Analyzing the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Paraná, Brazil and California, United States With Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3088652/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Paraná, Brazil and California, United States With Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3088652/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 06 Jan, 2024

Read the published version in Environmental Management →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become one of the most widespread environmental management instruments. Despite this, EIA is routinely criticized for being ineffective at impacting decision-making. This study compared the EIA systems of Paraná, Brazil and California, United States using the effectiveness dimensions from the EIA literature. This study formats the cases into contextual conditions using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions that cause effective outcomes. These effectiveness outcomes are then ranked by EIA stakeholders via the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to identify stakeholder priorities and to improve stakeholder management. The results show that in Paraná stakeholders identified normative effectiveness as the most important dimension, while stakeholders in California identified this dimension as the second-most important following substantive effectiveness. Public participation was found to be a necessary condition for both substantive and normative effectiveness to occur. Early project definition was found to be sufficient for substantive effectiveness and necessary for normative effectiveness, for which stakeholder coordination was a sufficient condition. This suggests that in order for EIA to influence decision-making and foster sustainable development, greater care needs to be taken to actively engage stakeholders in public participation, with clear roles and project design communicated early on, and a clear role for regulatory authority to promote stakeholder coordination for acceptable outcomes. These findings suggest that some effectiveness dimensions are caused by similar conditions, which could help focus stakeholder management efforts and point to new avenues for future EIA effectiveness research.

AHP

environmental impact assessment

EIA system

fsQCA

stakeholder management

Since its introduction in the US’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become one of the most widespread environmental tools, evolving from solely conservation aims to serve towards broader sustainable development ends (Bond et al., 2020). Despite its history and dissemination, EIA is routinely criticized for being ineffective at influencing decision-making or promoting sustainable development (Cashmore et al., 2004; Middle & Middle, 2010; Wright et al., 2013). As originally conceived, EIA follows the rationalist school of theory, i.e., more information will lead to better decision-making, thus EIAs can augment, but not replace decision-making (Glasson & Therivel, 2019). However, EIAs are political in nature (Bond et al., 2020; Cashmore & Axelsson, 2013), greater transparency and more democratic decision-making processes do not automatically lead to more sustainable outcomes (Runhaar et al., 2013). Individual project EIAs’ effectiveness will be influenced by their surrounding EIA systems, i.e., the laws, institutional arrangements, and cultures (Morrison-Saunders & Arts, 2004). In addition to these more remote structural influences, the more proximate conditions that impact project EIAs are characterized by the dynamics of stakeholders’ interactions, highlighting the need for careful stakeholder management, which is considered one of the most difficult parts of EIA (Glasson & Therivel, 2019).

Stakeholder theory recognizes that the meaning of a stakeholder is contested in practice (Miles, 2012), however numerous classification schemes have been developed to address this challenge for empirical studies (Miles, 2017). Within EIA, stakeholders are those with an interest in or are impacted by the proposed project (Bond et al., 2018; Brombal et al., 2017). These are typically identified and categorized by their role within the EIA process, e.g., project proponent, EIA regulatory authority, consultants, non-governmental organizations, the public, etc. (Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018; Glasson & Therivel, 2019). Stakeholder dynamics involve the interests, interactions and relationships among parties, and stakeholder management seeks to handle these multiple interests to foster open and transparent communication to build trust in order to achieve mutually acceptable outcomes (Pedrini & Ferri, 2019). EIA stakeholders will have different interests that may bias their opinions and this may be further complicated by power (financial resources, time, and organization) imbalances between them (Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018). There are substantive and normative benefits to improving stakeholder engagement and management in EIA to improve its overall effectiveness (Ulibarri et al., 2019).

Within the EIA literature there are five established dimensions of effectiveness: procedural, substantive, transactive (Sadler, 1996), normative, (Chanchitpricha and Bond 2013; Bond et al. 2013; Loomis and Dziedzic 2018), and transformative (Jones & Morrison-Saunders, 2017; Loomis et al., 2022; Loomis & Dziedzic, 2022b; Sinclair & Diduck, 2001). Procedural effectiveness entails the policy and institutional infrastructure and adherence to the regulations. Substantive effectiveness is the degree to which the EIA mitigates negative environmental impacts, thus securing its immediate objectives, and positively influences decision-making. Transactive effectiveness is the degree to which EIA is performed in a cost-efficient manner. Normative effectiveness is the degree to which EIA promotes wider policy goals such as sustainable development and more transparent and participatory policy processes. Finally, the transformative effectiveness dimension entails the long-term learning aspects in the EIA process and wider EIA system that over time fundamentally change stakeholders’ values, assumptions, and understandings of sustainability issues leading to changes in problem conceptualization, decision-making structures, and stakeholder collaboration.

Given the multidimensionality of effectiveness in EIA, there has been a growing tendency towards simultaneous evaluation to better understand the dimensions interactions as well as associated tradeoffs (Almeida & Montaño, 2017; Chanchitpricha & Bond, 2013). While procedural effectiveness is the most studied in the literature (Loomis & Dziedzic, 2018), authors often find it insufficient for effective EIAs, since EIA is envisioned to influence decision-making to incorporate sustainable considerations into project design (Glasson & Therivel, 2019). However, there is agreement that procedural effectiveness is connected to other effectiveness dimensions, especially the substantive and transactive dimensions (Nakwaya-Jacobus et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2013, 2018; Theophilou et al., 2010). In the former, it helps ensure stakeholder confidence that their participation happens in a formal process that could meaningfully impact the outcome (Bina, 2008; Cashmore et al., 2004). In the case of the later, it is necessary to avoid judicial delays from improper procedures (Pope et al., 2018). The normative and transformative dimensions are less studied in the literature, yet represent important areas for future research, since it is widely recognized that some of the failings of EIA stem from the inability to bridge pluralistic definitions of sustainability, to find mutually acceptable outcomes, overcome tradeoffs, and create a deliberative learning arena to ensure the legitimacy of the EIA process in the eyes of the stakeholders (Bond et al., 2018; Cashmore et al., 2007; Chanchitpricha & Bond, 2013; Glucker et al., 2013; Rozema & Bond, 2015).

The aim of this article is to assess the necessary and sufficient conditions that when present lead to an effective EIA outcome as conceptualized within the EIA literature along the five dimensions and then understand how these are prioritized among EIA stakeholders in order to better understand tradeoffs and improve stakeholder management. Due to the consensus in the EIA literature that procedural effectiveness undergirds many of the other dimensions, it is expected to be a necessary condition with high prioritization among all stakeholders (Nakwaya-Jacobus et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2013, 2018; Theophilou et al., 2010). The other effectiveness dimensions are expected to see tradeoffs among prioritization among stakeholders. Following the symbolic politics model proposed by Bartlett and Kurian (1999), transactive effectiveness would be expected to rank higher among the project proponent stakeholders, where substantive, normative, and transformative effectiveness dimensions would rank higher among non-governmental organization (NGO), and consultant stakeholders following the organizational politics and pluralistic politics models.

