clean up

1 files changed, 21 insertions, 45 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
index 8730545..489f905 100644
--- a/assignment1/discussion.tex
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -42,38 +42,28 @@ increases the likelihood of poor quality applications to be granted.
 
 Although the use of objective measurements and scientific methodology
 is considered EIA best practice \parencite{principles}, EIA is neither
-science nor is it an objective process.
-
-% TODO: not science: predictions made on the basis of very limited inputs
-
-As environmental impact statements are produced by project proponents
-with the goal to convince decision-makers of the benefits of the
-project in question, the report is a subjective statement or even a
-piece of project advocacy \parencite{TODO}. In recognition of this
-inherent bias, the EIA process calls for the participation of the
-general public, in particular the participation of affected
-individuals or interest groups \parencite{wilkins}.
+science nor is it an objective process. As environmental impact
+statements are produced by project proponents with the goal to
+convince decision-makers of the benefits of the project in question,
+the report is a subjective statement or even a piece of project
+advocacy \parencite{TODO}. In recognition of this inherent bias, the
+EIA process calls for the participation of the general public, in
+particular the participation of affected individuals or interest
+groups \parencite{wilkins}.
 
 It is therefore rather disappointing that even in recent reviews of
 international EIA practise, public participation remains on a fairly
-low level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}. According to
-\textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online Learning. (n.d). Environmental
-Impact Assessment Open Educational Resource.} ``there is little
-opportunity throughout the process of EIA for the public to be
-involved; where involvement is possible it is often limited due to
-lack of resources (time and expertise)''.
+low level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}. Some of the main barriers
+to public participation cited by \textcite{eia-state-of-the-art} are:
+poor knowledge of the public about the process; poor provision of
+information; failure to influence the decision-making process; poor
+execution of participation methods; and regulatory constraints. As a
+review of resource consent processing performance in New Zealand
+indicates, especially the latter three are significant obstacles to
+public participation in New Zealand \parencite{TODO}.  % TODO
 
 % - opportunities for public involvement?
 
-Some of the main barriers to public participation cited by
-\textcite{eia-state-of-the-art} are: poor knowledge of the public
-about the process; poor provision of information; failure to influence
-the decision-making process; poor execution of participation methods;
-and regulatory constraints. As a review of resource consent processing
-performance in New Zealand indicates, especially the latter three are
-significant obstacles to public participation in New
-Zealand \parencite{TODO}.  % TODO
-
 According to the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the New Zealand
 Ministry for the Environment carries out every two years, only about 6
 per cent of all resource consents in the two-year period were notified
@@ -111,6 +101,9 @@ used in the past to successfully overcome this limitation for
 individual projects that require multiple resources consent
 applications to be considered \parencite{fookes}.
 
+% - screening is political because it depends on the values of those
+%   who perform the screening; public participation in plan development?
+
 When the cumulative effects of more than one proposal are to be
 considered, ... need coverage by plan/policies at national/regional
 level + monitoring.
@@ -127,6 +120,7 @@ level + monitoring.
   the assessment of future projects \parencite{follow-up}
 
 
+
 \subsection{EIA at the policy level}
 
 ``Environmental Assessment in a Changing World'' (EAE\_10E.PDF, Sadler)
@@ -158,23 +152,5 @@ level + monitoring.
   also seems to apply for NZ resource consents:
   - only a little more than half a percent of all resource consents are declined \parencite{rma-survey}
 
-
-
-  
-\subsection{Scratch}
-
-\parencite{beattie}:
-   - cannot be science because it makes predictions based on very limited data
- - EIAs are always political because they are part of a decision-making process
- - EIAs are necessary because they add valuable information to public
-   discussions on specific proposals
-
-- poor communication
 - failure to predict important impacts
-
-The following is from \textcite{RMIT University \& UNU Online Learning. (n.d). Environmental
-Impact Assessment Open Educational Resource.}:
-
-- screening is political because it depends on the values of those who perform the screening
-
-checklist from \textcite{intl-perspective}
\ No newline at end of file
+- poor communication
\ No newline at end of file