Problematic practice in integrated impact assessment: The role of consultants and predictive computer models in buryinguncertainty

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 53-66

  Duncan, Ronlyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Australia; Basslink; Certainty trough; Integrated impact assessment; Prediction; Predictive computer models; Simulations; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; INTEGRATED APPROACH;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA;

EID: 43849098895     PISSN: 14615517     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/146155108X303931     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Beder, S 1993. Bias and credibility in environmental impact assessment. Chain Reaction, 68, 28-30.
2. Bevilacqua, S 2003. Basstink: Row erupts over electricity project's $250m blowout. The Sunday Tasmanian, 15 June 2003. Hobart: Davies Brothers Pty Limited.
3. Bohme, G 1997. The structures and prospects of knowledge society. Social Science Information, 36(3), 447-468.
4. Brown and Root Services Asia Pacific Pty Ltd 2001. Independent Review of the Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement, report prepared for Basslink Joint Advisory Panel. Melbourne: Brown and Root Services Asia Pacific Pty Ltd.
5. Clayton Utz 2001. Hydro Tasmania's Opening Submission: Part 1 - Introduction. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
6. Collins, H M 1987. Certainty and the public understanding of science: science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17(4), 689-713.
7. Collins, H M 1988. Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: the core-set revisited. Social Studies of Science, 18(4), 725-748.
8. Connarty, M 2001a. Appendix 29: TEMSIM Sensitivity Study on Implications of Basslink, prepared for Hydro-Electric Corporation. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
9. Connarty, M 2001b. Response to TEMSIM Modelling Issues Arising from the Basslink IIAS, prepared for Hydro-Electric Corporation. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
10. Connarty, M 2001c. Transcription of audio evidence presented at Public Hearings, 15 October.
11. CREA, Centre for Regional Economic Analysis 2000. The Economic Consequences of Basslink for the Tasmanian, Victorian and National Economies. Hobart: University of Tasmania.
12. Davidson, N and A Gibbons 2001a. Appendix 6: Gordon River Riparian Vegetation Assessment, DIIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
13. Davidson, N and A Gibbons 2001b. Gordon River Riparian Vegetation Assessment Update to IIAS, report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
14. Davies, P D 2001. Gordon River Macroinvertebrate and Aquatic Mammal Assessment Update to IIAS, report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
15. Davies, P D and L S J Cook 2001. Appendix 7: Gordon River Macroinvertebrate and Aquatic Mammal Assessment, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
16. De Jongh, P 1988. Uncertainty in EIA. In Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, ed. P Wathern, pp. 63-84. London: Routledge.
17. Dipper, B, C Jones and C Wood 1998. Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental impact assessment: a review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(6), 731-747.
18. Duncan, R 2003. Constructing barriers in the translation and deployment of science: Basslink - a case study. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(1), 80-87.
19. Duncan, R 2004. Science narratives: the construction, mobilisation and validation of Hydro Tasmania's case for Basslink, PhD thesis. Hobart: School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania. Available at , last accessed 22 February 2008.
20. Duncan, R 2006. The use of predictive modelling in impact assessment: implications for environmental legislation and regulation. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1), 75-88.
21. Duncan, R and P Hay 2007. A question of balance in integrated impact assessment: negotiating away the environmental interest in Australia's Basslink project. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(3), 273-297.
22. Evans, R 1997. Soothsaying or science?: Falsification, uncertainty and social change in macroeconomic modelling, Social Studies of Science, 27, 395-438.
23. Flyvbjerg, B, J S Holm and S Buhl 2002. Underestimating costs in public works projects: error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295.
24. Flyvbjerg, B, N Bruzelius and W Rothengatter 2003. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Genelletti, D, E Beinat, C F Chung, A G Fabbri and H J Scholten 2003. Accounting for uncertainty factors in biodiversity impact assessment: lessons from a case study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 471-487.
26. Gibson, R, S Hassan, S Holtz, J Tansey and G Whitelaw 2005. Sustainability Assessment Criteria and Processes. London: Earthscan.
27. Glasson, J 1994. Life after the decision: the importance of monitoring in environmental impact assessment. Built Environment, 20(4), 309-320.
28. Glasson, J, R Therivel and A Chadwick 2005. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.
29. Gubrium, J F and J A Holstein 2000. Analyzing interpretive practice. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, eds. N K Denzin and Y S Lincoln, pp. 487-507. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30. Hartmann, S 1996. The world as a process: simulations in the natural and social sciences. In Modelling and Simulation in the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View, eds. R Hegselmann, U Mueller and K G Troitzsch, pp. 77-100. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
31. HEC, Hydro-Electric Corporation 2001a. Hydro Tasmania Business and Economic Issues. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
32. HEC, Hydro-Electric Corporation 2001b. TEMSIM Modelling. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
33. Hilgartner, S 2000. Science on stage: expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