In order to achieve the objective of the study and assess the accompanying hypotheses, this study performed a comparative case study of two EIA systems along the effectiveness dimensions from the EIA evaluative literature. Focusing on two cases allows for incorporating the context within which these EIA systems operate (Bina, 2008). The two cases that were chosen are, Paraná, Brazil and California, United States (US). These cases present similarities that make for interesting comparison, both cases represent mature EIA systems (Paraná established its EIA system in 1989 and California in 1970) and both operate within federalists systems (Loomis et al., 2021). Yet, they also exhibit differences, Paraná is an EIA system in an upper middle income developing country and California in a developed country, thus, comparing these two systems can be of interest for a wide range researchers and practitioners. This article expands upon the work presented at the 2022 International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process of the same title (Loomis & Dziedzic, 2022a).

Following this brief introduction, the study is organized as follows: the next section discusses the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) methodologies utilized to perform the comparative case study. This is followed by the results and discussions sections to understand the findings within the wider EIA literature and how the methods complement one another. Finally, the conclusion discusses the limitations of this study and what the combination of these two methods means for future EIA evaluatory research.

This comparative case study employed two methods, fsQCA and AHP. AHP identifies the stakeholders’ priorities among criteria and alternatives (effectiveness dimensions) and the fsQCA method identifies the necessary and sufficient conditions that lead to these effectiveness dimensions. Each method is explained separately and evaluates all five dimensions of EIA effectiveness. Stakeholder assessments were conducted via questionnaire and semi-structured interviews over the period of 2016 to 2018 in the states of California and Paraná. During this phase, both the fsQCA and AHP questionnaires were applied (See APPENDIX A for both questionnaires). Stakeholder responses were triangulated with secondary data available (i.e., 10 EIA reports each from California and Paraná, public opinion surveys, and the wider scientific literature) on the respective case studies (APPENDIX B).

Stakeholder group identification and categorization are based upon the literature that discusses EIA broadly (Glasson and Therivel 2019; Sánchez 2013) or studies that used stakeholder interviews (Bassi et al., 2012; Cashmore, 2004; Ramanathan, 2001; Rozema & Bond, 2015). In this study, stakeholder clustering was done based primarily on stakeholders’ primary roles in the EIA process. The four clusters include:

1) academia, scientists, and consultants (ASC);

2) the project proponent (PROP);

3) the public and non-governmental organizations (NGO); and

4) the regulatory authority (GOV).

2.1 fsQCA method

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a research strategy and method for comparative case analysis (Rihoux & Grimm, 2006). Unlike statistical approaches, the basis of QCA is not probability, but set-theory and thus is an ideal method for small-n comparative cases (Ragin, 2000). This means that causality in QCA is assumed on the basis of set-membership in conditions and outcomes (Ragin 2014). QCA uses Boolean set algebra to determine necessary and sufficient causal conditions via the presence (value of 1) or absence (value of 0) in set membership of conditions for certain outcomes. FsQCA uses fuzzy logic whereby cases can be partially in sets and their values can range from anywhere from 0 to 1. For this study, a 0.1 point interval for fsQCA was used (e.g., 0, 0.1, 0.2, …, 1) to allow for finer differentiation between case set-membership as is the case for complex social phenomenon (Ragin, 2009; Schneider & Wagemann, 2010). All outcome and condition set memberships were assessed by taking the median assessment of available secondary data, available scientific literature, and stakeholders’ assessments, as is good QCA practice (Schneider & Wagemann, 2010).

The fsQCA allows for multiple explanations for complex social phenomenon, which means there can be several configurations of conditions that produce the same outcome as well as several different outcomes that are produced by the same configuration of conditions (Hudson & Kühner, 2013). Since cases can have varying degrees of set-membership in fsQCA, determining set-membership is done via consistency thresholds, if a case meets a consistency threshold, then it is considered a member of that set. Therefore, after determining set-membership for all conditions and outcomes of a case, Boolean Algebra is used to determine whether the outcome is a subset of the conditions or vice versa in a logical truth table, this determines whether conditions are necessary or sufficient for a given outcome. If the outcome is a subset of the conditions, i.e., it consistently has lower set membership than the conditions, these conditions are necessary for the outcome to occur, i.e., the presence of the outcome only occurs with the presence of the condition(s). Contrarily, sufficient conditions are subsets of an outcome, therefore, the presence of these conditions will always lead to the presence of the given outcome, but there may be other configurations of conditions that lead to the same outcome. Necessary conditions were first identified using a consistency threshold of 0.95 as recommended by Schneider and Wagemann (2010) and set aside from the truth table analysis, as recommended by Ragin (2009). Following this, a two-step variant of fsQCA was performed for each of the five outcomes as done by Wagemann and Schneider (2006), this involves conducting truth table analysis for remote conditions, then proximate conditions.

Due to the complexity of having many conditions and outcomes for small-n case studies, Schneider and Wagemann (2006) proposed a two-step fsQCA approach. Certain conditions are more stable and structural over time and are unlikely to change between EIA processes (remote conditions), while others are more malleable to stakeholders’ actions in any given EIA process (proximate conditions). For this study, the remote conditions are the structural factors at the EIA system level (Morrison-Saunders & Arts, 2004), whereas the proximate conditions are stakeholder actions within any given EIA process. The first step involves constructing a truth table with the outcomes and remote conditions, which is logically minimized yielding solution terms using lower consistency thresholds, which has been called “outcome-enabling conditions” (Schneider and Wagemann 2006, p.761). The second step involves constructing truth tables for each of the solution terms in step one, now with combinations of proximate conditions within the structural contexts from step one that jointly lead to the outcome; now with higher consistency levels and these are logically minimized as well. Schneider and Wagemann (2010) state that no single minimal threshold value exists for all QCA applications, however Schneider and Wagemann (2006) employed a consistency threshold of 0.5 for remote conditions. Thus, given the stability of the structural factors, that enable effective EIA, a consistency threshold of 0.5 was adopted for remote conditions, while a consistency threshold of 0.75 was adopted for proximate conditions, as these are more likely to vary across EIA processes and only the most consistently present conditional configurations were considered to produce effective outcomes.

The five outcomes under examination are the five dimensions of effectiveness: procedural, substantive, transactive, normative, and transformative. The remote conditions include environmental culture, rule of law, independent regulatory authority, regulatory authority capacity, and environmental policy integration. The three proximate conditions are stakeholder coordination, project definition, and public participation. The outcomes and conditions along with their definitions, set-membership assessment criteria, and references can be viewed in Table 1.

