Change-making in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): piloting changeology approach using England as a case study

Figures & data

Table 1. Fundamental elements of a selection of common change-making models (see Hiatt 2006; Atkinson et al. 2015; Hicks 2022).

Model	Focus	Key steps
ADKAR	Employees’ welfare	Awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, reinforcement
Lewin’s	Enabling organizational structure	Unfreeze, change, freeze
Kotter’s	Employees’ response & success factors to execute change	Increase urgency, build team, form strategic vision, communicate, enable action, short-term goals, reinforce change, embed change
McKinsey 7-S	Organization’s design for change management	Strategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff, skills
Kübler-Ross Five Stage	Employees in change management process	Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance
Bridges’ Transition	On transition (internal), rather than change (external)	Ending, losing, letting go; neutral zone; new beginning
Rogers Technology Adoption Curve	Categories of people: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards, leap-froggers	Spread people along S-Shaped curve and make them more willing & active for change.
PDCA	Planning activities	Plan, Do, Check, Act
ToC	Outlining causal linkages in a proposed initiative or policy, to promote desired change	shorter-term, intermediate, and longer-term activities and outcomes, mapped
Changeology	Vast body of theory & practice into key steps	Clarifying purpose, defining the project, enabling action, fast prototyping, feedback & evaluation.

Figure 1. Steps in the search for relevant documents to include in the data collection.

Table 2. Key documents from literature search containing the rationale, approaches and inputs that resulted in directive 2014/52/EU (EC European Commission 2014) and the regulations.

Level	Documents
EU	Policy reports and academic articles: On the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC) COM(2009) 378 final EC European Commission (2009b). The mid-term review of the sixth Community Environment Action Programme EC European Commission (2009a). On the Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC) COM(2003) 334 EC (2003). Implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects on the Environment CEC (1997). Implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects. COM(93) 28 final – Vol. 12. CEC (1993). Costs and benefits of the EIA Directive Oosterhuis (2007). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal’ EC (2011). Arabadjieva (2016); Gunningham and Sinclair (2017); Lonsdale et al. (2017); Sheate et al. (2005).
UK	Policy reports and academic articles: Government response to the technical consultation on environmental impact assessment thresholds DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government (2016). Government response to the technical consultation on Environmental Impact Assessment (regulations on planning and nationally significant infrastructure) DCLG (2017). Better regulation framework: interim guidance (BEIS 2023). Fischer et al. (2016); IEMA (2011); Fischer (2023); Fischer et al. (2023); Fischer (2022a), (2022b).

Table 3. Grading scale to assess extent changeology’s elements were applied, making changeology the benchmark (Source: adapted from Lee et al. 1999).

Grade	Review criteria	Classification
A	Performed to a high standard/good practice; no omissions/expected output evident.	Satisfactory
B	Generally satisfactory and complete/good practice evident; but minor omissions and/or inadequacies in input.
C	Satisfactory despite some omissions and/or inadequacies/good practice alluded to but absent; moderate outputs available.
D	Some parts well attempted; overall, unsatisfactory with important omissions and/or inadequacies in input.	Unsatisfactory
E	Not satisfactory; significant omissions/inadequacies/no clear evidence in output.
F	Very unsatisfactory; important tasks poorly undertaken or no attempted; relevant outputs missing.

Figure 2. An outline of the methodological approach and steps in the study.

Table 4. How the review areas (rows) and review categories (columns) were scored.

Changeology’s steps → Critical analysis steps	Issue framing	Communication	Creativity	Open mindedness	Problem-solving	Satisfied % (unsatisfied %)	Modal grade
Clarify purpose	A	A	C	C	C	100(0)	C
Define project	A	A	D	D	D	40(60)	D
Enable action	C	A	C	C	C	100(0)	C
Fast prototyping	E	E	E	E	E	0(100)	E
Feedback	D	A	D	D	D	20(80)	D
Satisfied%(unsat%)	60(40)	80(20)	40(60)	40(60)	40(60)
Modal grade	A	A	C&D	C&D	C&D		C&D

Table 5. How changeology can enhance change-making in EA (competent understanding of the nature of EA process, sound methods for effecting desired change), focusing on scientific methods and the evidence base.

Changeology’s steps	Contribution examples
Clarifying purpose	Approaches e.g. EPB & practical research to distil desired future conditions, backed by sound and balanced evidence from literature and stakeholders.
Defining the project	Systems thinking techniques (Modelling, Sensitivity analysis) can help establish pivotal actions to bring desired changes in a complex process; appropriate techniques for quality assurance identified.
Enabling action	Complex nature of EA process/system understood, including key factors and actors at play and how they dynamically interact and influence EA outcomes; Ideologies, roles, fears and needs of all stakeholders captured; Sound data collection and analysis applied; Efficaciousness and effectiveness of approach demonstrated empirically; Lessons from past change-making exercises integrated e.g. PDCA evaluated; Appropriate change model, data needs and techniques explored.
Fast prototyping	Ex ante potential success and impact of change, via models, simulations, sensitivity analysis, allowing for reflexive learning and improvisation.
Feedback and evaluation	Two-way avenues to quality assurance about procedures and stakeholders captured and balanced appropriately; performance of change-making process monitored and evaluated throughout.

