Assessing the role of subjective judgment and science in environmental impact assessment: implications and options for reform

Abstract

Most environmental assessment (EA) processes are based on a rational technocratic paradigm, in which experts are expected to review value-neutral scientific evidence and objectively assess project impacts. Critics argue that this model is flawed even with increased public participation because it does not recognize the significant role of subjectivity in EA and assumes that expert analysis and judgement can be objective and value free. This paper re-evaluates the assumptions of the rational technocratic model by examining new evidence from a case study in which scientific experts in two separate, but concurrent, EA reviews of the same project came to opposite conclusions even though they relied on the same terms of reference and similar information and evaluation criteria. The case study analysis provides new evidence showing that subjective judgments of expert assessors are an important determinant of the EA findings and that there is inconsistency in the exercise of subjective judgement by experts that can result in fundamentally different conclusions, even if the experts are assessing the same project and similar evidence. The nature of the subjective judgements is assessed in detail and implications of the findings for EA are discussed.

Keywords:

• environmental assessment
• collaborative impact assessment
• values and subjectivity
• public participation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The federal EA process for projects under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission varies slightly from the CEAA process outlined here, but is also based on a similar rational technocratic model.

2 We note that the literature uses a number of terms for subjective judgements made by experts, including: non-objective personal judgement (Susskind and Dunlap 1981), values (Wilkins 2003), professional judgement (Wood and Becker 2005), professional discretion (Zhang, Kørnøv, and Christensen 2018), and subjective decision making (Wilkins 2003). It is also important to note that professional judgement and discretion exercised by experts may be different than subjective judgements made by non-professionals, in the sense that professional judgement is based on extensive experience and training. Nonetheless, professional judgement is still shaped by the subjective values of the professional.