Table 1 fsQCA outcomes and conditions continued
Name	Reference in EIA literature	Definition	Set-Membership Assessment criteria	Secondary data references
Outcomes
Procedural Effectiveness (Proced)	(Ahmad & Wood, 2002; Baker & McLelland, 2003; Chanchitpricha & Bond, 2013; Sadler, 1996)	The EIA outcome adheres to all the applicable regulations. Such regulations are state of the art.	Interviews and Ahmad and Wood’s (2002) systematic criteria	(Ahmad & Wood, 2002)
Substantive Effectiveness (Subst)	(Baker & McLelland, 2003; Chanchitpricha & Bond, 2013; Sadler, 1996))	The EIA process is effectively integrated into the decision-making process (for project approval) and mitigates negative environmental impacts.	Interviews, scientific literature, inclusion of monitoring programs in EIA reports, and alternatives are elaborated in EIA reports	EIA reports
Transactive Effectiveness (Tract)	(Baker & McLelland, 2003; Chanchitpricha & Bond, 2013; Sadler, 1996)	The EIA process is cost and time efficient.	Interviews	EIA reports
Normative Effectiveness (Norm)	(Baker & McLelland, 2003; Chanchitpricha & Bond, 2013; Glucker et al., 2013; Rozema & Bond, 2015)	The EIA process fosters sustainable development.	Interviews, scientific literature, evidence of project modifications from public participation (meetings or letters), public participation began early in the EIA process – screening and scoping, trends in appeals, project aligning with regional development plans in EIA reports	EIA reports
Transformative Effectiveness (Trform)	(Ahmad & Wood, 2002; Cashmore et al., 2008, 2009; Wallington et al., 2007)	The EIA process positively impacts stakeholders and institutions’ values and understanding to incorporate sustainable development principles in a project’s lifecycle.	Interviews, scientific literature, iterative and collaborative public participation – regular and sustained public participation with dialogue, expanded alternatives – from participatory scoping as evidenced in EIA reports, existence of educational institutions in EIA, existence of learning communities – professional associations that provide formats for continued learning, environmental policy integration as evidenced by mission statements of non-environmental public agencies	EIA reports
Remote Conditions
Environmental culture (EnvCult)	(Befani & Sager, 2006)	The stakeholders respect and appreciate environmental issues.	Interviews, scientific literature, surveys on public environmental concern, environmental policy stringency index, trends in waste generations (kg/capita/income), and recycling rates	(Botta & Kozluk, 2014; OECD, 2018a, 2018b; PEW, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2017; World Bank, 2018)
Rule of law (Law)	(Fonseca et al., 2017; Glasson & Salvador, 2000)	The laws and regulations are respected and enforced by strong and independent judiciary and executive branches.	Interviews, scientific literature, Corruption Perception Index (via transparency international), and judicial trends relating to EIA	(Hernandez et al. 2015; Hernandez et al. 2016; OPR 2019; Transparency International 2017)
Independent (Indpt)	(Glasson & Salvador, 2000; Hochstetler, 2018; Hochstetler & Keck, 2007)	The objectivity of the EIA decision-making body is not compromised by political influences.	Interviews, scientific literature, justification for project decision is based on EIA findings as evidenced in EIA reports	EIA reports
Capacity (Cap)	(Ahmad & Wood, 2002; Glasson & Salvador, 2000; Hochstetler & Keck, 2007; Loomis et al., 2021)	The regulatory agency has adequate staff and funding to carry out its mission. Other stakeholders have adequate education, training, experience, and funding to carry out their roles.	Interviews, number of staff per EIA, and the environmental policy stringency index	EIA reports, Botta and Kozluk 2014.
Policy integration (Polintg)	(Barbour & Teitz, 2005; Glasson & Salvador, 2000; Nykvist & Nilsson, 2009)	The EIA statute is integrated with other agencies’ policies and planning. The EIA process and statute are integrated with regional and national planning (e.g., SEA).	Interviews and reference to SEAs or regional planning in EIA reports	EIA reports, public agencies’ mission statements
Proximate Conditions
Stakeholder coordination (Coord)	(Befani & Sager, 2006; Nykvist & Nilsson, 2009; Rozema & Bond, 2015)	The regulatory agency responsible for managing the EIA process facilitates discussion and coordination among stakeholders and other relevant public agencies integrating their narratives and objectives.	Interviews, statute analysis, evidence of participation of other stakeholders in EIA report (other agencies, NGOs, or public)	EIA reports
Project definition (PrjtDef)	(Barbour & Teitz, 2005; Barker & Wood, 1999; Befani & Sager, 2006; CALAO, 1997; Rothman, 2011)	Through consultation, the proponent and regulatory authority develop clear descriptions of the project and EIA requirements early in the process.	Interviews, scientific literature, statute analysis, evidence of screening and scoping methods in EIA reports	EIA reports
Public participation (PubPart)	(AEP, 2018; Reed, 2008; Rozema & Bond, 2015; Wiklund, 2005)	Public involvement is integrated throughout the process in an active manner (screening, scoping, and review).	Interviews, statute analysis, evidence of public participation throughout the EIA process	EIA reports

EIA: environmental impact assessment; NGO: nongovernmental organization; SEA: strategic environmental assessment

Following the assessment of conditions and outcomes’ set memberships (APPENDIX B), the application of the Boolean minimization functions was performed using the software package, “fsQCA 3.0,” (Ragin 2009). This concluded the fsQCA process.

2.2 AHP method

According to Saaty (2006), the AHP method follows three main phases: decomposition, comparative judgment, and synthesis. In the AHP method, the problem is deconstructed into at least 3 levels: the overall goal of the decision, the relevant criteria that represent priorities with regards to meeting this goal, and the alternatives among which to choose. In the first phase, the AHP method structures a problem as a hierarchy with a goal, criteria, and alternatives and then uses pairwise comparisons and matrix algebra to rank the alternatives for a decision.

Figure 1 shows the structure of this study’s hierarchy. In order to capture the concept of power within the EIA decision-making process, the various stakeholders were asked to weight each other regarding the overall process. This allows the various priorities to be shown in settings that are both free from power dynamics (equality) and those with them present. Following stakeholder weighting, the goal is presented as an effective EIA outcome.

Below the goal, strategic criteria included the ‘three pillars’ of sustainable development (the environment, economy, and society) as well as institutional criteria. While the EIA is a multi-objective policy instrument capable of serving diverse interests, much of the literature agrees that its purpose, at a minimum, is to consider the biophysical environmental impacts of a project or program (Hacking & Guthrie, 2008), and, ideally, it should promote sustainable development (Cashmore et al., 2010; Lawrence, 1997; Morgan, 2012; Rozema & Bond, 2015). Including these major criteria captures the strategic goals of the stakeholders (Stoeglehner, 2020).

The final level are the alternatives, all five dimensions of EIA effectiveness: procedural, substantive, transactive, normative, and transformative were used. Weighing these alternatives against the criteria helped identify the optimal balance among these dimensions for an effective outcome as according to the stakeholders.

