0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
138 Ansichten11 Seiten
The document discusses developing a conceptual relationship between sustainable development and environmental impact assessments (EIAs) using a geocybernetic perspective. It outlines five fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development - standardization, optimization, pessimization, equitization, and stabilization. The paper aims to apply these paradigms to EIA impact identification methodologies to provide an objective framework for using EIAs to evaluate and achieve sustainable development.
The document discusses developing a conceptual relationship between sustainable development and environmental impact assessments (EIAs) using a geocybernetic perspective. It outlines five fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development - standardization, optimization, pessimization, equitization, and stabilization. The paper aims to apply these paradigms to EIA impact identification methodologies to provide an objective framework for using EIAs to evaluate and achieve sustainable development.
The document discusses developing a conceptual relationship between sustainable development and environmental impact assessments (EIAs) using a geocybernetic perspective. It outlines five fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development - standardization, optimization, pessimization, equitization, and stabilization. The paper aims to apply these paradigms to EIA impact identification methodologies to provide an objective framework for using EIAs to evaluate and achieve sustainable development.
The conceptual development of a geocybernetic relationship between sustainable
development and Environmental Impact Assessment
Jason Phillips College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter e Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, United Kingdom Keywords: Geocybernetics Sustainable development Environmental Impact Assessment a b s t r a c t The imprecise nature of sustainable development is often a cause for concern. This concern has however not prevented the suggestion of a relationship between sustainable development and EIAs. As a result, there is a need to develop a more formal conceptual basis for the relationship between EIA and sustainable development. The paper discusses the conceptual development of a geocybernetic perspective of the relationship between sustainable development and EIAs in respect to impact identication methodologies. The paper considers the ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, uses relevant literature to support the relationships found, and provides examples to support the relationships developed within the paper. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Purpose of paper The paper intends to demonstrate the development of a concep- tual relationship between sustainable development and Environ- mental Impact Assessment (EIA). This will be achieved by utilising the geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, as developed and highlighted by Schellnhuber (1998, 1999, 2001) and Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998). The paper intends to develop this relationship in respect to impact identication methodologies. This is the key to the conducting and performance of an EIA, as the whole point of conducting an EIA is the identication of potential or actual impacts of a proposed or current project. In addition, impact iden- tication methodologies are capable of being used elsewhere in the EIA process (Fig. 1). This includes determining the scoping of rele- vant issues and impacts, as well as the making of recommendations for corrective action and/or mitigation. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary to underpin the use of such methodologies as a mechanism towards the evaluation and attainment of sustainable development. The paper reects and forms a key part of a larger body of research. This research has been concerned with the development andapplicationof a mathematical model of sustainable development as detailed in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d). Conse- quently, the paper underpins the conceptual basis for the application of the model in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d), in the quanti- tative evaluation of the level and nature of sustainable development of local level projects using quantitative-based EIAs. The paper intends to achieve its intended purpose in the following ways: 1. Outline the interference made to the attainment of sustainable development through EIA within the current literature. 2. Outline the concept of Geocybernetics, and specically the ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable devel- opment, as developed by Schellnhuber (1998, 1999, 2001). 3. Outline the concept of EIA in respect to the process, the concepts of impact and signicance, and the fundamental methodologies of impact identication. 4. Apply conceptually the ve fundamental geocybernetic para- digms of sustainable development in respect to the role and use of impact identication methodologies. 5. Where relevant, highlight the geocybernetic relationship between sustainable development and EIA with appropriate examples, predominantly in respect to Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d). 6. Outline the practical potential and implications of the sug- gested geocybernetic relationship between EIA and sustainable development. Introduction Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has undergone a transformation from evaluating purely environmental impacts, to also evaluating economic and social issues. Todays EIA tends to be a more integrated instrument of environmental, economic and E-mail address: jp1@tiscali.co.uk. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Geography j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apgeog 0143-6228/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.015 Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 social issues of development, as well as having legislative authority. Conducting an EIA is now required before any signicant or major development proceeds in a growing number of countries. EIAs has signicantlychangedandimprovedover recent years, to suchanextent that manyargue that EIAs canbe usedfor the purpose of assessing the extent of sustainable development occurring (Abdel Wahaab, 2003; Dalal-Clayton, 1992; Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick, 2005; Lawrence, 1997b; Sadler, 2003). Glasson et al. (2005) argues that the EIAis one of the instruments capable of achieving the goal of sustainable development. This is due to the accepted belief that environmental assessments can make valuable contributions towards sustainability (Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders, 2004), as environmental impacts are at the core of sustainability concerns (Sadler, 1999). However, the underlying critical problem Fig. 1. The key steps in the cyclic process of conducting an EIA, adapted from Glasson et al. (2005). J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 970 with this, in that there is no clear agreement regarding what sustainable development actually is (ORiordan, 2000). Therefore, the absence of an adequate conceptual framework which formally provides an objective understanding of the rela- tionship between sustainable development and EIAs, has created the unfortunate position of so near, but yet so far. Geocybernetics however may be of enormous value in the development of a conceptual framework for the objective use of EIAs in order to achieve sustainable development. Geocybernetics has been instrumental in the conceptualisation, modelling and assessment of the Earth System. If an approach based on the fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development could be developed for use with EIAs, then this could offer potential opportunities and benets for the practical appli- cation and management of sustainable development. Theory and context The concept of geocybernetics Geocybernetics is dened by Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998) as: the art of controlling the complex dynamic Earth System under uncertainties of all kinds. This means that if it is the intention of humanity to live on the Earth for the maximum possible amount of time, then the prudent and effective use of resources must occur at all spatial and temporal scales. Schellnhuber (1998) argues that this is about the co-evolution between N (ecosphere) and A (anthro- posphere), where the ecosphere is the environment and the anthroposphere is the human world and society. However this may be perceived or viewed, it still boils down to the same critical concept in essence - the concept of sustainable development. Geocybernetics is primarily concerned with the answers to two questions: what kindof a worlddowewant? andwhat must we do to get there? (Blackburn, 1992; Clark, 1989 cited by Schellnhuber, 1998). Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998) state with respect to these questions, that various approaches towards sustainable develop- ment are required. These could be identied as the ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development (as shown in Table 1), within which all conjectures, theories, strategies of sustainable development can be placed (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999). The ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development can be summarised as follows: Standardization This paradigm provides for the application of sustainable development via instruments such as sustainability indicators. The co-evolutionary path of the N-A system(to be referred to in the rest of the paper as the environment-human system for the purpose of simplicity) is considered to be correct, if the values of the indicators occur within the safe range limits of the system (Gallopin, 2003). Optimization This paradigm is concerned with the obtainment of the best design for the environment-human system. This is achieved by choosing the optimal path for co-evolution over a xed period of time (Gallopin, 2003; Schellnhuber, 1999). Pessimization This paradigm is about looking to undertake the smallest amount of damage for the maximum amount of potential benet - the precautionary principle (Gallopin, 2003). It is therefore the least speculative and most essential concept for the development of a set of minimum standards for the safe operation of the Earth System (Schellnhuber, 1999). Equitization This paradigm is in essence the Brundtland notion - the preser- vation of options for future generations (Gallopin, 2003). Thus, the notion of equity is associated with equality of the environmental and developmental options for future generations (Gallopin, 2003). Stabilization This is concerned with the intent to bring the environment- human system into a desirable state of co-evolution, and then maintain it through the use of good management (Gallopin, 2003). Environmental Impact Assessment The EIA process Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic process that examines the environmental consequences of development action, in advance (Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, the EIA as Glasson et al. (2005), Munn (1979) and Walthern (1988) suggest, is a process that is systematic, holistic and multidisciplinary (Glasson et al., 2005), and is cyclical in nature requiring feedback and interaction throughout. The key elements of the cyclic process of EIA are outlined in Fig. 1, and described in a little more detail in Table 2. Impact and signicance in the EIA In the conduct of any EIA, there are usually two key concepts that the assessors and decision-makers require a primary under- standing of: Impact and Signicance. The concept of what is an impact? is a key component of the EIA. An EIA is primarily concerned with identifying, predicting and managing impacts. Walthern (1988) provides a detailed description of what an impact is within the context of an EIA. An impact has .both spatial and temporal components, and can be described as the change in an environmental parameter, over a specied period and within a dened area, resulting from a particular activity compared with the situation which would have occurred had the activity not been initiated (Walthern, 1988). This, from a geo- cybernetic viewpoint, provides for the necessary context for the determination and management of local level impact within the Earth System. However, any project can have an impact (positive or negative) upon the environment. Therefore, the key question becomes how signicant is that impact? Rossouw (2003) states that signicance as a concept is at the core of impact identication, prediction, evaluation and decision- making.. However, there is currently no consensus amongst practitioners on how to assess signicance internationally (Rossouw, 2003), which is a view that Thompson (1990) concurs with. So, how is signicance dened or understood? Gilpin (1995) states that signicance is something outside of acceptable limits, where the acceptable levels in the physical and social sciences statistically is considered to be 5%. However, where the loss of an ecological habitat is involved, this can pose present problems, particularly in the case of rare or endangered species or in the loss of a perceived magnicent vista (Gilpin, 1995). Rossouw Table 1 A table of the notation and qualication of the ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, as described by Schellnhuber (1998). Symbol Name of paradigm Positive goal Negative motive P 0 Standardization Order Despotism P 1 Optimization Prosperity Greed P 2 Pessimization Security Cowardice P 3 Equitization Fairness Jaundice P 4 Stabilization Reliability Indolence J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 971 (2003) citing Sippe (1999) argues on the hand that signicance can be simplied into the following common denitional elements: Environmental signicance is a value judgement; the extent of environmental signicance is dependent upon the impacts nature; the importance is assessed in the context and terms of both biophysical and socio-economic values; and the determination of signicance involves the amount of change to the environment that is perceived to be acceptable to the affected communities. Signicance consequently tends to be an anthropogenic concept and thus highly subjective, as it depends upon the judgement of the assessor(s). However, such judgements are based on the accumu- lated knowledge and experience of the assessor(s), coupled with a strong inuence of the likely reaction of the public and the media (Gilpin, 1995). Nevertheless, without a consistent denition of signicance, a concept at the core of the EIA, any inference to sustainable development may be of little value. As a result, there is a need for a clear conceptual framework to draw such inferences. Impact identication in the EIA Process Impact identication is concerned with the characterisation and baseline environmental conditions. This ensures that all environ- mental impacts that can potentially occur, whether adverse or benecial, are identied and are able to be taken into account within the EIA process (Glasson et al., 2005). Methodologies of impact identication are either quantitative or qualitative in nature. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assess- ment (IEMA) states that quantitative techniques tend to involve a prescriptive method being set out and followed, whereas quali- tative techniques rely less upon a prescribed method instead relying heavily upon professional judgement (IEMA, 2008). The generic methodologies of impact identication are all gener- ally agreed amongst academics and practitioners (e.g. ADB, 1997; Bisset, 1988; Canter, 1996; Clark, Chapman, Bisset, & Walthern, 1979; Glasson et al., 2005; IAIA, 2002; Munn, 1979; NWMO, 2004; Rossouw, 2003; Shopley & Fuggle, 1984; Storey, 2005; Thompson, 1990; Westman, 1985 and Wolfe, 1987). These are as follows: Ad hoc - A typical approach via this methodology is where a team of experts are assembled for a short period of time to perform the EIA. Each expert is able to bring a unique combi- nation of expertise, training and intuition that is able to form conclusions which in turnwill formthe nal report (ADB, 1997). Checklists - It is an approach that is widely used in order to ensure that a prescribed and comprehensive list of potential impacts and effects associated with a specic project or development are considered within the EIA (NWMO, 2004; Storey, 2005). Matrices - In essence, matrices are an expansion of checklists but in two dimensions (Glasson et al., 2005; Storey, 2005; Westman, 1985; Wolfe, 1987). Matrices require information in respect to the environmental components and project activi- ties, which is achieved by subjective judgement by experts, or by the use of extensive databases (ADB, 1997). Quantitative methods - attempts to compare the relative importance of all impacts by weighting, standardizing and aggregating them to produce a composite index (Glasson et al., 2005). The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (Dee et al., 1973) is the most well-known of this type of method. Networks - Networks are owcharts which illustrate the impacts of the project fromactions to end effects (Wolfe, 1987). Hence, they are able to show the causeeeffect relationships and environmental characteristics (IAIA, 2002; Wolfe, 1987). Specically, they are capable of illustrating primary, secondary, tertiary and higher order impacts (ADB, 1997; IAIA, 2002). Overlays - The general purpose of overlays is to identify, predict, assign relative signicance to and communicate impacts (Glasson et al., 2005; Munn, 1979). The overlays themselves consist of a number of transparent maps, each containing data of the spatial distribution of a particular environmental characteristic/parameter (ADB, 1997). GIS - In recent years, GIS has become a very effective tool in respect to spatial analysis and presentation due to its ability to allow the identication of impacted zones via the overlay technique (NWMO, 2004). During the screening, scoping, baseline inventory and monitoring, the use of GIS through remote sensing can be of signicant value (NWMO, 2004). Further, the use of map layers allows for both decision-makers and the public to assess the environmental scenarios con- cerning the project (NWMO, 2004). Whilst predominantly the generic methodologies listed are associated with impact identication (Glasson et al., 2005), as highlighted inTable 3, these approaches can be of signicant benet in the other stages of the EIA process (re: Fig. 1) - impact prediction, evaluation, communication, mitigation, presentation, monitoring and auditing. It is therefore appropriate to collectively term all of these processes as impact analysis (Glasson et al., 2005). Table 2 A table outlining the key steps in the conducting of and basic purpose of each step of an EIA, based on Glasson et al. (2005). It should be noted that the order of the steps of the process may vary in accordance with the project/development under consideration. Screening An initial assessment to decide whether a project requires an EIA based on current legislation and/or signicance of potential impacts. Scoping All of the potential impacts and alternatives identied, and those that are highly signicant