusing on IA.
Despite this difficult overall context, and as a consequence a relatively slow uptake
of empirical IA research in general, based on what has been achieved to date there
clearly has been some progress in furthering our understanding of what makes
IA effective (Fischer and Onyango, 2012; Chanchitpricha and Bond, 2013). The
emerging picture isn’t necessarily consistent, though, with interpretations of
results sometimes going in opposite directions (see, for example, the discussions
on “post-modern” versus “rational” IA approaches; Kørnøv and Thissen, 2000;
Runhaar and Driessen, 2007; Fischer, 2003). Furthermore, results generated on
specific IA tools are not necessarily well-known outside a small community of
researchers advocating a particular tool. There is a danger of reinventing the wheel
many times over.
For these reasons, the editors believe it is high time to take stock of IA research
to date in order to achieve a better grasp of achievements and gaps. In this special
issue of JEAPM this is approached through invited statements by international
renowned experts of various IA tools. Experts were asked to consider, though not
necessarily respond to all of the following questions:
. What areas of IA application overall are comparatively well covered and what
are current gaps? This includes, for example, the sectors and systems (countries,
regions) within which IA is applied, assessment processes and methods, IA
theory, case studies, and normative guidance.
. How extensively has a particular IA instrument been researched? How much
research — and student dissertations — has happened? Has there been a god
mix of approaches used in this context?
1501001-3
. What has been learned (based on what type of research) in terms of what makes
the instrument effective?
. Have there been examples of what IA applications can be considered good
practice and why?
. What are the biggest barriers to IA research?
. What is the relationship of normative versus empirically (i.e. research) — led
approaches in the preparation of IA guidelines and application principles?
. Are there any major IA research endeavours under way at the moment?
. Where are currently the major gaps in IA research?
. What needs the most urgent attention in future research endeavours?
The Papers
The papers, contributed by 23 authors from 16 different countries, address a range
of IA research issues. Many of the papers reflect on country-specific IA research,
though capture issues of international research relevance. Some papers address
more specific IA tools, whilst others reflect on broader IA research issues and
directions. The first paper is from Frank Vanclay (University of Groningen, the
Netherlands), who provides an overview of the plethora of terms used to describe
different types of IAs. Using Google searches, he identified over 150 different
terms. Reflecting on an earlier study from 2003, he remarks that “several new
forms [of IA have] appear[…]ed since” then. This is accompanied by a “32 fold
increase in the number of hits for “impact assessment” which is now over 12
million. The author uses information about the “relative popularity” of terms “to
discuss issues and trends in the broad field of impact assessment”. Three aspects
put forward by Vanclay are of particular importance for future IA research, namely
that: (1) “impact assessment is becoming much more integrated with project de-
velopment, corporate social responsibility and social performance”; (2) it is time
for IA practitioners and academics to get “out of their disciplinary silos and ivory
towers”; and (3) one of the many weaknesses in ex ante assessment and approval
processes is that there is no mechanism for the reconsideration of licencing
conditions after the event.
In the second paper, Angus Morrison-Saunders (Murdoch University, Australia)
and Francois Retief (North West University, South Africa) reflect on “impact as-
sessment research scholarship from editor and academic perspectives”. Importantly,
they “support the call for more empirical impact assessment research, especially
large and longer-term studies”, as well as “better international and multi-disci-
plinary collaboration”. In line with other authors in this special issue, Morrisson-
Saunders and Retief observe that “attracting research students especially at the PhD
1501001-4
level is a challenge”, mainly because of a strong profession/industry, which offers

many practice jobs. The authors also observe that IA research is currently very
diverse and that it may achieve a stronger voice by becoming more unified.
Five papers following that reflect on various aspects of IA research from the
specific perspective of six European Union member states, including Germany, the
Netherlands, the UK, Sweden, Ireland and Spain. First, Johann Koeppel and Gesa
Geissler (both Berlin Institute of Technology) reflect on German environmental
assessment research over recent decades. There is an extensive body of German
language EA literature provided in particular through the journal of the German
EIA Association, with between at least 30 and up to 50 related professional
publications each year (“UVP-Report”; published since 1987). As in some other

