more on significance

2 files changed, 59 insertions, 29 deletions

diff --git a/assignment2/references.bib b/assignment2/references.bib
index 890f50d..0588447 100644
--- a/assignment2/references.bib
+++ b/assignment2/references.bib
@@ -74,7 +74,6 @@
   volume={27}
 }
 
-
 @website{niwa-sediment,
   title={Kaitiaki tools: sediment},
   url={http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/freshwater/tools/kaitiaki_tools/impacts/sediment},
@@ -82,6 +81,14 @@
   year={2009}
 }
 
+@techreport{freshwater-reform,
+  title={Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond},
+  author={{Ministry for the Environment}},
+  year={2013},
+  publisher={Wellington: {Ministry for the Environment}},
+  number={ME 1109}
+}
+
 
 
 
@@ -131,13 +138,6 @@
 }
 
 
-@techreport{twp98,
-  title={Devolution and the {N}ew {Z}ealand {R}esource {M}anagement {A}ct},
-  author={Kerr, Suzi and Claridge, Megan and Milicich, Dominic},
-  year={1998},
-  type={New Zealand Treasury Working Paper},
-  number={98/7}
-}
 
 @book{miller2010implementing,
   title={Implementing Sustainability: The {N}ew {Z}ealand Experience},
diff --git a/assignment2/significance.tex b/assignment2/significance.tex
index de8376f..fb6ecf1 100644
--- a/assignment2/significance.tex
+++ b/assignment2/significance.tex
@@ -11,19 +11,54 @@ frame. Hence, limits are imposed on the level of detail, the length of
 the time period for which impacts can be assessed at the expected
 level of detail, and the number of interactions that can reasonably be
 considered.  To set these limits, judgments must be made on how
-significant each potential impact, a decision on how much detail and
-how much effort in avoiding or mitigating the impact is appropriate.
-These judgments are crucially guided by the practitioners' own values
-and the values they consider in the evaluation
-process \parencite{lawrence}. According to
-\textcite{lawrence-approach}, the approach to determining impact
-significance is usually ``limited to ad hoc and inconsistent judgments
-with reasons and/or to the staged application of thresholds and/or
-criteria.''
-
-- As the determination of significance is inherently subjective, it
-should not be an activity performed only by experts and under the
-aim/appearance/restriction of objectivity.
+significant each potential impact is, a decision on how much detail
+and how much effort in avoiding or mitigating the impact is
+appropriate, and whether the residual impacts is insignificant enough
+to be acceptable.  These judgments are crucially guided by the
+practitioners' own values and the values they consider in the
+evaluation process \parencite{lawrence}.
+
+According to \textcite{lawrence-approach}, the approach to determining
+impact significance is usually ``limited to ad hoc and inconsistent
+judgments with reasons and/or to the staged application of thresholds
+and/or criteria.''  The Resource Management Act 1991 does not
+prescribe a process for the assessment of significant effects. As all
+major projects require resource consents, however, impact significance
+is, in practice, reflected by the management plans and established by
+resource consent decisions of regional and territorial councils. The
+Ministry for the Environment bemoans that a ``lack of clarity and
+certainty in some regional plans (eg, a lack of enforceable limits)
+has led to issues being decided consent by consent and often
+re-litigated'', resulting in ``decision-making processes [that] are
+litigious, resource-consuming and create
+uncertainty'' \parencite[p. 18][]{freshwater-reform}.
+
+Since the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2011),
+the ``national values of fresh water'' have been made explicit % TODO
+
+- national values are specified in the NPSFM (2011), but as they
+contradict there is no clear implication
+
+
+
+- freshwater reform: collaborative approach to planning
+  - talk about drawbacks mentioned in \textcite{lawrence-approach}
+  - As the determination of significance is inherently subjective, it
+   should not be an activity performed only by experts and under the
+   aim/appearance/restriction of objectivity.
+  ... the technical, the collaborative, and the reasoned argumentation approach
+      \begin{quote}
+        The collaborative approach is viewed as too quickly equating
+        public concerns and issues with impact significance, at the expense of
+        other sources of insight and knowledge.
+      \end{quote}
+
+- significance decisions must be made on a sound information base,
+which rarely exists
+
+
+
+
 
 - three approaches:
   - the technical approach
@@ -31,17 +66,11 @@ aim/appearance/restriction of objectivity.
     - heavy reliance on expert and technical data, analyses and knowledge.
     - 
   - the collaborative approach
-    problems:
-
-    \begin{quote}
-      The collaborative approach is viewed as too quickly equating
-      public concerns and issues with impact significance, at the expense of
-      other sources of insight and knowledge.
-    \end{quote}
-
   - the reasoned argumentation approach
 
 
+(third part of lawrence): important to assess significance of
+*positive effects* to see if they are worth the negative impacts.
 
 
 
@@ -64,6 +93,7 @@ temperature:
   effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
 
 organic/inorganic compounds:
+contamination with antibiotics / pesticides:
 
   According to the description, the river is already used as a sink for
   the wastewater of another dairy factory; dairy farming is said to have