to be addressed within the terms of reference and feasibility studies Assessment of impacts The identication, prediction, evaluation and analysis of signicance of the impacts. Requires the description of the project, the environmental baseline determined before the above is able to occur. Methods available to undertake this step: Ad Hoc; Checklists; Matrices; Quantitative; Networks; Overlays; and GIS. Mitigation The development of measures in order to prevent, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts created by the project/development. Reporting The presentation of the results of the EIA in an appropriate and useable format e the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Reviewing A systematic appraisal of the adequacy of the EIA/EIS, taking into account of the views of stakeholders involved, assessing the acceptability of the proposal within current and existing plans, policies and legislation. Decision-making The consideration of the proposal with all appropriate and relevant materials by the appropriate authority in order to determine whether or not the project/ development can proceed, and the attachments of any conditions necessary to minimise environmental impacts. Monitoring & managing The implementation of measures to mitigate and monitor impacts to ensure compliance, as well as check to see if impacts were as predicted and take action if necessary to ameliorate any problems. Public consultation & participation This is important throughout the entire process, and typically occurs during the scoping and review, but can and should occur at all stages of the EIA process, in order to ensure continued quality, comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the EIA (Glasson et al., 2005), and in order to ensure the views of the public are adequately taken into account, particularly in the decision- making stage. Such public involvement must though be undertaken in a manner that is appropriate to the culture of the people involved. J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 972 Key to criterion: 1. Compliance with regulations; 2. Comprehensive coverage of the Impacts/Issues e Economic, Social, and Physical; 3. Positive vs. negative, reversible vs. irreversible impacts, etc.; 4. Secondary, indirect, cumulative impacts; 5. Signicant vs. insignicant impacts; 6. Comparison of alternatives; 7. Compare against carrying capacity; 8. Use of qualitative and quantitative information; 9. Ease of use; 10. Unbiased, consistent; 11. Summarises impacts for use in the EIS Due to the nature of how the weightings are arrived at, these may be challenged by relevant parties or authorities. i.e. the assumption in Dee et al. (1973) that the certain individual parameters of water quality (e.g. dissolved oxygen at 31 points) is of more signicance than employment and housing combined at 26 points total (based on Glasson et al., 2005). Results and discussion: the geocybernetic relationship between EIA and sustainable development Standardization paradigm and EIA Standardization paradigm is concerned with the potential control of the environment-humansystem. This is achievedthrough objectively-derived data and evaluation. In the case of EIA, it refers to impact identication methods which determine the nature and type of impacts as well as their signicance. Therefore, this means that it offers the potential to determine impacts at the local level of the environment-human system created by projects and any alter- natives (other project options). However, to meet the parameters of the Standardization paradigm, it is necessary to determine the appropriate method(s) of impact identication. With that in mind, the following criterion was developed during the research to meet this intended goal: The approach undertaken in respect to impact analysis would need to be such that it is veriable and repeatable to an acceptable degree of correlation in terms of: methodology; data collection and assimilation; any modications and/or assumptions clearly stated and justied; and the conclusions reached and drawn from the available data. Based on this criteria, the research determined that the only generic methodology of impact identication which met this criteria was quantitative methods, for the following reasons. Quantitative methods tend to have an advantage over the other generic impact identication methodologies in their ability to substantiate numerically that a specied course of action is better than options (Glasson et al., 2005). Methods which adopt for example a weighted approach, such as the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (Dee et al., 1973), are capable of providing a step towards a more detailed evaluation. This can be further enhanced through the participation of relevant multiple stakeholders (Westman, 1985), which can be achieved through the application of a Delphi methodology. This involves a small monitor team which designs a questionnaire that is sent to a larger group to respond (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). After the questionnaire is returned, the monitor team summarises the results, and based upon the results obtained, a newquestionnaire is designed for the respondent group (Linstone &Turoff, 2002). The respondent group is typically given at least one opportunity to re-evaluate its original answers based upon examination of the group response (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). Therefore, this methodology is a combination of a polling proce- dure and a conference procedure, that attempts to change the large proportion of the effort required for individuals to communicate, from the larger respondent group to the smaller monitor team (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). The ability to numerically substantiate a series of alternatives may however save the time and resources of decision-makers (Glasson et al., 2005). Further, it also provides for the opportunity to ensure consistency in respect to the assessment and results (Glasson et al., 2005). Consequently, within the context of Stan- dardization paradigm, it would certainly appear that quantitative methods full the necessary conditions for the co-evolution between the environment and humans (sustainable development). Quantitative methods do however have three identied generic weaknesses, as highlighted in the literature: 1. The acceptability of the method is dependent upon the assumptions made, particularly to those using weightings (Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, there is the possibility of manipulation of the results based upon alteration of the assumptions (Bisset, 1978). This is due to, as the potential for inappropriate pressure from internal or external superiors in order to give favourable assessment (Bisset, 1978). 2. Such methods, tend to break the environment into discrete units that relate the impacts to specied parameters (Glasson et al., 2005). As a result, information is lost when it is reduced to numbers (Glasson et al., 2005). 3. The rigidity of such approaches removed the ability of decision- makers to exercise subjective judgement over certain issues (Skutsch & Flowerdew, 1976). Inrespect tothese, it is fair to saythat eachandeverymethodwill always have particular strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses Table 3 A comparison table of methodologies of impact identication, based on and adapted from Glasson et al. (2005). Criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Checklists Simple/Question Threshold Matrices Simple Magnitude Leopold Weighted Quantitative EES/WRAM Network Sorenson Overlay maps J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 973 of quantitative methods of impact identication however can be reasonably addressed with further reference to the literature. In respect to Weakness 1, provided that any and all assumptions are clearly stated, as any rational objective approach would undertake, then the methods context and parameters would reect the local environment and relevant issues accurately. Indeed, the issue of weighting is based upon the use of life-cycle assessment (LCA) (Heikkila, 2004). Therefore, if there is a precise weight assessment, integration of experts opinion based upon clearly dened and exhaustive criterion of impact assessment (Goyal & Deshpande, 2001), then weighting can be an useful addition in the conveyance of the level of harmful effects onto the environment (Heikkila, 2004). In respect to Weakness 2, then a review of EIA methods would illustrate that the best attempts are those which model the potential impacts and consequences of a project and alternatives, within a constructive framework (Glasson et al., 2005). However, whether such methods adopt a qualitative or quantitative approach is critical, due to two issues. The rst is whether information is lost due to an inability to manage data, biased and subjective with implicit values, and potentially in certain cases has been deliber- ately misrepresentative in the case of qualitative approaches (Hobbs and Voelker, 1978). The second is the loss of information is respect to indirect impacts, interrelated or cumulative impacts (Lawrence, 1993). It would therefore be reasonable to say that no method will be a wholly complete list of impacts upon the environment and humans. Hence, a more prudent approach from a geocybernetic perspective could be to use a combined approach. This would entail the use of a quantitative method of impact identication in the determination of impacts identied as potentially of the most signicance, whether positive or negative in nature. This would occur in conjunction with a qualitative approach which would evaluate secondary, cumulative