countries (see, for example, subsequent contributions on the Netherlands and

Sweden), “most funded EA research to date has been supported by [one main
institution, namely] the Federal Environment Agency (that is by the Ministry of
the Environment)”. The authors see this as a problem as research projects have
been controlled by agency dominated boards, ultimately aimed at developing
guidance. Apart from PhD projects, there has been limited funded critical research
on EA. In terms of research needs they observe that the science-practice gap in
particular requires some close attention. In this context, the authors see an urgent
need for an international academic IA conference or workshop series.
In the next paper, Hens Runhaar (University of Utrecht, the Netherlands) and
Jos Arts (University of Groningen, the Netherlands) argue that in the Netherlands
(as elsewhere) EA research needs to get “out of its ‘silo’”. In the Netherlands, EA
research has been primarily conducted by or through the Dutch Commission for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA). This means there has been very little inde-
pendent academic IA research. Importantly, the authors believe that EA research
should not be done in isolation, as “EA is only one of the tools of environmental
governance”. A key issue with EA overall is its “one shot” nature with a focus on
ex-ante consideration, rather than a wholesome approach, which includes moni-
toring of actual or “real” impacts. In this context, the authors observe a science-
practice gap as well as an inadequate consideration of politics and power in
research.
In the next paper, Thomas B Fischer, Urmila Jha-Thakur and Sam Hayes (all
University of Liverpool, UK) provide for an overview of EIA and SEA research
in the UK, a country which has contributed to over 20% of all related papers to
the professional English language refereed journal literature. Whilst a wide range
of funding bodies supports EIA and SEA research in the UK, funding overall
has remained low. Whilst many universities in the UK offer associated master
level degree programmes, only few have research active academic staff and most
1501001-5
in-depth research is associated with PhD dissertations, of which there have been
over 100 over the past 20 years (along with several 1000 s of master level dis-
sertations). The authors suggest that more evidence-based, empirical research
along with research on legal and specific methodological aspects is needed. Fur-
thermore, the development of an EIA/SEA theory is said to be of great importance.
In the next contribution, Charlotta Faith-Ell (WSP Sweden) provides an over-
view of the numerous research activities in Sweden. She explains that some
substantial funding opportunities have been provided by the Swedish Environ-
mental Protection Agency since the beginning of the 1990s. Furthermore, over 20
PhD dissertations have been prepared on IA. Development of associated guidance
“has often been made in close collaboration between universities, authorities and
practitioners”. Overall, the author suggests that EIA and SEA research should help
with producing clearer results on the benefits of the instrument and on the question
as to whether the instrument may indeed be one of the reasons “behind what is
perceived as an extensive and complicated planning process”. In this context,
researchers should also look for good practice cases, rather than just highlighting
problems and challenges.
Ainhoa Gonzalez del Campo (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland) looks at IA
research in Ireland and Spain in the next paper. In Ireland, “the largest drivers for
[…] research are government initiatives and research calls”. She observes that over
recent years the economic crisis of 2007/2008 had led to a slowdown in both
research and training activities on the subject. Importantly, the Environmental
Protection Agency is allocating a continuous stream of funding, and there have
been close to 500 associated minor dissertations at the postgraduate (higher di-
ploma) level, along with a few PhDs. In Spain, provincial council IA teams fulfil
an important role along with the Spanish Association for Environmental Impact
Assessment (AEEIA) playing a key role in IA research. It convenes a biennial
meeting for knowledge sharing and capacity-building in all areas of impact as-
sessment. Like other countries, though, in both Ireland and Spain research careers
are not supported by engagement in EIA and SEA research, due to the dominance
of traditional disciplines. The author argues that “research on significance criteria
and environmental limits should be prioritised”.
Leaving Europe, in the next contribution, Bram Noble (University of Sas-
katchewan, Canada) “reflects on the state of cumulative effects research in
Canada”, one of the main countries of IA research. With regards to challenges he
sees the existing focus on project approval rather than sustainability, the poor use
of science, the lack of consistency of ecological indicators and a limited attention
to socio-ecological thresholds as key issues. For effective research to be enabled,
Noble suggests that it will be important “to address the challenges of securing
1501001-6
sustained research funding”. Finally, the author highlights the importance of re-
search shaping IA practice as it unfolds, requiring that researchers pursue more
collaborative research programmes, in partnership with industry, governments and
communities.
Moving to South America, Marcelo Montaño and Marcelo Perreira de Souza
(both University of Sao Paulo, Brazil and visiting scholars at the University of
Liverpool, UK) look at “achievements, gaps and future directions” of IA research
in Brazil. Whilst here, SEA is still at the pilot studies’ stage, EIA is routine practice
with about 800–1,500 EIAs being conducted every year. Whilst there is an active
IA community (there were nearly 500 participants attending a recent Brazilian IA
conference) and EIA is taught widely in post-secondary institutions, there are few
dedicated academic researchers, mainly because “IA research is not recognised by