In the second phase, stakeholders perform pairwise judgements of each criteria with respect to the higher hierarchical level in order to weight the criteria. This was done using a verbal scale of preference that is transformed into an absolute 1-9 scale, whereby the weaker criterion is given the number 1 and the stronger is weighted up to 9 times more important (Saaty, 2006). Since the interviews with stakeholders for the pairwise judgments were conducted over a period of months, their judgments were synthesized using the geometric mean as suggested by Saaty (2006). After each criterion has been compared with each other in the same level of the hierarchy the results are put into an N-by-N matrix, where N is the number of criteria. From this matrix, criteria’s priorities are found from the principal eigenvector of the matrix, which is then normalized.

In the final phase, synthesis, each alternative’s importance with respect to each criterion is compared. These results are then weighted by multiplying a given alternative’s priority with respect to a given criterion by that criterion’s priority. The respective totals for each alternative are normalized to give an alternative’s priority ratio relative to each other alternative. The consistency of judgments is measured to ensure that it is not greater than the recommended limit of 10% (Saaty, 2006). Greater than 10% inconsistency in pairwise comparisons is akin to weighting criteria randomly. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the stability of the final alternative ranking. The sensitivity analysis involves changing the weights of the criteria to assess the impact on criteria ranking. The synthetization of the hierarchy and sensitivity analyses were performed using the software SuperDecisions v2.10 (Saaty, 2008).

The two subnational EIA systems examined here exhibit unique and common challenges and opportunities. The fsQCA method identified the necessary and sufficient conditions that lead to effectiveness dimensions and the AHP method asked stakeholders to rank criteria and alternatives (effectiveness dimensions) in terms of their importance.

3.1 FsQCA

The fsQCA results stem from secondary data and questionnaires. The number of respondents per stakeholder group per state is shown in Table 2. Ideally, each stakeholder group would have been evenly represented, but members of several groups were unresponsive or declined to participate in the research.

Table 2

Number of respondents per state and per stakeholder group
Stakeholder Group/State	Paraná	California	Totals by group
1. Academia, scientist, consultant	5	1	6
2. Project proponent	1	1	2
3. Public, NGO	1	1	2
4. Regulatory authority	2	6	8
Totals by state	9	9	18

The set membership scores for the conditions and outcomes for the stakeholder evaluations with secondary data is shown in Table 3. The stakeholder evaluations often nearly aligned with assessments via secondary data. For more detailed descriptions of the conditions and outcomes see APPENDIX B. In the case of Paraná, despite having weak membership (near 0.5) in both remote and proximate conditions, it had strong membership in the outcome procedural effectiveness. In the case of California, there is strong membership in the remote conditions of rule of law and policy integration, and in all the proximate conditions of stakeholder coordination, early project definition, and public participation. California had strong set membership in the outcomes of the procedural, substantive, and normative effectiveness conditions.

Table 3

fsQCA values based on secondary data and stakeholder questionnaires
	Remote conditions					Proximate conditions			Effectiveness dimensions
Case Study	EnvCult	Law	Indpt	Cap	Polintg	Coord	PrjtDef	PubPart	Proced	Subst	Tract	Norm	Trform
PR	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.5	0.45	0.65	0.65	0.85	0.6	0.4	0.65	0.25
CA	0.5	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.9	0.8	0.9	0.6	0.85	0.4
CA = California; Cap = capacity of the regulatory authority; Coord = coordination among stakeholders; EnvCult = environmental culture; Indpt = independence of the regulatory authority; Law = adherence to relevant law and regulations in the EIA process; Norm = normative effectiveness; Polintg = policy integration; PR = Paraná; PrjtDef = early project definition; Proced = procedural effectiveness; PubPart = public participation; Subst = substantive effectiveness; Tract = transactive effectiveness; Trform = transformative effectiveness

Next, set membership assessments from both states were combined and the necessary conditions were identified (boldened values in Table 4). Many conditions are necessary for an EIA outcome to be either transactively or transformatively effective, which underscores the difficulty of obtaining these two outcomes. No necessary conditions were identified for procedural effectiveness, contrary to the hypothesis of this study and much of the literature (Nakwaya-Jacobus et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2013, 2018; Theophilou et al., 2010). The proximate condition public participation was identified as a necessary condition for both substantive and normative effectiveness, the latter of which also saw early project definition as a necessary condition.

Table 4

fsQCA necessary condition consistency results
	Procedural	Substantive	Transactive	Normative	Transformative
Remote Conditions
Environmental culture	0.61	0.67	0.9	0.67	1.00
Rule of law	0.72	0.8	1.00	0.8	1.00
Independent regulatory agency	0.67	0.73	1.00	0.73	1.00
Agency capacity	0.55	0.6	0.9	0.6	1.00
Policy integration	0.79	0.93	1.00	0.9	1.00
Proximate Conditions
Stakeholder coordination	0.76	0.9	1.00	0.87	1.00
Early project definition	0.88	0.93	1.00	0.97	1.00
Public participation	0.88	1.0	1.00	1.00	1.00

Next, the remaining conditions that did not meet the necessary consistency threshold were used in truth table analysis, which is a sufficiency analysis for conditions and combinations of conditions (Schneider & Wagemann, 2012). The causal condition combinations are examined by outcome and discussed with necessary conditions.

For remote conditions, no sufficient conditions or condition combinations were identified for any of the outcomes. For proximate conditions, several causal condition combinations were identified for the procedural, substantive, and normative effectiveness outcomes.

The sufficient causal condition combinations for procedural effectiveness are stakeholder coordination and early project definition and public participation, a finding supported by the literature (Caro-Gonzalez et al., 2021; Nakwaya-Jacobus et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2018). Given the connections between procedural effectiveness and other dimensions such as substantive and transactive effectiveness (Pope et al., 2018; Veronez & Montaño, 2015), care should be taken then to meet these contextual conditions, which all are aspects of good stakeholder management. It also means that establishing conditions that are sufficient to bring about a procedurally efficient EIA process do not necessary require establishing the more permanent remote conditions (e.g., environmental culture).

For the substantive effectiveness outcome, public participation was identified as a necessary condition. Early project definition was identified as a sufficient condition. The fact that public participation is a necessary condition for a substantively effective EIA process is supported by the literature (Glucker et al., 2013; Lyhne et al., 2015; Nakwaya-Jacobus et al., 2023), despite the widespread view in the literature that EIA’s influence on decision-making is questionable (Almeida & Montaño 2017; Brombal et al. 2017; Cashmore et al. 2004; Hochstetler 2018; Kolhoff et al. 2016; Morgan 2012). The sufficient condition of early project definition was found as leading to an effective EIA outcome by Befani and Sager (2006), which suggests that clear project definition early in the EIA process can help keep EIA focused on relevant environmental issues.

