Engineering topics

Retief, Francois

Publications and source records attributed to Retief, Francois.

8 records

DOE OSTI2018

Are current effectiveness criteria fit for purpose? Using a controversial strategic assessment as a test case

Highlights: • The effectiveness framework of Bond et al. (2015) is tested on a case study. • The strategic assessment of the proposed Browse LNG Precinct is evaluated. • The effectiveness framework is modified as a result of the analysis. • “Legitimacy” encompasses both pluralism and normative effectiveness. • Substantive effectiveness should include consideration of unintended consequences. - Abstract: The aim of this paper is to test the broader utility of the sustainability assessment effectiveness framework of Bond et al. (2015) by applying it to a controversial strategic assessment case study. The effectiveness framework comprises six dimensions: procedural effectiveness, substantive effectiveness, transactive effectiveness, normative effectiveness, pluralism, and knowledge and learning. It was originally developed to evaluate sustainability assessment at a system-wide level and it has not been previously applied to a specific case study. The analysis was conducted through document review and the first-hand experience of two of the authors who were involved in the case study in different capacities. The case study selected was the strategic assessment of the proposed Browse Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Precinct in Western Australia, which was conducted over the period 2007–2015 under the strategic assessment provisions of both the Western Australian and Australian Commonwealth environmental legislation. The framework provided a useful structure within which this complex case study could be explored, its strengths and weaknesses brought to light, and the interactions between the dimensions highlighted. We also found opportunities for refinement of the framework. As a result of this analysis we propose to replace the final three dimensions of the framework with legitimacy, where a legitimate process is one which all stakeholders agree is fair and which delivers an acceptable outcome for all parties, though we acknowledge the need for further conceptualisation of this dimension. We also suggest that the concept of substantive effectiveness should be expanded to incorporate the unintended consequences of impact assessment. Our research thus makes both a useful addition to the literature already published on the Browse case study, as well as to the literature on impact assessment effectiveness.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2018

Exploring pluralism – Different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

This paper explores the concept of pluralism by evaluating different stakeholder views on the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). The research followed a single embedded case study approach (of a national-level SEA for renewable energy planning in South Africa) and engaged with four different stakeholder groups, namely government, industry, conservation groups, and interested and affected parties (IAPs). A total of 21 different value expectations (VEs) across all four stakeholder groups were identified. However, stakeholder groups contrast significantly in terms of VEs, with government concerned more with process and mandate; industry with cost, efficiency and certainty; conservation groups with data and technical aspects; and the IAPs with local scale issues. In terms of realisation of VEs the results suggest that SEA does provide opportunities for learning; focussing project level EIA and providing spatial guidance on the location of projects. However, SEA was less successful in realising integration of decision making and alignment of policy within government. Recognition and better understanding of the pluralistic nature of expected and realised VEs could potentially improve the legitimacy of SEA processes and methodologies if they are designed and implemented to accommodate pluralism.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2018

On legitimacy in impact assessment: An epistemologically-based conceptualisation

Highlights: • Impact assessment (IA) has lost its roots in provision of reliable evidence. • IA is theoretically position ontologically and epistemologically • Theory is used to examine the understanding of legitimacy and finds it to be inadequate. • Recent political decisions show knowledge is missing from understanding of legitimacy. • Knowledge legitimacy is conceptualised to redress the current misunderstandings. - Abstract: Impact assessment (IA) is carried out as an ex ante process to inform decision-making. It includes requirements for engagement with stakeholders (including the public) regarding actions proposed by a proponent. A key issue with the various stakeholders involved is the perceived legitimacy of the IA, which can have implications both for the reputation of the proponent, and the likelihood of conflict over the decision. But the understanding of legitimacy in the IA literature has changed over time in line with an ontological shift from positivism (that scientifically generated information leads to better informed decisions) to the post-positivist acknowledgement of the limitations of scientific method whereby assumptions must be subject to transparency, deliberation and openness. This has led to an epistemological shift towards greater subjectivism which, we suggest, has created new opportunities (which have been realised in political decision-making) to subvert knowledge through the increased use of the Internet and social media. To address the potential for such subversion of legitimacy, we seek to conceptualise legitimacy in the IA context through framing IA around a critical realist ontology and a reliabilist virtue epistemology. This allows us to identify ‘knowledge legitimacy’ as an equally important component of IA legitimacy along with organisational legitimacy. We conceptualise knowledge legitimacy through literature review drawing on rich understandings of knowledge from IA and other fields of research in order to develop a four-dimensional typology. This includes the dimensions of: knowledge accuracy; knowledge restriction; knowledge diffusion; and knowledge spectrum. This is the first theoretically grounded attempt to understand legitimacy in IA. It is hoped that it will provoke discussion in the IA community to further advance theoretical understandings of IA and legitimacy of practice.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice

This paper addresses the future of environmental assessment (EA) practice in light of a rapidly changing world. We apply a literature review-based methodology to firstly identify key global megatrends and then reflect upon the implications for EA practice based on some known challenges. The key megatrends identified are synthesised into six categories: i) demographics, ii) urbanization, iii) technological innovation, iv) power shifts, v) resource scarcity and vi) climate change. We then discuss the implications of these megatrends for EA practice against four known EA challenges namely: dealing with i) complexity and uncertainty, ii) efficiency, iii) significance and iv) communication and participation. Our analysis suggests important implications for EA practice such as: increased difficulties with accuracy of prediction; the need for facilitative adaptation; an increase in the occurrence of unexpected events; higher expectations for procedural efficiency; challenges with information and communication management; dealing with significance judgements; and mitigation amidst resource scarcity and increasing pressures on earth systems. The megatrends underscore the need for continued evolution of EA thinking and practice, especially moving away from seeking a predictable single future or outcome towards the possibility of multiple scenarios with associated adaptability and enhanced system resilience capable of responding to rapid change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?

Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decision maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver ‘least worst’ outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such ‘least worst’ decisions in practise. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made. - Highlights: • Decision legitimacy is defined in terms of game theory. • Game theory is applied to EIA and SA decision windows. • Game theory suggests least worst outcomes prevail. • SA is more likely to be perceived legitimate than EIA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

Appraising the value of independent EIA follow-up verifiers

Independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) follow-up verifiers such as monitoring agencies, checkers, supervisors and control officers are active on various construction sites across the world. There are, however, differing views on the value that these verifiers add and very limited learning in EIA has been drawn from independent verifiers. This paper aims to appraise how and to what extent independent EIA follow-up verifiers add value in major construction projects in the developing country context of South Africa. A framework for appraising the role of independent verifiers was established and four South African case studies were examined through a mixture of site visits, project document analysis, and interviews. Appraisal results were documented in the performance areas of: planning, doing, checking, acting, public participating and integration with other programs. The results indicate that independent verifiers add most value to major construction projects when involved with screening EIA requirements of new projects, allocation of financial and human resources, checking legal compliance, influencing implementation, reporting conformance results, community and stakeholder engagement, integration with self-responsibility programs such as environmental management systems (EMS), and controlling records. It was apparent that verifiers could be more creatively utilized in pre-construction preparation, providing feedback of knowledge into assessment of new projects, giving input to the planning and design phase of projects, and performance evaluation. The study confirms the benefits of proponent and regulator follow-up, specifically in having independent verifiers that disclose information, facilitate discussion among stakeholders, are adaptable and proactive, aid in the integration of EIA with other programs, and instill trust in EIA enforcement by conformance evaluation. Overall, the study provides insight on how to harness the learning opportunities arising from EIA follow-up through the appointment of independent verifiers. - Highlights: • A framework for appraising the role of independent verifiers is established. • The value added to EIA follow-up by independent verifiers in South Africa is documented. • Verifiers add most value when involved with screening, checking compliance, influencing decisions and community engagement. • Verifiers could be more creatively utilized in pre-construction preparation, giving feedback, and performance evaluation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2014

Towards sustainability assessment follow-up

This paper conceptualises what sustainability assessment follow-up might entail for three models of sustainability assessment: EIA-driven integrated assessment, objectives-led integrated assessment and the contribution to sustainability model. The first two are characterised by proponent monitoring and evaluation of individual impacts and indicators while the latter takes a holistic view based around focused sustainability criteria relevant to the context. The implications of three sustainability challenges on follow-up are also examined: contested time horizons and value changes, trade-offs, and interdisciplinarity. We conclude that in order to meet these challenges some form of adaptive follow-up is necessary and that the contribution to sustainability approach is the best approach. -- Highlights: • We explore sustainability follow-up for three different sustainability models. • Long-time frames require adaptive follow-up and are a key follow-up challenge. • Other key challenges include interdisciplinarity, and trade-offs. • Sustainability follow-up should be a direction of travel and not an outcome. • Only the follow-up for contribution to sustainability model addresses sustainability challenges sufficiently.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

Impact assessment: Eroding benefits through streamlining?

This paper argues that Governments have sought to streamline impact assessment in recent years (defined as the last five years) to counter concerns over the costs and potential for delays to economic development. We hypothesise that this has had some adverse consequences on the benefits that subsequently accrue from the assessments. This hypothesis is tested using a framework developed from arguments for the benefits brought by Environmental Impact Assessment made in 1982 in the face of the UK Government opposition to its implementation in a time of economic recession. The particular benefits investigated are ‘consistency and fairness’, ‘early warning’, ‘environment and development’, and ‘public involvement’. Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Western Australia are the jurisdictions tested using this framework. The conclusions indicate that significant streamlining has been undertaken which has had direct adverse effects on some of the benefits that impact assessment should deliver, particularly in Canada and the UK. The research has not examined whether streamlining has had implications for the effectiveness of impact assessment, but the causal link between streamlining and benefits does sound warning bells that merit further investigation. -- Highlights: • Investigation of the extent to which government has streamlined IA. • Evaluation framework was developed based on benefits of impact assessment. • Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Western Australia were examined. • Trajectory in last five years is attrition of benefits of impact assessment.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