Editorial

Dear readers,

This year’s annual meeting of the International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) was held in Vancouver, Canada, between 4 and 7 May. It was the first in-person meeting since the start of the pandemic, attracting nearly 1,000 participants. Travelling is still difficult (or impossible), in particular for many from developing countries, and hence, a large part of the audience came from Canada, and to a lesser extent from the US and Europe. The theme of the conference was ‘Confidence in Impact Assessment: Policies, Partnerships and Public Involvement’. Many of the presentations and discussions revolved around aspects of reconciliation with indigenous communities in Canada and how their traditions, cultures and worldviews result in more holistic approaches to impact assessment and decision-making, ‘naturally’ transitioning towards sustainable development. An example for what this means is provided by how health impact assessment (HIA) and health in environmental assessments is approached and practised. Whilst throughout the world, many practitioners, researchers, academics and other advocates, such as the WHO (see, e.g. Pyper et al. 2022), are working hard to convince politicians, policy-makers, planners and developers to embrace a wider determinants of health approach in impact assessment (i.e. one which considers bio-physical, social, economic and other aspects); in Northern Canada, this holistic approach is already widely reflected in practice. In his context, Northern British Columbia is a particularly advanced region. There is a lot to learn from this practice, and we will hopefully see more papers from this region in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (IAPA) .

This issue of IAPA consists of seven research papers. In the first paper, Françoise Jabot and Ana Rivadeneyra-Sicilia (from the universities of Rennes and Bordeaux, respectively) report on ‘Health Impact Assessment Institutionalisation in France: state of the art, challenges and perspectives’. They conclude that ‘For HIA to be more institutionalised, there is a need to clarify its purpose, continue building capacity, promote impact evaluations for evidence on HIA’s potential to advance HiAP [Health in All Policies] and obtain greater commitment from national authorities’. Next, Chaunjit Chanchitpricha (Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand) and Thomas Fischer (University of Liverpool, UK) explore ‘the role of impact assessment in the development of urban green infrastructure: a review of EIA and SEA practices in Thailand’. They find ‘that whilst the consideration of GI in SEA (which is not yet compulsory in Thailand) has remained limited, consideration of green spaces for mitigating negative impacts in statutory EIA has been happening frequently’. In the third paper, Laura Sims (Université de Saint-Boniface, Winnipeg, Canada) and Julian David Rodriguez-Corcho (University de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia) introduce ‘a gender equity and new masculinities approach to development: Examining results from a Colombian case study’. They ‘examine learning that resulted from participation in [the] IMPACT [project]’s gender equity strategy, as realized through [the co-operative] Coocampo activities’. This is followed by three authors from the University of Winnipeg, Canada: Mahabaleshwar Hegde, Kirit Patel and Alan Diduck, who report on ‘Environmental clearance conditions in impact assessment in India’. They examine ‘the EIA process and its effectiveness in addressing the impacts of a 190 km long national highway project along the Karnataka coast’. Their ‘findings underline that most of the conditions that pertained to the prevention of pollution, restoration of mangroves, and protection of biodiversity lacked a scientific basis and specific information required for effective implementation’. In the fifth paper, Ruan de Lange (Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism, Utah, US) and Lazarus Adua (University of Utah, US) report on ‘an Independent Assessment of Potential Social Impacts of the Newly Initiated Inland Port in Salt Lake City’. They ‘recommend that port authorities should conduct a full-scale SIA, given the potential benefits of such an endeavor’. Next, Melisha Charles, J. Tafel, D. McDonnell, C. Stoicheff and N. C. Kunz (all University of British Columbia, Canada) suggest that ‘a roadmap for ESIA policy change in Ethiopia should address wide-ranging governance reforms’. They find that ‘accountability mechanisms are currently limited in Ethiopia’ and that there is a ‘a lack of transparency in the public availability of ESIAs and limited community participation’. Finally, ‘compliance and monitoring processes were also found to be inadequate’. In the seventh and final paper, Patrick Patiwael, Peter Groote and Frank Vanclay (all University of Groningen, The Netherlands) ask the question ‘Does local planning culture influence the effectiveness of impact assessments’? In this context, the authors reflect ‘on infrastructure projects in a Dutch UNESCO World Heritage Site’. They find that ‘in contrast to the Dutch planning culture, the role of ICOMOS [the international advisory body to UNESCO on cultural heritage] was perceived as opaque and a “black box”’. However, ‘this did not decrease its legitimacy among the key stakeholders’.

Enjoy Reading!