For the normative effectiveness outcome, early project definition or public participation were identified as necessary conditions. Stakeholder coordination was identified as a sufficient condition. Early public participation is also often recommended not only for good practice, but also as a means of addressing and reassuring the concerns of local parties (Arts et al., 2012; Cashmore & Axelsson, 2013; Prno et al., 2021). Sustainable development is a contested concept (Cashmore et al., 2007; Sneddon et al., 2006; Zaccai, 2012), so agreement on project definition as a necessary condition would mean stakeholders agree to the project’s purpose and conceptualization, which with stakeholder coordination would be sufficient to lead to a normatively effective EIA process.

The remote conditions the rule of law, independent regulatory authority, and policy integration were all identified as necessary conditions for transactive effectiveness. Interviewees acknowledged disregard for procedures would likely invite legal challenges as well as pressure on the regulatory authority could compromise an EIA process that might face legal challenges, all of which could ultimately compromise transactive effectiveness, in line with the literature (Nakwaya-Jacobus et al., 2023; Pope et al., 2018). Lack of vertical as well as horizontal policy integration of EIA has been pointed to as a major shortcoming of EIA in Paraná (Gomes & Silva, 2017), Brazil (Oppermann & Montaño, 2011; L. Sánchez, 2013), and at the federal level in the US (NEPA Task Force, 2003). Highlighting the deficiencies of current connections between EIA and regional land use planning or programmatic planning is not a new suggestion since EIA is often conducted on a project level when considerations of a project’s merits have often already been decided upon. It would be mutually beneficial for EIA and regional and programmatic planning if the former had clear ties to the latter (e.g., tiering) and if the latter had a process similar to EIA, such as SEA (Gallardo & Bond, 2011; OECD, 2015; Pope et al., 2018). All proximate conditions were identified as necessary conditions, suggesting that transactive effectiveness is possible only with an open process in which all stakeholders are engaged and understand the project’s purposes early on. Transactive effectiveness has been understudied in the literature (Loomis & Dziedzic, 2018), but the identification of necessary remote conditions (rule of law, independent regulatory authority, and policy integration) as well as proximate conditions (stakeholder coordination, early project definition, and integrated public participation) offers direction for future research especially at a time when the federal governments in both states’ countries seek to expedite the EIA process (Loomis et al. 2021).

Transformative effectiveness showed the lowest membership scores of any outcome and all conditions were found to be necessary. A more environmentally conscious culture is likely to take decades to be realized, but it is just this kind of changes to the frame of reference of individuals discussed in the transformative literature (Mezirow, 2009) that is required to fundamentally change the decision-making structures surrounding EIA. Such fundamental changes are more likely to manifest through continued learning and exposure to different perspectives by non-environmental agencies and actors through greater policy integration, stakeholder coordination, and public participation, which are more likely observed at an EIA system level (Cashmore et al. 2008; Cashmore et al. 2010).

3.2 AHP

The AHP questionnaire was completed during private semi-structured interviews and via email by a total of 51 EIA stakeholders. The number of stakeholders per state is shown in Table 5. Each state’s results were calculated separately and included both weighted and unweighted results to assess how certain stakeholder groups’ importance rankings influenced final rankings. The various stakeholders’ assessments of each other per state are shown in Table 6.

Table 5

Number of AHP respondents per state and per stakeholder group
Stakeholder Group/State	Paraná	California	Totals by group
Academia, scientist, consultant	14	7	21
Project proponent	4	3	7
Public, NGO	4	7	11
Regulatory authority	3	9	12
Totals by state	25	26	51
NGO = nongovernmental organization

Table 6

Stakeholders' AHP rankings of each other
Stakeholder	Paraná	California
ASC	0.34	0.44
PROP	0.12	0.13
NGO	0.2	0.15
GOV	0.34	0.28
ASC: academia, scientists, and consultants; GOV: EIA regulatory authority; NGO: public and nongovernmental organizations; PROP: project proponent

In Paraná, the regulatory authority and the academia, scientists, and consultants group both rank highest. This comes despite some stakeholders’ criticisms of the regulatory authority’s lack of independence, capacity, and objectiveness in decision-making. In both case studies, the public and nongovernmental organizations group and the project proponent group both ranked third and fourth respectively. This comes despite interviewees commenting that third parties can impede EIA processes for non-environmental reasons in the case of California, or in the case of Parana, project proponents often exert large influence on both the ASC and GOV groups.

3.2.1 Paraná

The overall normalized results of the hierarchy for Paraná are shown in Fig. 2. The ranking of the various strategic criteria (Table 7) shows a clear preference for environmental criteria regardless of stakeholder weighting. The ranking of the various strategic criteria shows a clear preference for environmental criterion. These findings challenge theories of the EIA as a tool meant to foster sustainable development, which would see the strategic criteria in balance (understood from a three pillars approach) (Nykvist & Nilsson, 2009). Instead, this result offers a narrower understanding of EIA’s goals (reducing negative environmental impacts), an argument still ongoing in the literature (A. Bond et al., 2020; A. J. Bond et al., 2010; Loomis & Dziedzic, 2018, 2022). While EIA has its origins in conservation and bringing environmental concerns to the forefront in development decision-making (GLASSON et al., 2012), more recently the academic literature argues(Morgan, 2012) that EIA is a tool for sustainable development. If such were the case, then one would expect to see a balance among the strategic criteria; however, practitioners tend to focus on implementing EIA up to and not beyond the legal requirements (Jabbour et al., 2012; Lyhne et al., 2015; Runhaar et al., 2013).

Table 7

Paraná strategic criteria AHP rankings
Strategic criteria	Unweighted averages	Weighted averages	ASC	PROP	NGO	GOV
Economic	0.16	0.17	0.21	0.11	0.16	0.15
Environment	0.41	0.41	0.34	0.33	0.48	0.48
Institutional	0.21	0.2	0.22	0.33	0.16	0.16
Social	0.22	0.22	0.23	0.23	0.2	0.21
Consistency ratio	0.01	0	0	0.04	0.13	0.03

The final part of the hierarchy consists of the alternatives, which in this case are the five EIA effectiveness dimensions (Table 8). The consistently top ranked alternative is the normative dimension, whereas the ranking of the strategic criteria suggested a narrower focus on the environmental criterion. This lends support to the notion that EIA is a policy tool for the broader objective of sustainable development (Koff, 2021; Rozema & Bond, 2015). All stakeholder groups agree that transactive effectiveness is the least important dimension. As many respondents commented during interview this stems from the fact that without a robust process that adheres to regulations, the chances of legal challenges increase, which in turn can bring significant temporal and financial costs. Just above transactive effectiveness, the transformative effectiveness dimension, ranked second lowest.

Table 8

Paraná EIA effectiveness dimension AHP rankings
Alternatives	Unweighted average	Weighted average	ASC	PROP	NGO	GOV
Normative	0.3	0.3	0.22	0.21	0.37	0.42
Procedural	0.25	0.25	0.2	0.25	0.31	0.21
Substantive	0.2	0.2	0.26	0.27	0.16	0.13
Transactive	0.11	0.11	0.14	0.13	0.06	0.11
Transformative	0.14	0.14	0.18	0.14	0.1	0.13

3.2.2 California

The overall normalized results of the hierarchy are shown in Fig. 3. The ranking of strategic criteria in California is shown in Table 10. There is a tendency towards the environmental criteria across all groups except the NGO group. Following the priority of the environment, the importance of institutional framework ranks second in both unweighted and weighted averages and across all stakeholder groups except for the proponent group. As in Paraná case, this also challenges notions of EIA as a tool for sustainable development, but rather more narrowly focused on environmental conservation.