scientific agencies/committees as a proper field of research”. Similarly to what has
been observed in many other countries, most university based research is con-
nected with PhD and master level dissertations. A particular challenge to EIA and
SEA in Brazil overall is the perception that its use may be in the way of the desire
for “swift decisions/approvals”.
In the following paper, Shigeo Nishikizawa (Tokyo Institute of Technology,
Japan) reflects on EIA research in Japan. Curiously, whilst there are only 30–50
EIAs conducted per year and genuine SEA is currently not practised, there is a
noticeable research interest with over 30 associated research papers published in
the professional Japanese literature every year on average. The author identifies
three main areas for future EIA research, including; (1) studies on pro-active sound
decision making for sustainability; (2) effectiveness of EIA from a proponent’s
viewpoint and public acceptance; and (3) substantive and methodological aspects,
including the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods.
The last paper with a specific country focus, provided by Obaidullah Nadeem
(University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore), looks at IA research in
Pakistan where EIA is practised extensively. There is an active, albeit small,
research community based at a few universities. This has produced a range of
important associated publications. Nadeem lays out the well-covered areas and
gaps in current EIA/SEA research. Whilst, evaluation of the EIA system/process,
quality of EIA reports and public participation are well covered areas, research on
EIA methods and techniques, follow-up and SEA is scanty. These are not dis-
similar to what has been observed with respect to practices in many other coun-
tries. However, the barriers to research include: no access to the EIA related
official record/data and lack of funding for doing research in this area. Another key
issue for Pakistani research is that some of the mainstream EIA/SEA journals are
currently not recognised by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.
1501001-7
The next four papers focus on specific areas of IA research, including analytical
methods, strategic advocacy, IA theory and HIA. First, Davide Geneletti (Uni-
versity of Trento, Italy) suggests that SEA research “needs to better address an-
alytical methods”. The author sees their limited development for the prediction and
assessment of environmental effects as one of the main gaps of SEA research. This
he says is connected with a “limited attention paid to the findings of environmental
disciplines”. Focusing on spatial planning and the consideration of health, land
take and ecosystem fragmentation as well as renewable energy, Geneletti explains
how improved analytical methods may help address current problems.
Next, Maria Rosario Partidario (University of Lisbon, Portugal) provides for a
normative point of view in her paper by addressing the “strategic advocacy role in
SEA for sustainability”. SEA should be understood as an instrument of change