or indirect impacts, for the purpose of evaluating the more intangible and subtle impacts. The qualita- tive aspect would consider, for example, the value of a rare species within the context of the local environment and community. This combined approach will be discussed in more depth later in respect to the Pessimization paradigm. In respect to Weakness 3, the nature of quantitative methods provides the opportunity to improve objectivity in the EIAprocess. If such assessments are conducted in order to identify, predict and explain potential and actual change, then the evaluation based upon subjective judgement must be substantiated (Lawrence, 1993). Consequently, any inferences or conclusions drawnfromanobjective framework must be capable of being supported through the following: a clear reference to present knowledge; the unbiased explanations of the data presented; the presentation of clear state- ments of any assumptions and hypotheses undertaken; and a clear and valid reasoning and justication of previous points. Provided that these are performed as a transparent approach, then judge- ments of interpretation, evaluation and prescription (Lawrence, 1993) can be considered valid and appropriate. Therefore, the justication for the use of quantitative methods of EIA, in respect to the Standardization paradigm, can be sum- marised in respect the following two points. The rst is the fact that any project must exist within the connement of the environment- human system, which is reected by the concept of carrying capacity (re: Ehrlich & Holdren, 1971) (to be discussed in greater depth within the Pessimization Paradigm section) and the recent work of Rockstrom, Steffen, Noone, and et al. (2009) regarding planetary boundaries. Hence, any project must not exceed, or contribute to exceed, the limits of environment-human system at whatever spatial or temporal context. The adoption of this approach within the EIA, and in particular in quantitative methodologies is a critical factor (Glasson et al., 2005; Noorbakhsh & Ranjan, 1999and Rees (1990). Secondly, quantitative methods offer a construct for the understanding and assessment of human activities and environ- ment, as well as a wide range of instruments for action (Lawrence, 1997a). Consequently, EIAcan be an extremely useful and adaptable tool for the realisation of sustainable development. However, this is on the proviso that it is only part of a broader range of strategies. This means in geocybernetic terms, that it is part of a range of management options in order to ensure effective co-evolution between the environment and humans (sustainable development), and the avoidance of catastrophic consequences (i.e. climate change). Therefore, the potential objectivity of quantitative methods, can provide a greater opportunity to achieve co-evolution between the environment and humans within the context of the Standardization paradigm. So, how does all of this apply within a real world context? The previous and current research of Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d) provides the basis to demonstrate the applicability of this Standardizationparadigm. This was achieved throughthe use of three quantitative methodologies of impact identication: the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES) (Dee et al., 1973); the Folchi method (Folchi, 2003) and the Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) (Pastakia, 1998; Pastakia & Jensen, 1998). The BEES method would certainly appear to be a quantitative methodology which conforms to the goals of Standardization paradigm. This is due to the capability of modelling the relevant local environmental-human system, and highlighting the most signicant impacts through the weighting of the parameters. Further, it evaluates the determined parameters of the environ- ment-human system within the context of environmental quality. Consequently, this would determine whether there would be an improvement or decline in the environmental quality of the loca- tion in respect to the project. This is would be evaluated in respect to the before project scenario compared to the after project scenario in respect to without and with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). From this, it is possible to calculate the change that has occurred in regards to the before-after scenarios. Therefore, the BEES method offers a potentially powerful tool in the attainment of sustainable development within the context of Standardization paradigm. This is due to the fact that clear areas of weakness can be identied and corrected through appropriate environmental management. This has certainly been highlighted by Phillips (2009, 2010a, and 2010d) in that the application of the model to the BEES method, which has shown considerable promise in the evaluation of sustainable development. In particular, the before-after comparison inherent in the BEES method has been signicant in explaining why calculated values of sustainable development, derived from the application of the model, have improved or deteriorated. This has therefore allowed for the opportunity to highlight potential areas of concerns for the purpose of improving the obtained values of sustainable development. This is also the case with the Folchi method (Folchi, 2003) which is an impact identication methodology that also adopts a weighted approach. However, it is industry-specic, designed to evaluate impacts in respect to mining operations. The use of this methodology has provided a consistent mechanismto evaluate and compare impacts between mining operations, which is important given the sensitivity concerning issues of sustainable development (environment, social and economic) that are inherent within the industry. Therefore, the application of the model via the Folchi method, during the current research, has provided an appropriate mechanism to address the issues at the heart of the concept of sustainable mining. J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 974 The RIAM method on the other hand requires the individual impacts to be scored by the assessor in respect to two criteria: Criteria A that denotes the importance to the condition, and which can individually change the score obtained; and Criteria B that determines the impact value to the situation. From these scores, an overall Environmental Score (ES) is calculated for each individual parameter using a set of simple formulae, and which reects the nature and level of impact. This ES-value ranges from108 to 108, whereby the negative sign refers to a negative impact, and the positive sign refers to a positive impact. Further, the range reects the level and signicance of the impact. Consequently, an ES-value of 100 would be considered to be a very signicant negative impact upon the environment. The method, whilst assessor-based, does require clear and transparent justication by the assessor(s) for the scores given based on the data collected (Pastakia, 1998; Pastakia & Jensen, 1998). In Phillips (2009, 2010c), the results from the RIAM method required some modications in order to apply the model, due to the potential of negative ES scores. Despite this, the RIAM method does comply with the Standardization paradigm. This is because of its capability of being repeatable in terms of the results obtained, as well as the in-built feature requiring clear justication for the scores determined and derived. Further, the RIAM also highlights the nature of impacts and their signicance in a clear and transparent way, far more so than in the BEES and Folchi methods. The use of negative and positive values denotes this fact, and consequently provides for a strong indication of the signicance of the impact. The application of the model, in respect to Phillips (2009, 2010c), has certainly beneted from this approach. This is due to the clear highlighting of potential areas of weakness, following the calculation of the level of sustainable development for the project being evaluated. In the case of Phillips (2010c), the evaluation of a proposed geothermal power plant in Iran produced a result that indicated the project would only contribute to very weak sustainability. In point of fact, the value obtained was bordering on being unsustainability. Therefore, the RIAM assessment of the individual parameters provided strong indications as to why a renewable energy power plant, long thought to be contributing strongly towards sustainable develop- ment, was in fact on the cusp of very weak sustainability-unsus- tainability in nature. Therefore, the RIAM provided sufcient evidence to provide the proper context for the model results obtained, as well as the broader implications for similar projects. Optimization paradigm and EIA The Optimization paradigm is concerned with attaining the best design for the environment-human system. This conse- quently infers the choosing, development and implementation of the optimal path for achieving sustainable development (Gallopin, 2003; Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001). This means having a range of different paths available and choosing the best option in the light of the collected evidence and interpretation. In the case of impact identication methodologies, this refers to two key issues: the use of alternatives; and the ability of compare the results to other similar projects. Alternatives are regarded within the EIA process as options, choices or courses of action (Steinemann, 2001). In respect to the Optimization paradigm, this means that the EIA should at all times present a range of options for the project, such as: differing localities or design; whether or not they include an Environmental Manage- ment