Table 10

California strategic criteria AHP rankings
Strategic criteria	Unweighted averages	Weighted averages	ASC	PROP	NGO	GOV
Economic	0.15	0.13	0.08	0.29	0.14	0.12
Environment	0.4	0.41	0.5	0.34	0.26	0.36
Institutional	0.24	0.25	0.2	0.13	0.28	0.37
Social	0.21	0.21	0.22	0.16	0.32	0.15
Consistency ratio	0	0	0.01	0.08	0.07	0.05

In the final part of the hierarchy are the alternatives, the overall preference is the substantive effectiveness dimension (Table 11). This aligns with California’s regulations that explicitly state that the purpose of EIA is more than simply an administrative process and should influence project planning (AEP, 2018). The procedural effectiveness dimension ranks near the bottom for all except the GOV group, which is at odds with the discussions with various participants who consistently couched their reasoning in legal terms. The diversity of top effectiveness dimension rankings reinforces the problem of plurality in the concept of effectiveness identified by Rozema and Bond (2015). Aside from the PROP group, the transactive dimension of effectiveness, ranked as the least important criterion.

Table 11

California EIA effectiveness dimension AHP rankings
Alternatives	Unweighted average	Weighted average	ASC	PROP	NGO	GOV
Normative	0.22	0.22	0.22	0.21	0.2	0.24
Procedural	0.16	0.16	0.12	0.14	0.17	0.26
Substantive	0.29	0.3	0.34	0.25	0.25	0.28
Transactive	0.14	0.14	0.11	0.25	0.12	0.09
Transformative	0.19	0.18	0.21	0.15	0.26	0.13

This study concludes by reflecting on the two methodologies used here, their findings for the two case studies, and their contribution to evaluatory EIA literature. AHP and fsQCA provide a complementary means of organizing a comparative case study. While the former can identify areas of agreement and conflict among stakeholders, and their priorities, as well as a method that can integrate qualitative and quantitative data, the latter offers a means of assessing the presence and absence of these priorities. The fsQCA method allowed for the identification of necessary and sufficient condition configurations that when present resulted in different EIA effectiveness dimensions as outcomes. The AHP method then ranked the importance of these outcomes according to different stakeholder groups in order to identify their priorities and areas of disagreement.

Across the two case studies there is often more variety in stakeholder groups’ rankings than agreement, coupled with the disparities in strategic criteria ranking and it can be concluded that effectiveness is a plural concept and many stakeholders still regard EIA as narrowly focused on environmental protection. This pluralism and different priorities continue to be something that EIA cannot resolve at the project level. The challenge here is not necessarily the science behind the EIA, but how to reconcile the different priorities and values of different stakeholders when such priorities are determined prior to the EIA process. This study has identified these areas of disagreement and the conditions that lead to different stakeholders’ priorities, these could be interesting avenues for future research.

This study faced several limitations, the first being the use of only two case studies. This allowed for a deeper analysis of each case study, but required the incorporation of secondary data to triangulate stakeholder assessments, especially for the fsQCA methodology. Another limitation of this study concerns the representativeness of the respondents to their respective state populations. In this study, the number of questionnaire responses were limited due mainly to response rates. While numerous attempts were made to obtain more responses, the respondent numbers for any of the four stakeholder groups cannot be considered representative of their respective state populations.

In this study the most important dimensions of effectiveness are the substantive (California) and the normative (Paraná) effectiveness dimensions. These two dimensions consistently ranked in the top three in both case studies. The fsQCA results indicate that public participation is a necessary condition for both substantive and normative effectiveness. Early project definition was identified as a necessary condition for normative effectiveness and a sufficient condition for substantive effectiveness, and stakeholder coordination was identified as a sufficient condition for normative effectiveness. This suggests that in order for EIA to influence decision—making, broader public participation is required that must be coordinated and result in early identification of a project’s design and recognized impacts. This also suggests that the substantive and normative effectiveness dimensions influence one another as they are the result of several of the same conditions. The scientific literature should shift focus from procedural effectiveness elements of EIA systems (although it ranked third in Paraná) and instead focus understanding how EIA can be better incorporated into decision-making and how it can better foster sustainable development and the role of public participation in this regard.

Looking at which criteria ranked lowest among the effectiveness dimensions also illuminates stakeholders’ priorities. The transactive dimension consistently ranked the lowest. The repeated justification for such disregard was that without proper implementation (procedural effectiveness), the likelihood of legal challenges would result in higher costs and a longer EIA process. The differences in the rankings of effectiveness dimensions between the EIA systems of California (implemented since 1970) and Paraná (implemented since 1992), where procedural effectiveness ranked fourth and second, respectively, suggests that as an EIA system develops and stakeholders and institutions’ capacities increase, initial concerns over procedural effectiveness make room for substantive and normative goals.

It can be concluded that effectiveness is a plural concept, and many stakeholders still regard EIA as narrowly focused on environmental protection. This pluralism and different priorities continue to be something that EIA cannot resolve at the project level. The challenge here is how to reconcile the different priorities and values of different stakeholders when such priorities are determined at prior to the EIA process. This study highlights the importance of considering contextual conditions that are necessary or sufficient for effective EIA, suggesting EIA improvement and reform needs to take a broader scope beyond strictly EIA legislation and regulation. Given the finding of many proximate conditions being identified as necessary or sufficient, EIA reform should focus on stakeholder management. To bring about greater stakeholder management, whereby differences are recognized in a transparent and deliberative manner to produce more effective EIA outcomes, stakeholders’ priorities as well as the remote and proximate conditions that lead to those priorities should be identified, the methodologies employed here provide a first step at their identification. It is hoped that this study promotes more multi-dimensional EIA effectiveness studies, given the identification of the interdependencies of EIA effectiveness dimensions with respect to their conditional causes.

The authors would like to acknowledge that this research was supported by a project scholarship provided by Universidade Positivo.

Declaration of interest: All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Data availability Statement: Raw data used in this study for both the fsQCA and AHP methods is available upon request. Secondary data used in the fsQCA can be located in Appendix B.

