Transforming the capacity of impact assessment to address persistent global problems

ABSTRACT

Impact assessment (IA) formally emerged fifty years ago, it evolved, matured but the predominant philosophy did not change much, especially in light of the speed of change the world experiences and the magnitude and persistency of current environmental and social problems. Inspired in the sustainable transitions theory, and the adaptive theory, I reflect in this letter on the need to shift the philosophy underlying current IA rules and practice, to renovate or even reinvent the instrument to become more collaborative, constructive and systemic, driven by learning and co-creation of knowledge. This might mean a paradigm shift, towards a more engaging and persuasive IA, a leverage to enable changing practices in an increasingly complex world, and a positive instrument to help transitions for sustainability and the achievement of sustainable development goals.

KEYWORDS:

• Impact assessment
• transitions for sustainability
• global changes
• complexity
• SDGs

1. The persistence of global problems – new dilemmas in IA

Multiple scholars and organizations have called attention to the emergence of persistent problems that threaten societal systems, of which the Rockström et al. (2009) nine planetary boundaries are a notable reference.

Climate change, and consequences (including water resource scarcity, ocean raising temperature and natural disasters such as fires or floodings), poverty, health and pandemic crisis, biodiversity loss, soil depletion and land changes, social distresses, terrorism and other global challenges are accumulating and threatening all forms of life on the planet. Together with changes in production and consumption behaviors, the uptake of digital technologies, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, spatial exploration and other forms of future unknowns, all account for new expected and non-expected dilemmas in the future of IA (Dusik et al. 2018; Noble 2019; Stoeglehner 2019).

Is the impact assessment (IA)¹ as we know today ready for this potential future? The IA literature is not abundant in this topic but there have been occasional reflections on the implications of global challenges and megatrends to the practice of IA (Rees 1995; Sadler 1996; Retief et al. 2016), with suggestions on the need to shift practitioners thinking, increasing flexibility and adaptive value-driven approaches to EA (Retief et al. 2016).

Adaptive theory shows that almost everything in life emerges, evolves, matures and eventually declines, smoothly or collapsing, to eventually disappear or re-emerge again, strongly renovated or reinvented (Gunderson and Holling 2002). It happens with living beings, with cities and civilizations, with physical structures and with instruments.

Drawing on the literature and from observations in practice, it can be argued that IA consolidated as a powerful normative instrument, albeit evolving slowly in the last few decades, remaining steadily at the conservative phase of the adaptive cycle loop. In the face of the unprecedented speed of global changes the world, the society, and the environment, and will, experience, what will be the future of IA? Will IA sustain steadily, will it collapse or will it be reinvented to address the challenges created by persistent global problems, as delineated by the United Nations 2030 agenda and the SDGs, and by the still unknown challenges?

There is recognition of the need to address the complexity and scale of such grand problems brought to the IA table which, according to Noble (2019, p. 3) 'are well-beyond the scope of traditional project-based IA systems'. But while recognized as a consequence of past and current unsustainable behaviors, the persistency of these problems reveals that efforts undertaken to address them appear to have been insufficient. Management actions might have been inadequate, public policies weak and governance systems immature to deal with such surmounting global problems. As Noble (2019, p. 1) stated ‘IA is under pressure to respond to increasingly complex environmental challenges’.

This letter is part of an IAPA special issue on ‘Impact assessment for the twenty-first century – what future’, edited by Thomas Fischer and Sara Bice. The editors invited contributors to reflect on the future of IA in the twenty-first century. This contribution aims to respond to the editors’ challenge, drawing on sustainability transitions (ST) theory, their principles and philosophy in addressing the unprecedented speed of global changes, to reflect on the need for change in IA. The point I want to make is that IA incremental evolution is insufficient, and that emerging theories encompassing systems thinking, complexity and transitions can be a source of inspiration for IA to stand up to the challenges ahead. We need IA to be constructive of better development, more engaging, and persuasive of the urgency of integrating nature and people’s values in development decisions.

2. Lessons from sustainability transitions theory

Scholars in sustainability transitions (ST) theory have been contributing relevant reflections to the global challenges debate. Conceptualized as processes of social change needed to solve grand societal challenges (Avelino et al. 2016), ST are nonlinear, disruptive, systemic shifts, engaging structural transformative change instead of marginal or incremental (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006; Haan and Rotmans 2018). The need for this systemic change results from unsustainable path-dependencies, while pursuing change implies dynamic interactions between social, environmental, institutional, political and economic goals and underlying values (Haan and Rotmans 2018).

Particularly relevant to IA is the recognition in ST theory that persistent problems cannot be solved by current policies and practices and traditional approaches alone, as sub-optimal solutions can generate even more persistent and complex problems in the long term (Rotmans et al. 2001). An important foundation in ST theory is the recognition of the need for change in philosophies and in technologies, in individual and in collective behaviors and practices, in building relationships, and in the creation of new knowledge and ways of learning (Köhler et al. 2019). Similar to IA, core characteristics of ST include multi-dimensionality, multi-actor processes, change and stability, temporal dynamics, uncertainty, values and normative directionality (Köhler et al. 2019). ST are agency driven (Loorbach 2014) and an explicit consequence of the reflected actions of people (Haan and Rotmans 2018).

Central in transitions, or transformations, is the ambition to shift from analyzing and understanding problems towards identifying pathways and solutions for desirable environmental and societal change (Hölscher et al. 2018). This is quite relevant in IA considering the argued potential role of its strategic forms (such as strategic environmental and sustainability assessment (SEA/SA)) to help identify optional pathways for sustainability (Partidario 2015; Partidário 2016) through creative governance solutions (Monteiro and Partidário 2017), considering a more deliberative role to integrate policy solutions and inform decision actions that generate and enhance environmental and social values (Noble 2019).