which should enable a transition to better environmental and sustainable decision-
making. In this context, she argues that a shift from operational to forward-
looking — strategic — decision making cultures should be enabled. The author
stresses that SEA is different in nature from EIA and suggests that future research
needs to look at what we can learn about strategic thinking from other disciplines.
She considers this a necessity for enabling sustainability and for making SEA an
instrument of change. Furthermore, Partidario suggests that researchers need to
find ways to make SEA adaptable to changing decision contexts and exploring the
fundamental scientific principles that should support a theory of SEA. “This
should be reflected in the future research agenda of SEA”.
Lone Kørnøv, the Director of the largest University-based environmental as-
sessment unit in the world (the Aalborg University’s Danish Centre for Envi-
ronmental Assessment) reflects on the “growing interest in the use of theory in
order to move the field of impact assessment forward”. She states that “there is no
lack of relevant theories” and “that there is a broad scope for future use of theories
from other fields”. Based on an analysis of 259 articles published in JEAPM, the
author finds that 32% incorporated theory. However, importantly, only seven
papers were identified that focused on theory development. Kørnøv concludes that
interaction between theory and practice needs to be strengthened.
The focus of the next paper by Monica O’Mullane (Trnava University, Slo-
vakia) and Ben Harris-Roxas (University of New South Wales, Australia) is HIA,
providing for a systematic overview of associated research to date. With regards to
the biggest barrier, the authors see the relatively novel nature of HIA as a problem,
in particular with regards to securing successful research proposals to funding
agencies. Furthermore, they suggest that there is “some disciplinary baggage
(evidence-based medicine) which means that empirical research has been favoured
whilst there have been a number of normative/a priori activities undertaken”.
1501001-8
Effective integration with other IA instruments is seen as the most important key
research area.
Finally, Alan Bond (University of East Anglia, UK) looks at the role of IA in
the long term. His starting point is “that most impact assessment (IA) has sus-
tainable development as the stated goal, but that it doesn’t deliver sustainable
outcomes”. In this context, the author sees the issue of “inter-generational equity
as particularly challenging”. Here, the incorporation of “resilience, adaptive
management and participatory modelling” is said to be of particular importance.
Ultimately, the author concludes that “some truly interdisciplinary and inclusive
research is required”.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Impact assessment, and its many fields of research and practice, is not a traditional
scholarly discipline. Impact assessment researchers are dispersed amongst the
academic community, in Geography, Planning, Public Health, Ecology, Sociolo-
gy, Political Studies, and Engineering units to name a few. The IA community
does not have a clear scholarly identity and, as a consequence, academic careers
built around IA may face many challenges. At the same time, however, this is
indeed a primary strength of IA research — scholars are interspersed within the
full range of disciplines at play in the practice of IA that contribute to the de-
velopment of IA theory and analytical tools. In many respects, it helps ensure that
IA research maintains its inter- and multi-disciplinary credibility and strengths,
reflecting the realities of IA as both a field of scholarly research and professional
practice.
Extrapolating figures obtained from the few countries and aspects of IA covered
in this special issue of JEAPM, it is safe to say that, globally, there have been
1000 s of PhD dissertations on different IA instruments over the last two decades.
Furthermore, 1000 s of papers have been published in professional refereed
journals. Taking into account the non-English speaking literature, we estimate that
more than 10,000 refereed IA papers have been published over the past 20 years in
refereed professional journals. Whilst numerous aspects have been covered well,
considering the breadth of areas and issues addressed by the different IA instru-
ments, various aspects have also remained poorly covered. Our selection of papers
included in this special issue, for example, reveal gaps with regards to the de-
velopment of a distinct IA theory, the coverage of certain methodological, the
science-policy interface, and legal aspects.
Whilst there is a substantial amount of IA research happening globally — and
probably more than is often given credit — considering the extent of practical
1501001-9
applications, there have been comparatively few non-PhD or masters level based
funded research projects. Currently, funding is often associated with certain
funding bodies, usually environment agencies or similar. These agencies fre-
quently pursue specific agendas, for example the preparation of IA guidance. As a
consequence, a clear and consistent message in most of the contributed papers
was that, in most all countries, funding to support IA research is an on-going
challenge.
However, stable funding to support research and graduate student training is
critical, and was identified by many of the contributing authors as a primary
constraint. It appears that at least two types of research programmes (and thus
funding) are necessary to sustain IA research and ensure influential IA research