AEP, (Association of Environmental Professionals). (2014). 2014 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines.
AEP, (Association of Environmental Professionals). (2018). 2018 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (2018th ed.). ICF International.
Ahmad, B., & Wood, C. (2002). A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 213–234.
Almeida, M. R. R. E., & Montaño, M. (2017). The Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment Systems in São Paulo and Minas Gerais States. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20(2), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc235r2v2022017
Arts, J., Runhaar, H. A. C., Fischer, T. B., Jha-Thakur, U., Van Laerhoven, F., Driessen, P. P. J., & Onyango, V. (2012). The Effectiveness of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance: Reflecting on 25 years of EIA practice in the Netherlands and the UK. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 14(04), 1250025. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333212500251
Baker, D. C., & McLelland, J. N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of British Columbia’s environmental assessment process for first nations’ participation in mining development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(5), 581–603.
Barbour, E., & Teitz, M. (2005). CEQA Reform: Issues and Options. Public Policy Insititute of California.
Barker, A., & Wood, C. (1999). An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19(4), 387–404.
Bartlett, R. V., & Kurian, P. A. (1999). The Theory of Environmental Impact Assessment: Implicit models of policy making. Policy & Politics, 27(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557399782218371
Bassi, A., Howard, R., Geneletti, D., & Ferrari, S. (2012). UK and Italian EIA systems: A comparative study on management practice and performance in the construction industry. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 34, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.002
Befani, B., & Sager, F. (2006). QCA as a Tool for Realistic Evaluations. The Case of the Swiss Environmental Impact Assessment. In Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide (pp. 263–284). Springer.
Bina, O. (2008). Context and Systems: Thinking More Broadly About Effectiveness in Strategic Environmental Assessment in China. Environmental Management, 42(4), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9123-5
Bond, A., Pope, J., Retief, F., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2018). On legitimacy in impact assessment: An epistemologically-based conceptualisation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 69, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.006
Bond, A., Viegas, C. V., Coelho de Souza Reinisch Coelho, C., & Selig, P. M. (2010). Informal knowledge processes: The underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA? Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.002
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Howitt, R. (2013). Chapter 8: Framework for comparing and evaluating sustainability assessment practice. In Sustainability Assessment Pluralism, Practice and Progress (pp. 117–131). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/6737/
Bond, A., Pope, J., Fundingsland, M., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., & Hauptfleisch, M. (2020). Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): A neo-Gramscian perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118694
Botta, E., & Kozluk, T. (2014). Measuring Environmental Policy Stringency in OECD Countries: A Composite Index Approach (No. 1177; p. 48). OECD Economics Department Working Papers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrjnc45gvg-en
Brombal, D., Moriggi, A., & Marcomini, A. (2017). Evaluating public participation in Chinese EIA. An integrated Public Participation Index and its application to the case of the New Beijing Airport. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.001
CALAO, (California Legislative Analyst’s Office). (1997). CEQA: Making it work better. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/88
Caro-Gonzalez, A. L., Toro, J., & Zamorano, M. (2021). Effectiveness of environmental impact statement methods: A Colombian case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113659
Cashmore, M. (2004). The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2003.12.002
Cashmore, M., & Axelsson, A. (2013). The mediation of environmental assessment’s influence: What role for power? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.06.008
Cashmore, M., Bond, A., & Cobb, D. (2007). The Contribution of Environmental Assessment to Sustainable Development: Toward a Richer Empirical Understanding. Environmental Management, 40(3), 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0234-6
Cashmore, M., Bond, A., & Cobb, D. (2008). The role and functioning of environmental assessment: Theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1233–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.005
Cashmore, M., Bond, A., & Sadler, B. (2009). Introduction: The effectiveness of impact assessment instruments. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155109X454285
Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D., & Bond, A. (2004). The interminable issue of effectiveness: Substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765860
Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Ryedvik, T., & Emmelin, L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(6), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.004
Chanchitpricha, C., & Bond, A. (2013). Conceptualising the effectiveness of impact assessment processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.05.006
Enríquez-de-Salamanca, Á. (2018). Stakeholders’ manipulation of Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.003
Fonseca, A., Sánchez, L. E., & Ribeiro, J. C. J. (2017). Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.10.002
Gallardo, A. L. C. F., & Bond, A. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of environmental assessment of land use change: A comparative study of the approaches taken to perennial biomass crop planting in São Paulo and England. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), 2285–2297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.050
Glasson, J., & Salvador, N. N. B. (2000). EIA in Brazil: A procedures–practice gap. A comparative study with reference to the European Union, and especially the UK. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20(2), 191–225.
Glasson, J., & Therivel, R. (2019). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (5th ed.). Milton : Routledge.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2012). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (4th ed.). Routledge.
Glucker, A. N., Driessen, P. P. J., Kolhoff, A., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). Public participation in environmental impact assessment: Why, who and how? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003
Gomes, F. D. F., & Silva, C. L. da. (2017). O conflito resultante do licenciamento ambiental: O cenário das pequenas centrais hidrelétricas no Paraná. Interações (Campo Grande), 18(4), 155. https://doi.org/10.20435/inter.v18i4.1598
Hacking, T., & Guthrie, P. (2008). A framework for clarifying the meaning of Triple Bottom-Line, Integrated, and Sustainability Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(2–3), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.002
Hernandez, J. L., Friedman, D., & DeHerrera, S. (2016). In the Name of the Environment Update: CEQA Litigation Update for SCAG Region (2013-2015) (p. 25). Holland & Knight.
Hernandez, J. L., Potter, S. B., Golub, D., & Meldrum, J. (2015). CEQA Judicial Outcomes: Fifteen Years of Reported California Appellate and Supreme Court Decisions. 51.
Hochstetler, K. (2018). Environmental impact assessment: Evidence-based policymaking in Brazil. Contemporary Social Science, 13(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017.1393556
Hochstetler, K., & Keck, M. E. (2007). Greening Brazil: Environmental activism in state and society. Duke University Press.
Hudson, J., & Kühner, S. (2013). Qualitative comparative analysis and applied public policy analysis: New applications of innovative methods. Policy and Society, 32(4), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.10.001
Jabbour, C. J. C., Maria da Silva, E., Paiva, E. L., & Almada Santos, F. C. (2012). Environmental management in Brazil: Is it a completely competitive priority? Journal of Cleaner Production, 21(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.003
Jones, M., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Understanding the long-term influence of EIA on organisational learning and transformation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.007
Koff, H. (2021). Why serve soup with a fork?: How policy coherence for development can link environmental impact assessment with the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 86, 106477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106477
Kolhoff, A. J., Runhaar, H. A. C., Gugushvili, T., Sonderegger, G., Van der Leest, B., & Driessen, P. P. J. (2016). The influence of actor capacities on EIA system performance in low and middle income countries—Cases from Georgia and Ghana. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 57, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.011
Lawrence, D. P. (1997). The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17(2), 79–107.
Loomis, J. J., Bond, A., & Dziedzic, M. (2022). Transformative effectiveness: How EIA can transform stakeholders’ frames of reference. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.06.007
Loomis, J. J., de Oliveira, C. M. R., & Dziedzic, M. (2021). Environmental federalism in EIA policy: A comparative case study of Paraná, Brazil and California, US. Environmental Science & Policy, 122, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.015
Loomis, J. J., & Dziedzic, M. (2018). Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: A state of the art. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 84, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005