Plan (EMP); or whether or not a project should proceed, etc. This therefore means that the presentation of alternatives within the impact identication methodology would ensure that a range of geocybernetic paths for sustainable development are made avail- able. This consequently enables the choice of the optimal path, based upon the available information. Goodland (1994) supports this by arguing that sustainability should be able both to progressively reduce and eliminate unsustainable actions, and enhance the char- acter of natural and human systems (Lawrence, 1997a). However, Lawrence (1997a) argues further that the EIA is an action-forcing mechanismthat is concerned with potential and/or actual impacts of proposed or current human activities, as well as alternatives, upon the natural and human environment. Hacking (2004) supports this by stating: the need to consider alternatives is another widely promoted feature of sustainable development directed assess- ments. Nevertheless, EIA tends rarely to consider alternatives to a project, and instead the project is approved, rejected or passed subject to impact amelioration (Pope, 2003 citing Dovers, 2002). Therefore, with respect to the Optimizationparadigmand EIAs, there is a need for an appropriate number of alternatives at an early stage of the planning process, since this will provide an opportunity for determining the optimal path for sustainable development for any particular project. Provided that the paradigm is restricted to this specic purpose, then the possibility of preventing into catastrophic consequences can be prevented. The use of alternatives was high- lighted in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010d). Specically, the BEES eval- uations used within the research contained the following categories: Before Project (the baseline); With Project-Without EMP (Environ- mental Management Plan); and With Project-With EMP. This meant in respect to the application of the model, calculating three separate values of sustainable development (environmental or ecological). Through this, it provided an opportunity to compare and contrast between the alternatives, as well as evaluating the potential improvement or deterioration in the level and nature of sustain- ability of the local area created by the project options. The comparison of the results between similar projects or alternatives can also offer the opportunity to full the goal of the Optimization paradigm. This is because it makes it possible to draw lessons, so to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated within the current proposed project. This from a geocybernetic perspective means that the available paths towards co-evolution of the envi- ronment-human system should be improved, due to the balancing of the needs between environment and humans. In the case of the EIA, this means that the proposed project and/or alternative(s) should be improved in design, and consequently enhances the ability of the project or alternative to contribute towards sustain- able development. The opportunity to achieve this is greatly improved if a quantitative approach is adopted, as highlighted in the previous section. This increases the capability for direct comparison to be made through the use of a consistent method of impact identication. Consequently, it means that the signicant issues in design, location and factors can be highlighted which may be hindering sustainable development from occurring successfully. An example of this very point is in respect to Phillips (2010c), which was concerned with the evaluation of the nature and level of sustainable development achieved by Sabalan geothermal power plant. In Phillips (2010c), the results obtained from the Sabalan RIAM evaluation (based on Youse, Ehara, Youse, & Seiedi, 2009), were compared to the models application to another RIAM eval- uation for geothermal power plant inTurkey (based on Baba, 2003). Phillips (2010c) highlighted that there was strong indicative evidence of the potential lack of contribution which geothermal energy may have towards the sustainability of a local area. Pessimization paradigm and EIA The geocybernetic notion of the precautionary principle, high- lighted within the Pessimization paradigm, is concerned with two keyprinciples. Firstly, ensuring that the minimumamount of impact and consequences occur throughout the spatial and temporal scale J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 975 of the environment-human system (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001). Secondly, ensuring that minimum levels of safeguards for the environment-human system occur, and thus the prevention of breaches of critical threshold limits (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001). A key mechanism in the achievement of these two criteria is through carrying capacity. Earlier in the paper, the notion of carrying capacity was introduced in respect to the Standardization paradigm for the use of quantitative methods of impact identi- cation. Specically, in ensuring that the potential limits of the environment-human system were not exceeded, which in turn can lead towards the path of unsustainability. It is now appropriate, within the context of Pessimization paradigm, to explore the concept of carrying capacity and its relevance to impact identi- cation methodologies. The use of the long-term environmental factors over short-term market forces are the primary determining factors in the management of land-use and resources (Rees, 1990). In order to achieve this, the hope is that the EIA process will provide envi- ronmental information that will help.to take actions that protect, restore and enhance the environment (Steinemann, 2001). This means that, the conservation, rehabilitation and management of the environment can be achieved. However, such a process must reect the capabilities of the environment to repair itself, to a condition which is equivalent or as near as possible, to that existing before the intervention and impact of humans. It should also assist the environment to a pre-existing condition by natural mechanisms only, and not through the use of social homeopathic remedies (Schellnhuber, 1998). This is the concept of society introducing environmental modications in order to assist in the repair of the environment following damage caused by human activities, e.g. backlling and landscaping in the post-management stage for a former open pit mining operation to an anthropogenic- derived visualisation of the environment. However, this reduces the individual and social perceptions of the true natural condition of the environment, and therefore perpetuates the illusion of unspoiled nature, particularly at areas where environmental disturbances have occurred (Schellnhuber, 1998). This is therefore concerned with the preconceptions of humans as to the visual and physical aspects of what the environment should be. It is consequently prudent and necessary to obtain a baseline survey of the pre-existing environment (natural or anthropogeni- cally modied). A quantitatively-based impact identication methodology should certainly be able to undertake such an approach, so that clear positive or negative differences can be ascertained. However, it should be noted that this principle may be also extended in respect to impacts of a social nature in respect to health risks. Steinemann (2000) citing Wingspread (1998) stated that when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientically. The use of the precautionary principle is also visible more generally within the processes and methodological framework of the EIA, as highlighted in Fig. 1 and Table 2. Snell and Cowell (2006) argue that scoping is a crucial step in the implementation of the precautionary principle in the investigation of all potentially signicant impacts, including secondary, indirect and cumulative. The use of precautionary principle however does raise questions concerning how signicance is adjudged by practitioners (Snell & Cowell, 2006). This however has been addressed to a satisfactory level by Lawrence (2007). Lawrence (2007) argues that impact signicance changes to a large extent when applying the precau- tionary principle. At the very least, such judgements of signicance are more tentative and cautious (Lawrence, 2007). Indeed, there is greater emphasis given to uncertainty and harm avoidance in determining impact signicance in respect to scoping, screening, comparison of alternatives, and in the evaluation of need in respect to migration and/or monitoring (Lawrence, 2007 citing Tickner, 1998). Nevertheless, the precautionary principle is controversial as Lawrence (2007) observes, because it is not a unitary concept (ORiordan & Jordan, 1995). This is due to it being open to inter- pretation, and justifying everything from minimal changes to the rejection of a project (Lawrence, 2007). However, from a geo- cybernetic perspective, the use of the precautionary principle can be a useful tool in ensuring all relevant information is available to make the best judgement in order to achieve sustainable development. This is on the proviso that the following two points are adhered to: 1). The precautionary principle is supported, and is based upon a clear, objective rationale of evidence gathered in an appropriate manner; and 2). The assumptions and judgements made, including those values associated with the conclusions drawn from such evidence, are reasonable and objective given the level of knowledge and understanding at the time of the assessment. The use of qualitative methods (i.e. matrices, networks, check- lists) are able to address issues concerning secondary, cumulative