diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment2/significance.tex | 43 |
1 files changed, 35 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/assignment2/significance.tex b/assignment2/significance.tex index d518f30..de8376f 100644 --- a/assignment2/significance.tex +++ b/assignment2/significance.tex @@ -4,19 +4,46 @@ \section{Significance} -\textcite{lawrence} - -- Significance needs to be determined because: EIA is an open-ended -process and hence some arbitrary limits have to be imposed on the -level of detail, what time period is to be considered, how many -interactions are to be followed, for any of the expected impacts. - -- To set these limits, value-laden judgments must be made +The process of impact assessment is conceptually open-ended. As one of +its major goals is to aid a decision-making process, however, each +step in the assessment must be completed within a given time +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. +- three approaches: + - the technical approach + - led by EIA specialists + - 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 + + + + \subsection{} |