activity. First, longer-term research initiatives are needed to support theory

building in IA and address bigger-picture and strategic issues. This is not to say
that IA researchers should retreat from practice-based research; rather, researchers
ought to consider more carefully how to strengthen the connections between
theory and practice. Ideally, these are research programmes that bring together
multiple country experiences and multiple scholars from the various IA “silos”. In
many respects, this may be the most difficult IA research to sustain — given the
challenges expressed by authors in securing long-term funding outside of gov-
ernment-led initiatives, and concerns that many funding agencies are deeply rooted
in more traditional academic disciplines.
Second, also needed is applied research that is aimed at IA practice, methods,
tools and processes that responds to more immediate problems or challenges
facing practitioners, governments, industries, communities and other interests. In
many countries, the largest drivers and supporters of IA research are government-
led initiatives or research needs that arise as part of an IA process, such as project
or regulatory review processes. These are often “one-shot” research endeavours,
but they are critically important for connecting IA scholarship with IA practice.
Further, they present an opportunity for scholarly advances and practice
improvements over the longer-term by examining the lessons learnt across a va-
riety IA cases, experiences and outcomes. Of course, this requires that scholars
involved in these types of research activities, which are often carried out by or with
the support of graduate students, approach them from the outset as opportunities
to learn and advance IA scholarship over the longer-term. This closely aligns with
the expressed need by paper contributors for more evidence-based, empirical
research along with research on legal and specific methodological aspects of IA
and innovative tool development.
Ensuring IA research with an impact, regardless of the type of research, will
require thinking outside current silos. First, thinking outside the silo of academia
1501001-10
itself and ensuring that developments in IA research are inclusive, to the extent
possible, of those who affect, and are affected by IA practice, including govern-
ment agencies, industry, communities and other interest groups. In our view, this is
important if IA research is to influence IA practice and help ensure that IA is
playing a role in facilitating practices, decisions and actions that lead to sustainable
development.
Third, thinking outside the disciplinary silos within the IA academic commu-
nity and truly embracing the inter- and multi-disciplinary nature of IA research —
yes, unfortunately, the very characteristics that make it difficult to secure research
funding from traditional, disciplinary-based funding agencies. It is here where
most opportunity exists to advance IA theory and develop and test new and
innovative IA tools. It will also require situating IA itself within a broader man-
agement paradigm, as one of the many tools that can help steer society toward
sustainable development practices — albeit a key tool which is attempting to
provide decision makers with scientifically robust information whilst acknowl-
edging the political nature within which decisions are made and also attempting to
influence associated processes. With that perspective in mind, we believe that an
important aim of IA research should be on working towards more unified per-
spectives on, for example, IA principles and rules in order to strengthen IA as a
profession and discipline overall.
References
Birley, M (2011). Health Impact Assessment: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chanchitpricha, C and A Bond (2013). Conceptualizing the effectiveness of impact as-
sessment processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 65–72.
Fischer, TB (2014). Health and Strategic Environmental Assessment. In Fehr R, Martuzzi
M, Nowacki J and Viliani F, Health in Impact Assessments. WHO, EUPHA and IAIA.
Fischer, TB and O Nadeem (2014). Environmental Impact Assessment course curriculum
for higher education institutions in Pakistan. IUCN, Pakistan. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/
downloads/niap_eia_curriculum_for_hei.pdf.
Fischer, TB and V Onyango (2012). SEA related research projects and journal articles:
An overview of the past 20 years. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(4),
253–263.
Gibson, RB et al. (2005). Sustainability Assessment: Criteria, Processes and Applications.
London: Earthscan.
Kørnøv, L and WAH Thissen (2000). Rationality in decision- and policy-making:
Implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 18, 191–200.
1501001-11
Noble, BF (2008). Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: A case

study of the Great Sand Hills, Canada. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(2),
78–90.
Runhaar, H and P Driessen (2007). What makes strategic environmental assessment
successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to
decision-making. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 25, 2–14.
Sok, V, BJ Boruff, and A Morrison-Saunders (2011). Addressing climate change through
environmental impact assessment: International perspectives from a survey of IAIA
members. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(4), 317–325.
Treweek, J (1995). Ecological impact assessment. Impact Assessment, 13, 289–315.
Vanclay, F (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess-
ment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5–11.

Vanclay, F (2004). The triple bottom line and impact assessment: How do TBL, EIA, SIA,
SEA and EMS relate to each other? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 6(3), 265–288.
1501001-12
This article has been cited by:
1. BRAM NOBLE. 2015. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESEARCH:

ACHIEVEMENTS, STATUS, DIRECTIONS AND CHALLENGES IN THE
CANADIAN CONTEXT. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management
17:01. . [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
2. JOHANN KOEPPEL, GESA GEISSLER. 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT RESEARCH IN GERMANY: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 17:01. . [Abstract] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
3. ANGUS MORRISON-SAUNDERS, FRANCOIS RETIEF. 2015. REFLECTIONS
ON IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESEARCH SCHOLARSHIP FROM EDITOR
AND ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVES. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and

Management 17:01. . [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
View publication stats

Editorial 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Editorial 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Impact Assessment Research – achievements, gaps and future directions

Article in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · March 2015

envisage-cc View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESEARCH: ACHIEVEMENTS,

Introduction to the March 2015 Special Issue of the Journal

of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

Published 13 April 2015

Keywords: Impact Assessment; Research; EIA; SEA; HIA; SIA.

slow to be taken up in practice. We believe that it is time to examine the state of IA

(1) Whilst IA is slowly becoming a — professional and academic — discipline in

consequences of decisions may mean an increased liability.

level is a challenge”, mainly because of a strong profession/industry, which offers

publications each year (“UVP-Report”; published since 1987). As in some other

countries (see, for example, subsequent contributions on the Netherlands and

dedicated academic researchers, mainly because “IA research is not recognised by

SEA for sustainability”. SEA should be understood as an instrument of change

Conclusions and Recommendations

funding) are necessary to sustain IA research and ensure inﬂuential IA research

activity. First, longer-term research initiatives are needed to support theory

Noble, BF (2008). Strategic approaches to regional cumulative effects assessment: A case

ment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5–11.

1. BRAM NOBLE. 2015. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESEARCH:

AND ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVES. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and

View publication stats

You might also like