or indirect impacts within the context of the Pessimization para- digm. This is due to the fact that a more human perspective may require to the value of the affected parameter (i.e. a heathland, playing space) within the environment-human system. This approach could ensure that as perfect knowledge as possible, at the time of the assessment, is collected concerning the impact of a project upon the environment-human system. It also ensures that no potentially signicant impact is missed, thus fullling the goal of the precautionary principle. Consequently, it would appear that a more prudent approach, from a geocybernetic perspective, would consist of the following: 1). A quantitative-based method that addresses signicant issues threatening impacts both locally and further up the scale of the Earth System in respect to sustainable development; and 2). The use of a qualitative approach that applies the precautionary prin- ciple in assessing impacts of a secondary, cumulative or indirect nature, as well as impacts of an intrinsic nature and value to the local area, or further up the Earth System (i.e. historical/cultural, rare or endangered species, community space). This approach would satisfy the precautionary principle, which is fundamental to the Pessimization paradigmfor achieving the minimumstandard of safe operation of the Earth System(Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001). In respect to the application of this approach, the work of Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b) entrenches this perspective in respect to the mathematical model of sustainable development. The model clearly denes the fact that there are limits to the operation of the environment as well as to the development and progress of human society based on the available environment to support it. This reects the concept of carrying capacity, as well as the notion of weak and strong sustainability in that human capital is dependent on the available natural capital. Within the context of EIA therefore, the identication of impacts and their level is dependent on obtaining a clear indication of the pre-existing environment- human system conditions before the proposed project, and the conditions after the project is operational. Therefore, the models application to impact identication methodologies, as indicated in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d), highlights whether or not the environment-human system will be signicantly impacted and whether the goal of achieving meaningful sustainability will occur. As the environment-human system is multi-layered, the assess- ment of local impacts and sustainability must consequentially be properly evaluated, as such impacts may have signicant up further in the environment-human system with potentially signicant negative results. J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 976 Equitization paradigm and EIA The need to preserve options for future generations with respect to the environment and development is a fundamental concept of sustainable development. In geocybernetic terms, this is concerned with the maintenance of the maximum number of paths for sustainable development available, by not reducing the ability of the planet Earth to maintain and support life. Therefore, within the context of the EIA process, the concept of equity within the present generation and for future generations, becomes crucial. It is very true to say that a comprehensive analysis of all potential paths is probably impossible, certainly at present, although scientic progress is occurring all the time in this regard (Gallopin, 2003). Hence, the intent of equity within the EIA may be established in good faith given the information available at the time. However, this can only occur when the precautionary prin- ciple is utilised alongside an objective rationale for methodology, judgement, evaluation and conclusion. Nevertheless, how can EIA through the Equitization paradigm assist in the attainment of sustainable development? Referring to George (1999), this question can be answered. George (1999) argues that in the case of intergenerational equity, this is one of the fundamental pillars of the principles of sustainable development, and which was a core theme within the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). However, the notion of equity within development or intragenerational equity, whilst not as clearly dened as a theme within the Brundtland Report, it is nevertheless sufcient to be regarded as another fundamental pillar of sustainable development. As a result, these pillars were seen to be so essential to the concept (George, 1999), that both were combined in order to provided the revised denition of sustainable development within Principle 3 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (United Nations, 1992). This states that sustainable development is to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations (United Nations, 1992). The denition resolves the issue of ensuring that development was equitable and sustainable at the same time, in light of global environmental constraints (George, 1999). Consequently, it could be argued that EIA can full both compo- nents of the Rio denition in that: 1). It can assess whether or not a project is likely to have a signicant negative impact upon the environment; and 2). Whether the project will be equitable for future generations and the present generation, in that order (George, 1999). EIA can therefore be a useful tool in the attainment of sustain- able development in terms of intra and intergenerational equity. This is because EIA contains many of the components necessary to operationalise intergenerational and intragenerational equity (Bruhn-Tysk & Eklund, 2002). It therefore, provides a basis to begin to achieve paths of co-evolution between the environment and humans that are naturally and socially equitable. However, as social, economic and technological knowledge improves, this may provide the ability to change to better co-evolutionary path options to strengthen the role of equity within the environment-human system. Stabilization paradigm and EIA The attainment and effective management of the environment- human system, once in a desired state, is crucial if there is to be sustainable development. The fact that EIA by itself is unable to achieve this is apparent, as it is a tool for impact analysis (Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, the continuous day-to-day activities have to be managed and regulated in a systematic approach through appropriate environmental management plans and tools, such as through ISO 14001. This ensures that appropriate processes and procedures occur in order to ensure environmental best practice management. However, recent literature has begun to make strong links between EIA and Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) which begins to fall within the remit of the geocybernetic paradigm of Stabilization. The developing relationship between EIAs and EMSs has been recognised within the literature due to the ability of each to contribute to the other. This is not necessarily a surprise to Sanchez and Hacking (2002) given the common features between them with respect to impact identication. Consequently, an EIA should be capable of delivering improvements in environmental man- agement. However, this is only if the predictive and preventative planning aspects of the EIA can be utilised in the construction and operation of the project (Bailey, 1997). The EIA of a proposed project is therefore provides the initial starting point for the EMS (Glasson et al., 2005). The stated thresholds within the impact identication phase (e.g. levels of emissions) can be transferred as the dened targets within the EMS, once the project is operational (Glasson et al., 2005). This is also the case in the vice versa scenario when wishing to open and operate a similar facility elsewhere. Further, it does provide for the opportunity and ability to use a signicance weighting approach, which would inform the identifying of ac- tions and objectives for effective environmental management (McDonach & Yaneske, 2002). The use of the Precautionary Prin- ciple is therefore crucial to this, particularly as the methodology to determine the signicance of impacts within EMS is not uniform (McDonach & Yaneske, 2002). Consequently, given the importance in setting targets in the pursuit of best environmental performance in EMSs, the use of quantitative impact identication approaches (as discussed in the Standardization paradigm) may provide the reasonable solution to the problem of uniformity in signicance weightings. This is of particular importance in the implementation of proposed measures in the EIS (Environmental Impact State- ment), in the production of enforceable commitments that the EMS achieves through veriable actions (Sanchez & Hacking, 2002). Within the context of the Stabilization paradigm, impact iden- tication methods may also have a role in the balancing of human needs with those of the environment. This can be achieved by the application of appropriate strategic techniques and implementa- tion, in order to ensure effective management of both the envi- ronment and human endeavors. This, as Gallopin (2003) states, is about good management via the conversion of sustainable devel- opment to sustainability, i.e. balancing the components of the Earth System and achieving a desirable path for sustainable development to occur. In respect to appropriate examples, Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010d) utilised the results obtained from EIAs that adopted the BEES method to evaluate project. The evaluation of