34. House of Assembly 2003. Hansard, Tuesday 18 February 2003: House of Assembly Government Businesses Scrutiny Committee. Hobart: Parliament of Tasmania. Available at , last accessed 19 July 2003.
35. Howland, M 2001. Gordon River Fish Assessment Update to IIAS, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
36. Hydro Consulting 2000. Appendix 1: Scoping Report, Basslink Aquatic Environmental Project, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
37. Hydro Tasmania 2003. Letter to editor. The Examiner, 6 June 2003. Launceston: Davies Brothers Pty Limited.
38. Hydro Tasmania 2005. Hydro Tasmania Report 05. Hobart: Hydro-Electric Corporation.
39. Hydro Tasmania 2007. Hydro Tasmania Annual Report 07. Hobart: Hydro-Electric Corporation.
40. IES, Intelligent Energy Systems 2000a. Supporting Study 20: Macro-economic NEM Modelling (Vic & Tas), draft IIAS report prepared for Basslink Pty Ltd. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
41. IES, Intelligent Energy Systems 2000b. Supporting Study 14: Greenhouse Gas NEM Modelling (Vic & Tas), draft IIAS report prepared for Basslink Pty Ltd. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
42. IES, Intelligent Energy Systems 2002. PROPHET: The Essential Tool for Electricity Market Participants. Available at , last accessed 8 December 2002.
43. Irwin, A 2001. Sociology and the Environment: A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press.
44. Irwin, A and B Wynne 1996. Introduction. In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, eds. A Irwin and B Wynne, pp. 1-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. JAP, Joint Advisory Panel 2002a. Draft Panel Report. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
46. JAP, Joint Advisory Panel 2002b. Final Panel Report. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
47. Jasanoff, S 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195-230.
48. Jasanoff, S 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Koehnken, L 2001. Gordon River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment Update to IIAS, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
50. Koehnken, L, H Locher and I Rutherfurd 2001. Appendix 4: Gordon River Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
51. Kriwoken, L K 2001a. Appendix 14: Gordon River World Heritage Area Values Assessment, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
52. Kriwoken, L K 2001b. Gordon River World Heritage Area Values Assessment Update to the IIAS, draft IIAS report prepared for Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
53. Lahsen, M 2005. Seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models. Social Studies of Science, 35(6), 895-922.
54. Latour, B 1987. Science In Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Latour, B and S Woolgar 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
56. Locher, H 2001a. Summary Report, draft IIAS report prepared by Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
57. Locher, H 2001b. Overview Report on Tasmanian Waterway Issues Arising from Basslink, draft IIAS report prepared by Hydro Tasmania. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
58. MacKenzie, D 1990. Inventing Accuracy. A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
59. MacKenzie, D 2007. Personal email correspondence, 2 August. NSR Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd 2001. Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement. Hawthorn East: NSR Environmental Consultants.
60. NSR Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to the Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement. Hawthorn East: NSR Environmental Consultants.
61. Office of the Tasmanian Energy Regulator 2007. Media Release: Electricity Price Investigation Final Report Released. 28 September. Available at , last accessed 22 February 2008.
62. Porter, T M 1992a. Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Social Studies of Science, 22, 633-652.
63. Porter, T M 1992b. Objectivity as standardization: the rhetoric of impersonality in measurement, statistics, and cost-benefit analysis. Annals of Scholarship, 9, 19-59.
64. Porter, T M 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. NewJersey: Princeton University Press.
65. Shackley, S and B Wynne 1995. Integrating knowledges for climate change: pyramids, nets and uncertainties. Global Environmental Change, 5(2), 113-126.
66. Shackley, S and B Wynne 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(3), 275-302.
67. Smith, R D 1999. Simulation: the engine behind the virtual world. Available at , last accessed 20 February 2008.
68. Spry, A 1976. A Consultant's Views on Environmental Impact Statements in Australia. Search, 7(6), 252-255.
69. Strand, S 1999. Forecasting the future: pitfalls in controlling for uncertainty. Futures, 31, 333-350.
70. Tennøy, A 2008. Consequences of environmental impact assessment prediction uncertainty on mitigation, follow-up and post-auditing. In Standards and Thresholds for Impact Assessment, eds. M Schmidt, J Glasson, L Emmelin and H Helbron, pp. 447-458. New York: Springer.
71. Tennøy, A, J Kværner and K I Gjerstad 2006. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(1), March, 45-56.
72. Thomas, 1 1998. Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Leichhardt: Federation.
73. URS New Zealand Ltd 2001. Supporting Study 15: Greenhouse Gas Assessment (Vic & Tas), draft IIAS report. Hobart: Resource Planning and Development Commission.
74. Wachs, M 1990. Ethics and advocacy in forecasting for public policy. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 9(1 -2), 141-157.
75. Wood, C, B Dipper and C Jones 2000. Auditing the assessment of the environmental impacts of planning projects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(1), 23-47.
76. Wynne, B 1992a. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2, June, 111-127.
77. Wynne, B 1992b. Carving out science (and politics) in the regulatory jungle. Social Studies of Science, 22, 745-758.