Loomis, J. J., & Dziedzic, M. (2022a). Analyzing EIA in Paraná, Brazil and California, United States with Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process. 4. https://doi.org/10.13033/isahp.y2022.014
Loomis, J. J., & Dziedzic, M. (2022b). Trends in EIA effectiveness research. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment (pp. 303–318). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/handbook-of-environmental-impact-assessment-9781800379626.html
Lyhne, I., van Laerhoven, F., Cashmore, M., & Runhaar, H. (2015). Theorising EIA effectiveness: A contribution based on the Danish system. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.12.002
Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview of transformative learning. In Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists—In their own words (1st ed., pp. 90–105). Routledge.
Middle, G., & Middle, I. (2010). The inefficiency of environmental impact assessment: Reality or myth? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155110X498825
Miles, S. (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused? Journal of Business Ethics, 108(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1090-8
Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y
Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.661557
Morrison-Saunders, A., & Arts, J. (2004). Introduction to EIA Follow-up. In Assessing impact: Handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up (pp. 1–21). Earthscan.
Nakwaya-Jacobus, D. N., Hipondoka, M., Angombe, S., Stringer, L. C., & Dougill, A. J. (2021). Evaluating the performance and procedural effectiveness of Namibia’s Environmental Impact Assessment system. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, 106670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106670
Nakwaya-Jacobus, D. N., Hipondoka, M., Angombe, S., Stringer, L. C., & Dougill, A. J. (2023). Substantive, normative and transactive effectiveness of EIA: Perception of key actors in Namibia. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2214446
NEPA Task Force. (2003). Modernizing NEPA Implementation (p. 132). Executive Office of the President of the United States.
Nykvist, B., & Nilsson, M. (2009). Are impact assessment procedures actually promoting sustainable development? Institutional perspectives on barriers and opportunities found in the Swedish committee system. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.04.002
OECD. (2015). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil 2015. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264240094-en
OECD, (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2018a). 11. Government expenditure by function (COFOG). https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11
OECD, (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2018b). OECD Environmental Statistics. OECD ILibrary. https://doi.org/10.1787/env-data-en
Oppermann, P., & Montaño, M. (2011). Strengths and weaknesses of SEA in Brazil. IAIA 11 Conference Proceedings.
OPR, (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). (2019). CEQAnet Home. http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/
Pedrini, M., & Ferri, L. M. (2019). Stakeholder management: A systematic literature review. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 19(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2017-0172
PEW, (PEW Research Center). (2010). Obama More Popular Abroad Than at Home, Global Image of U.S. Continues to Benefit. Pew Research Center.
PEW, (PEW Research Center). (2013). Climate change and financial instability seen as top global threats (p. 31). Pew Research Center. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/24/climate-change-and-financial-instability-seen-as-top-global-threats/
PEW, (PEW Research Center). (2015). Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/
PEW, (PEW Research Center). (2017). Globally, People Point to ISIS and Climate Change as Leading Security Threats (p. 32). Pew Research Center.
Pope, J., Bond, A., Cameron, C., Retief, F., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2018). Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 70, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.01.004
Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Retief, F. (2013). Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.008
Prno, J., Pickard, M., & Kaiyogana, J. (2021). Effective Community Engagement during the Environmental Assessment of a Mining Project in the Canadian Arctic. Environmental Management, 67(5), 1000–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01426-5
Ragin, C. (2009). Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). In Configurational Comparative Methods Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques (Vol. 51, pp. 87–121). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ragin, C.(2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. (2014). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0455
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Rihoux, B., & Grimm, H. M. (2006). Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis. Springer.
Rothman, L. D. (2011). CEQA Turns Forty: The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same. Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Schreck.
Rozema, J. G., & Bond, A. (2015). Framing effectiveness in impact assessment: Discourse accommodation in controversial infrastructure development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.001
Runhaar, H., van Laerhoven, F., Driessen, P., & Arts, J. (2013). Environmental assessment in The Netherlands: Effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 39, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003
Saaty, T. L. (2006). Fundamental of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierachy Process (2nd ed., Vol. 6). RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). The analytic network process. Iranian Journal of Operations Research, 1(1), 1–27.
Sadler, B. (1996). International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment (p. 248). Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Sánchez, L. (2013). Development of Environmental Impact Assessment in Brazil (Vol. 27).
Sánchez, L. E. (2013). Availiação de Impacto Ambiental: Conceitos e Métodos (2nd ed.). Oficina de Textos.
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2006). Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 45(5), 751–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00635.x
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793
Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, A. J., & Diduck, A. P. (2001). Public involvement in EA in Canada: A transformative learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21(2), 113–136.
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R. B., & Norgaard, R. B. (2006). Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.013
Stoeglehner, G. (2020). Strategicness – the core issue of environmental planning and assessment of the 21 ^st century. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1678969
Theophilou, V., Bond, A., & Cashmore, M. (2010). Application of the SEA Directive to EU structural funds: Perspectives on effectiveness. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2), 136–144.
Transparency International. (2017). Corruption Perceptions Index 2017: Technical Methodology Note.
Ulibarri, N., Scott, T. A., & Perez-Figueroa, O. (2019). How does stakeholder involvement affect environmental impact assessment? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 79, 106309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106309
Veronez, F. A., & Montaño, M. (2015). EIA Effectiveness: Conceptual basis for an integrative approach. 35th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment. 35th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Florence, Italy. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fernanda_Veronez/publication/280738572_EIA_Effectiveness_conceptual_basis_for_an_integrative_approach/links/55c4af3808aeb9756741e4f5.pdf
Wallington, T., Bina, O., & Thissen, W. (2007). Theorising strategic environmental assessment: Fresh perspectives and future challenges. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(7), 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.007
Wiklund, H. (2005). In search of arenas for democratic deliberation: A Habermasian review of environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(4), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154605781765391
World Bank. (2018). What a Waste 2.0.pdf (p. 296). World Bank.
Wright, A. J., Dolman, S. J., Jasny, M., Parsons, E. C. M., Schiedek, D., & Young, S. B. (2013). Myth and Momentum: A Critique of Environmental Impact Assessments. Journal of Environmental Protection, 04(08), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013.48A2009
Zaccai, E. (2012). Over two decades in pursuit of sustainable development: Influence, transformations, limits. Environmental Development, 1(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2011.11.002

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 06 Jan, 2024

Read the published version in Environmental Management →

Editorial decision: Major revision
26 Sep, 2023
Reviews received at journal
16 Jul, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Jul, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
05 Jul, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
29 Jun, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
24 Jun, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
22 Jun, 2023
First submitted to journal
20 Jun, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Paraná, Brazil and California, United States With Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 INTRODUCTION

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 fsQCA method

2.2 AHP method

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSION

3.1 FsQCA

3.2 AHP

3.2.1 Paraná

3.2.2 California

4 CONCLUSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1