Figure 3. Role of changeology in informing change-making to deliver fit-for-purpose EA, from the start (EA¹) to the long term (EAⁿ), following cumulative effects of several iterations. EAⁿ can be revolutionary when compared to EA⁰ if the intermittent change-making have been consistently pursuing fitness-for-purpose.

Hiatt JM. 2006. ADKAR a model for change in business, government and our community. Colorado, USA: Prosci Research Loveland.

 Google Scholar

Atkinson J, Loftus E, Jarvis J. 2015. The art of change making. London: Leadership Centre.

 Google Scholar

Hicks K. 2022. Top 8 change management models. A comparison guide. Top 8 change management models: A comparison guide (zendesk.Co.uk). [accessed 2023 Jan 10].

 Google Scholar

EC (European Commission). 2014. DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU of the European parliament and of the council, amending directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. EUR-Lex - 32014L0052 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.Eu) [accessed 2022 Sep 13].

 Google Scholar

EC (European Commission). 2009b. Report from the commission on the application and effectiveness of the EIA directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC), COM/2009/0378 (EN (europa.Eu). [accessed 2022 Dec 11].

 Google Scholar

EC (European Commission). 2009a. Mid-term review of the sixth community environment action programme mid-term review of the sixth community environment action programme (europa.Eu) [accessed 2022 Aug 7].

 Google Scholar

EC. 2003. On the application and effectiveness of the EIA directive (Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by directive 97/11/EC) COM(2003) 334 final Microsoft Word - DGenv-PE-COM_2003_334-Report EIA Directive_EN_ACTE.DOC (europa.Eu). [accessed 2022 Sep 23].

 Google Scholar

CEC. 1997. Report from the commission of the implementation of directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, CEC.

 Google Scholar

CEC. 1993. Report from the commission of the implementation of directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and annexes for member states. Com (93) 28 final - Vol.12, Brussels, April CEC.

 Google Scholar

Oosterhuis F. 2007. Costs and benefits of the EIA directive. Final report for DG environment under specific agreement no. 07010401/2006/447175/FRA/G1 Amsterdam: European Commission, DG Environment.

 Google Scholar

EC (European commission). 2011. Opinion of the European economic and social committee on the ‘proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Codification)’ COM(2011) 189 final. [accessed 2022 Aug 27].

 Google Scholar

Arabadjieva K. 2016. ‘Better regulation’ in environmental impact assessment: the amended EIA directive. J Environ Law. 28(1):159–168. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqw001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gunningham N, Sinclair D. 2017. Smart regulation. In: Drahos P, editor. Regulatory theory: foundations and applications. Canberra, Australia: ANU Press; pp. 133–148.

 Google Scholar

Lonsdale J, Weston K, Blake S, Edwards R, Elliott M. 2017. The amended European environmental impact assessment directive: UK marine experience and recommendations. Ocean Coast Manag. 148:131–142. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.021.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheate W, Byron H, Dagg S, Cooper L. 2005. The relationship between the EIA and SEA directives-final report to the European commission: final report to the European commission. ( Contract n. ENV. G). Imperial College London.

 Google Scholar

DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government). 2016. Environmental impact assessment: technical consultation (regulations on planning and major infrastructure) (publishing.Service.gov.uk) [accessed 2022 Mar 10].

 Google Scholar

DCLG (Department of Communities and Local Government). 2017. Government response to the technical consultation on environmental impact assessment (regulations on planning and nationally significant infrastructure). Amending environmental impact assessment regulations - government response (publishing.Service.gov.uk) [accessed 2022 Mar 10].

 Google Scholar

BEIS (Department for business, energy & industrial strategy). 2023. Better regulation framework: interim guidance. The better regulation framework (Publishing.Service.gov.uk). [accessed 2023 Apr 11].

 Google Scholar

Fischer TB, Therivel R, Bond A, Fothergill J, Marshall R. 2016. The revised EIA directive – possible implications for practice in England. UVP Rep. 30(2):106–112.

 Google Scholar

IEMA. 2011. The state of environmental impact assessment in the UK. [accessed 2022 Feb 7]. https://google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj4zZK9sMiBAxVFiVwKHbXOCoEQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iema.net%2Fdownload-document%2F236676&usg=AOvVaw1b5oPYAVPEJlwVOGC2no8j&opi=89978449.

 Google Scholar

Fischer TB. 2023. Simplification and potential replacement of EA in the UK - is it fit for purpose? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(3):233–237. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2166257.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer TB, Fonseca A, Jha-Thakur U, Retief F, Alberts R, Jiricka-Pürrer A. 2023. Simplification of environmental and other impact assessments – results from an international online survey. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(3):181–189. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2023.2198839.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer TB. 2022a. Replacing EIA and SEA with Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs) - the 2022 levelling up and regeneration bill in the UK. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(4):267–268. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2089375.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fischer TB. 2022b. ‘Simplification’ of environmental and other impact assessments – an international trend? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(5):355–355. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2108223.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee N, Colley R, Bonde J, Simpson J. 1999. The quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals. Manchester: University of Manchester.

 Google Scholar