the proposed project with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was part of the assessment of potential impacts. The inclusion of EMPs, within the impact identication process, provided the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of such plans in the attainment of sustainable development through the application of the model. In the case study of Caneli Dongor mine used in Phillips (2009, 2010d), it showed that the inclusion of an EMP certainly minimised the level of potential impacts, but no more than that. In point of fact, the level of ecological sustainable development decreased slightly compared to the baseline by 0.002. In the case of mining, this could be considered as very reasonable given the signicant impacts which mining creates in terms of environmental, social and economic. However, an EMP should be able to improve the existing environment-human system for the present and future genera- tions, in line with the Equitization paradigm. This occurred in the case study of the Bangalore Metro Rail Scheme evaluated in Phillips J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 977 (2009, 2010a). The results indicated a conversion from unsustain- ability in the Before Project scenario, to values indicating strong sustainability in the With Project-With EMP scenario. Therefore, this indicated a signicant improvement in the environment- human system, and a strong contribution towards meaningful sustainable development. The inclusion of a proper environmental management frame- work, within the impact identication phase of an EIA, can provide signicant indications whether or not sustainable development is achievable and long-term. However, this must be achieved through an appropriate mechanism to determine sustainable development, such as the mathematical model developed and applied in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d). Conclusion: practical potential of the new relationship It is reasonable to conclude that impact identication method- ologies of EIA do have a sufciently robust role to play in the attainment of sustainable development through the geocybernetic paradigms, particularly where clear standards or limits are imposed. EIAs can ensure that the impact upon the environment is minimised by means of the attainment and maintenance of minimum standards of operation, via the use of the precautionary principle. Further, the primary goal of EIAs is the operation of the Earth System at the highest possible level, including the co- evolution and operation of the environment-human system. However, there is a critical question that needs to be taken into account in respect to the spatial dimension of the Earth System: To what extent can local level impacts can have upon the Earth System by disrupting the delicate balance within a system, or in several systems? - i.e. transboundary impacts; and also, how well are EIAs able to take into account such effects? According to Devuyst (2000), one of the mechanisms for achieving sustainable development is through (environmental) impact assessment. Devuyst (2000) stresses that there is a need for an instrument which can be called Sustainability Assessment which examines if human activities will lead to a more sustainable society. However, Sustainability Assessment makes only sense when linked to an assessment framework (Devuyst, 2000). Therefore, it would make sense if such a framework is based upon a set of clear principles of the environmentehuman relationship using Geocybernetics. It is only at the local level that reasonable attainment of objec- tive precision can be undertaken. Schellnhuber (1998) supports this by stating that impacts at the local level accumulate in order to make regional or global impacts upon the Earth System. Humans are therefore capable of affecting the Earth System at all scales, starting at the local level. This is because humans cause patches of local environmental impacts, which over time produce large-scale areas of degradation and operational disruption of the environment (Schellnhuber, 1998). Examples of this process would include tropical deforestation, the ozone layer hole, variable warming of the planet etc. Therefore, within the context of the Standardization and Stabi- lization paradigms, suitable control at the local level may have a sufcient effect in the mitigation and effective management of the human factor upon the Earth System, and in the promotion of sustainable development. By using the Standardization paradigm as the basis, a set of environmental, social and economic parame- ters which reect the local level situation can be employed. These should consider the potential impacts of any new project, changes to the local environment and the surrounding areas if relevant, and any impacts further up to the scale of the Earth System. Even the smallest local environmental impact may have signicant effects further up the Earth System. It is important however when following such an approach, that the differing specic environmental conditions are properly acco- unted for. Therefore, an approach that reects the actual balance of the components is required. This would suggest that the use of weighted approaches in conjunction with the use of Delphi meth- odology, is an entirely reasonable strategy to employ within the context of impact identication methodologies and Geocybernetics. This approach would be able to model local conditions and the potential impacts at the local and larger geographical scale. In conclusion, the crux of Geocybernetics is about the mini- misation of local impacts that have the potential to become larger impacts up to the scale of the whole Earth System. Even if small environmental changes at local level may seem insignicant in comparison to the entire Earth System, they can in the longer term produce signicant results, such as changes in human behaviour towards the Earth System as a whole. If an EIA, and specically impact identication methodologies, can be used in a more objective way through using Geocybernetics, then the fundamental goal of sustainable development will be a step closer - the co- evolution of the environment and humans. References Abdel Wahaab, R. (2003). Sustainable development and environmental impact assessment in Egypt: historical assessment. The Environmentalist, 23, 49e70. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (1997). Overview. In Environmental impact assess- ment for developing countries in Asia, Vol. 1. Manila, Philippines: Asian Devel- opment Bank. http://www.adb.org.vn/Documents/Books/Environment_Impact/ chap3.pdf [12.12.06]. Baba, A. (2003). Geothermal environmental impact assessment with special reference to the Tuzla geothermal area, Canakkale, Turkey. Reykjavik, Iceland: Geothermal Training Programme, The United Nations University. Accessed from. www. unugtp.is/solole/1421 [03.11.09]. Bailey, J. (1997). Environmental impact assessment and management: an under- explored relationship. Environmental Management, 21, 317e327. Bisset, R. (1978). Quantication, decision-making and environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 7, 43e58. Bisset, R. (1988). Developments in EIA methods. In P. Walthern (Ed.), Environmental impact assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 47e61). London: Routledge. Summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Global change and the human prospect: issues in population science, technology, and equity. (1992). In C. Blackburn (Ed.). The Scientic Research Society. Bruhn-Tysk, S., & Eklund, M. (2002). Environmental impact assessment - a tool for sustainable development?: a case study of biofuelled energy plants in Sweden. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 129e144. Canter, L. (1996). Environmental impact assessment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company. Clark, B. D., Chapman, K., Bisset, R., & Walthern, P. (1979). Environmental impact assessment. In D. Lovejoy (Ed.), Land-use and landscape planning (pp. 53e87). Glasgow: Leonard Hill. Clark, W. C. (1989). Managing planet earth. Scientic American, 261, 46e54. Dalal-Clayton B. 1992. Modied EIA and Indicators of Sustainability: rst steps towards sustainability analysis. Twelfth Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Washington D.C., 19the22nd August 1992. Dee, N., Baker, J. K., Drobny, N. L., Duke, K. M., Whitman, I., & Fahringer, D. C. (1973). An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water Resources Research, 9, 523e535. Devuyst, D. (2000). Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the local level: The introduction of sustainability assessment systems. http://www.vub. ac.be/MEKO/publications/linkingiasd.doc [25.04.08]. Dovers, S. (2002). Too deep a SEA? Strategic environmental assessment in the era of sustainability. In S. Marsden, & S. Dovers (Eds.), Strategic environmental assessment in Australasia. Leichhardt: The Federation Press. Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1981). Impact of population growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212e1217. Folchi R. 2003. Environmental impact statement for mining with explosives: A quantitative method. I.S.E.E 29th Annual Conference on Explosive and Blasting Technique, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 2e5 February 2003. Gallopin, G. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainable development and human settlements division. Santiago, Chile: United Nations. George, C. (1999). Testing for sustainable development through environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 175e200. Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment: Cutting edge for the twenty-rst century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 978 Goodland, R. (1994). Environmental sustainability and the power sector. Impact Assessment, 12, 275e304. Goyal, S. K., & Deshpande, V. A. (2001). Comparison of weight assignment proce- dures in evaluation of environmental impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 553e563. Hacking T. 2004. The Right Hand Rule for impact assessment: A framework for clarifying the meaning of integrated, triple bottom-line and sustainability assessment. IAIA04: Whose business is it?, 24e30th April 2004, Vancouver, Canada. Heikkila, K. (2004). Environmental impact assessment using a weighting method for alternative air-conditioning systems. Building and Environment, 39, 1133e1140. Hobbs, B. F., & Voelker, A. H., 1978. Analytical multiobjective decision-making techniques and power plant siting: A survey and critique. Prepared for the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (2002). Topic 6 e Impact analysis, EIA training resources Manual (2nd ed.). http://www.iaia.org/Non_ Members/EIA/ManualContents/Sec_E_Topic_6.PDF [13.01.06]. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). (2008). Environ- mental Impact Assessment (EIA). http://www.iema.net/download/readingroom/ ebrief/Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment/Environmental%20Impact% 20Assessment%20ebrief.doc [09.04.08]. Lawrence, D. P. (1993). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: a false dichotomy? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13, 3e11. Lawrence, D. P. (1997a). Integrating sustainability and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Management, 21, 23e42. Lawrence, D. P. (1997b). The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17, 79e107. Lawrence, D. P. (2007). Impact signicance determination - pushing the boundaries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.w007.02.010. Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: techniques and application. http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook [13.04.06]. McDonach, K., & Yaneske, P. P. (2002). Environmental management systems and sustainable development. The Environmentalist, 22, 217e226. Munn, R. E. (1979). Environmental impact assessment: Principles and procedures (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. Noorbakhsh, F., & Ranjan, S. (1999). A model for sustainable development: inte- grating environmental impact assessment and project planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 17, 283e293. Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). (2004). NWMO backgrounds papers: 7e11 Methodologies for assessing spent nuclear fuel management options. http://www.nwmo.ca/default.aspx? DN597,211,199,20,1,Documents [13.01.06]. ORiordan, T. (2000). The sustainability debate. In T. ORiordan (Ed.), Environmental science for environmental management (2nd ed.). (pp. 29e63) London: Prentice Hall. ORiordan, T., & Jordan, A. (1995). The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental politics. Environmental Values, 4, 191e212. Pastakia, C. M. R. (1998). The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) e a new tool for environmental impact assessment. Accessed from. http://www.pastakia. com/riam/publication.html [03.06.06]. Pastakia, C. M. R., & Jensen, A. (1998). The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) for EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 461e482. Phillips, J. 2009. The development and application of a geocybernetic model of sustainability. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dept. of Geography (Streatham Campus) and Camborne School of Mines (Cornwall Campus), University of Exeter: United Kingdom. Phillips, J. (2010a). The advancement of a mathematical model of sustainable development. Sustainability Science, 5, 127e142. Phillips, J. (2010b). A mathematical model of sustainable development using ideas of coupled environment-human systems (Invited Article). The Pelican Webs Journal of Sustainable Development, 6. May 2010, Available from. http://www. pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n05page2jasonphillips.html. Phillips, J. (2010c). Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development for a geothermal power plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14, 2414e2427. Phillips, J. (2010d). Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development of a mining operation: a new approach using the ideas of coupled environment- human systems. International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering, 2(3), 215e238. Pope J. 2003. Sustainability assessment: What is it and how do we do it? Proceedings of the International Sustainability Conference in Perth, Western Australia, 17the19th September 2003, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Western Australia. Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising environ- mental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 595e616. Rees, W. E. (1990). Economics, ecology, and the role of environmental assessment in achieving sustainable development. In P. Jacobs, & B. Sadler (Eds.), Sustainable development and environmental assessment: Perspectives on planning a common future (pp. 123e141), Background Paper for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472e475. Rossouw, N. (June 2003). A review of methods and generic criteria for determining impact signicance. African Journal of Environmental Assessment and Manage- ment, 6, 44e61. Sanchez, L. E., & Hacking, T. (2002). An approach to linking environmental impact assessment and environmental management systems. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20, 25e38. Sadler, B. (1999). A framework for environmental sustainability assessment and assurance. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Envi- ronmental impact assessment: Process, methods and potential, Vol. 1 (pp. 12e32). London: Blackwell. Sadler, B. (2003). EIA and sustainability. Newsletter, 18. EIA Unit, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1998). Part 1: earth system analysis e the concept. In H.-J. Schellnhuber, & V. Wenzel (Eds.), Earth system analysis: Integrating science for sustainability (pp. 3e195). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1999). Earth system analysis and the second Copernican revo- lution. Nature, 402, C19eC23, Millennium Supplement, 2nd December 1999. Schellnhuber, H.-J. (2001). Earth system analysis and management. In E. Ehlers, & T. Kraft (Eds.), Understanding the earth system: Compartments, processes and interactions (pp. 17e55). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Schellnhuber, H.-J., & Kropp, J. (1998). Geocybernetics: controlling a complex dynamic system under uncertainty. Naturwissenschaften, 85, 411e425. Shopley, J. B., & Fuggle, R. F. (1984). A comprehensive review of current environ- mental impact assessment methods and techniques. Journal of Environmental Management, 18, 25e47. Sippe, R. (1999). Criteria and standards for assessing signicant impact. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Environmental impact assessment: Process, methods and potential, Vol. 1 (pp. 74e92). London: Blackwell. Skutsch, M. M., & Flowerdew, R. T. N. (1976). Measurement techniques in envi- ronmental impact assessment. Environmental Conservation, 3, 209e217. Snell, T., & Cowell, R. (2006). Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precaution and efciency? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26, 359e376. Steinemann, A. (2000). Rethinking human health impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 627e645. Steinemann, A. (2001). Improving alternatives for environmental impact assess- ment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 3e21. Storey, K. (2005). Course notes on EIA methods. http://www.ucs.mun.ca/wkstorey/ newpage9.htm [11.01.06]. Thompson, M. A. (1990). Determining impact signicance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies. Journal of Environmental Management, 30, 235e250. Tickner J. 1998. A commonsense framework for operationalizing the precautionary principle. The Wingspread Conference - Strategies for implementing the Precautionary Principle, Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 25th January 1998. United Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. UNCED Report A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1. United Nations, New York. Walthern, P. (1988). An introductory guide to EIA. In P. Walthern (Ed.), Environ- mental impact assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 3e30). London: Routledge. Westman, W. E. (1985). Ecology, impact assessment and environmental planning. New York: Wiley & Sons. Wingspread. 1998. Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. The Wingspread Conference e Strategies for implementing the Precautionary Principle, Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 25th January 1998. Wolfe, L. D. S. (1987). Methods for scoping environmental impact assessments: A review of literature and experience. 661 Barnham Road, West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Larry Wolfe Associates. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/ 301/ceaa-acee/methods_scoping_enviro/METHODSE.PDF [28.01.06]. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Youse, H., Ehara, S., Youse, A., & Seiedi, F. (2009). Environmental impact assessment of Sabalan Geothermal Power Plant, NW Iran. Proceedings of the 34th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 9e11 February 2009. Accessed from: http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/ IGAstandard/SGW/2009/youse.pdf [13.01.09]. J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 979