Scholar and practitioner views on science in environmental assessment

Figures & data

Figure 1. Countries/continents that survey respondents work in on EA projects.

Table 1. Satisfaction levels (%) expressed by EA scholars and practitioners (i.e. satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and dissatisfied) with EA components. Bold numbers in the table refer to the relatively higher percentages of survey respondents. The topics were grouped based on a general understanding of their frequencies included in an EA system.

	Scholars (%)			Practitioners (%)
Topic	Satisfied	Neither	Dissatisfied	Satisfied	Neither	Dissatisfied
Group 1
VECs	39	35	26	62	28	10
Time and Space Bounds	39	22	39	57	10	33
Baseline Data	38	24	38	60	10	30
Impact Prediction	36	21	43	60	10	30
Impact Significance	29	24	47	55	5	40
Monitoring and Follow-up	15	20	65	33	19	48
Group 2
Species at Risk	55	16	29	35	30	35
Cumulative Effects Assessment	6	12	82	10	10	80
Sustainability Assessment	27	27	46	10	32	58
Public Participatory Processes	29	34	37	38	19	43
Social Impact Assessment	23	23	54	35	10	55
Human Health Impact Assessment	20	30	50	35	20	45

Table 2. Statistical significance in differences between satisfaction levels expressed by EA scholars and practitioners with EA components. Selected confidence level is 90% and 95% (alpha = 0.1 and 0.05).

EA components	Statistical significance (p-value)	EA components	Statistical significance (p-value)
Group 1	p = 0.0008	Group 2	p = 0.3654
VECs	p = 0.0299	Species at Risk	p = 0.8600
Time and Space Bounds	p = 0.1423	Cumulative Effects Assessment	p = 0.2330
Baseline Data	p = 0.1188	Sustainability Assessment	p = 0.7253
Impact Prediction	p = 0.0974	Public Participatory Processes	p = 0.3187
Impact Significance	p = 0.1336	Social Impact Assessment	p = 0.4254
Monitoring and Follow-up	p = 0.1215	Human Health Impact Assessment	p = 0.1945
P-value = 0.0092

Table 3. Importance levels (%) and statistical significance in the differences between the importance levels expressed by EA scholars and practitioners (i.e. low, medium, and high importance) with influential factors in influencing quality of science in EA. Factors were grouped based on the level of importance perceived by scholars and practitioners. Selected confidence level is 90% and 95% (alpha = 0.1 and 0.05).

	Scholars (%)			Practitioners (%)
Factors	Low	Medium	High	Low	Medium	High	p-values
Group 1
Time availability	3	31	66	0	14	86	p = 0.0507
Funds availability	6	28	66	5	24	71	p = 0.6420
Training levels of practitioners	6	28	66	0	24	76	p = 0.7718
Proponents’ attitudes towards social responsibility beyond regulatory requirements	6	26	68	10	33	57	p = 0.2125
The expectations of regulators regarding the quality of science in EA	2	49	49	5	38	57	p = 0.6792
Structure of the regulatory process for EA	11	29	60	15	20	65	p = 0.5763
EA practitioners’ opinions about the importance of science in EA	11	40	49	21	32	47	p = 0.3495
Group 2
Public discourse in EA	9	57	34	15	50	35	p = 0.4069
Support level for EA practitioners from the general scientific community	26	48	26	30	45	25	p = 0.4067
Group 3
The participation of the scientific community in EA	14	37	49	35	30	35	p = 0.0725
Opportunities for the scientific community to participate in EA	14	43	43	15	65	20	p = 0.0902
Cooperation between EA scholars and practitioners	11	40	49	20	50	30	p = 0.0833
Stakeholders’ concern for the quality of science in EA	6	43	51	19	43	38	p = 0.0970
The availability of scientific literature	11	46	43	28	24	48	p = 0.3570

Figure 2. Satisfaction levels (%) by scholars and practitioners with the contribution of the scholarly scientific community to the EA process. Statistical differences indicated that EA scholars and practitioners have essentially the same satisfaction levels (p = 0.278, alpha = 0.1).

Table 4. Power and influence levels (%) perceived by EA scholars and practitioners (i.e. low, medium, and high power and influence) in the generic EA process. Stakeholders were grouped based on the level of influence perceived by scholars and practitioners. The highest percentage of each stakeholder was italic in the table.

	Scholars (%)			Practitioners (%)
Stakeholders	Low	Medium	High	Low	Medium	High
Group 1
Politicians	11	20	69	19	10	71
Regulators	3	28	69	0	29	71
Proponents	3	14	83	15	30	55
Group 2
NGOs	17	72	11	24	52	24
Consultants	6	51	43	14	57	29
The public	26	54	20	14	57	29
Group 3
Scholars/Scientists	57	37	6	38	52	10
Aboriginal groups	27	43	30	32	26	42

Figure 3. Demographic information about interviewees.