The field of ST emerged with the science and policy dialogue, having at its root environmental and sustainability sciences (environmental and integrated assessment, sustainability governance and environmental policy) (Loorbach et al. 2017). Perhaps IA can now learn back from ST theory on how to deal with such large scale, non-linear complex systems, and find creative ways to address new dilemmas.

3. Paradigm shift in IA – is it underway or still needed?

The call for a paradigm shift in IA has been raised several times by IA scholars, but several authors seem to agree that significant innovation in IA is not sparking, or even transformation in policies, norms and practices (Bond et al. 2015; Retief et al. 2016; Noble 2019; Stoeglehner 2019). It seems IA is resting in a comfort zone, using old rules that are good for business as usual but incompetent to deal with the magnitude, the speed and the complexity of current global problems and new societal dilemmas. Bond et al. (2015) highlighted that existing environmental assessment practice is poor at dealing with complexity and uncertainty. Retief et al. (2016) recognized the future is less predictable, arguing that linear thinking is insufficient to address increased complexity and uncertainty. This links well with the lessons learned with sustainability transitions.

Twenty years ago International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) past-Presidents, sharing their visions on the future of IA, agreed that IA needed urgent overhaul in practice, and not only in the normative discourse (Goodland and Anhang 2000). Largely more concerned with project-driven initiatives, IA in its multiple forms was still mostly reactive to initiatives, a decade later, and driven by compliance (Morgan 2012). Several authors refer to the significant gap between IA expectations and its performance in practice (Tetlow and Hanusch 2012; Zhang et al. 2013; Bidstrup and Hansen 2014; João and McLauchlan 2014; Lobos and Partidario 2014).

The case with SEA is illustrative. Aimed at starting earlier to provide a larger picture and foster the integration of environmental issues into development processes to improve sustainability, practice shows SEA is based solely on traditional EA thinking (Noble and Nwanekezie 2017). Such SEA is reactive, follows linear thinking, driven by compliance in the assessment of sets of projects (named as programs or plans), and comes up short on facilitating strategic choices to achieve broader sustainability goals and objectives (Lobos and Partidario 2014; Partidario 2015; Noble and Nwanekezie 2017).

As earlier demonstrated by Lobos and Partidario (2014), the rational and positivist epistemological roots of SEA/SA, dominating its practice, are recognized by Hayes (2019) as being pervasive, creating an epistemological contradiction, whose persistence curtails the potential for SEA/SA to foster dialogues on environmental or sustainability issues in plan-making. This practice is emptying the strategic capacity of SEA and endangering its credibility (Partidario 2000, 2015). In very few cases is SEA used with its full strategic potential.

Crucial to multi-actor processes is public participation, another practice in deficit. IA improved over the years in relation to public participation, citizens’ engagement, transparency and legitimacy in decision-making, but not without challenges (Morgan 2012; Bond et al. 2018). By engaging citizens IA potentially generates the opportunity to seize participatory spaces for consideration of a wider-range of values (Sheate and Partidário 2010; Partidário and Sheate 2013), empowering citizens, making them aware of their right of opinion in decision processes (Sinclair et al. 2008; Aaen et al. 2016; Nielsen et al. 2019). However, the practice of public participation, together with issues of transparency in, and legitimacy of, decision-making is still far from desirable (Owens et al. 2004; Sinclair and Fitzpatrick 2002; Lobos and Partidario 2014; Bond et al. 2015, 2018; Elling and Nielsen 2018).

As stated by Zhang et al. (2013), even the positive values brought to the decision-making process are not well recognized, accepted or agreed upon. The potential role of IA in relation to sustainable development goals (SDGs) is acknowledged (Partidário and Verheem 2019). But this role has to go beyond the mere mechanic measurement of indicators in assessing performances. IA needs to inspire change in practices and in behaviors if we are serious about meeting the SDGs and not only measure the distance to, and from, targets. IA needs to encourage that any effort towards agenda 2030 needs to consider the interconnectedness of the 17 SDGs in a systemic way (UN 2015).

These testimonies, among many others, suggest that perhaps, as stated above, management actions, public policies and governance systems might still be inadequate for the challenges ahead. According to Noble et al. (2019) institutional arrangements to ensure effectiveness and impact are significantly lacking. This suggests that we need to be more serious with shifting the dominant paradigm in IA, reflected in the words of Retief et al. (2016, p. 56): ‘using the past to predict the future will become increasingly problematic and challenging especially within a technical rational and/or linear thinking paradigm typically reflected in EA practice to date’.

We see signs of the need for change, with suggestions for greater flexibility and adaptation, but the change perhaps needs to be greater, questioning IA’s comfort zone. We need more than just reaching out for least worth decisions (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2015; Bond et al. 2018). The needed change is not only about new methods or procedures in the practice of IA, it requires a fundamental shift in IA dominant philosophy.

Sustainability transitions lend several learning points that can be useful to a paradigm shift in IA, meaning change in behaviors, in thinking as well as in practice, and in the fundamental values that drive IA since its early days. Lessons include that

• traditional approaches are insufficient to address persistent problems, and that structural transformations or transitions are needed;

• shifts are needed to move from describing and understanding problems towards identifying pathways and solutions for more desirable sustainable futures;

• transitions can create transformative capacity and conditions for success;

• transitions require non-linear, disruptive and systemic thinking to promote innovations and transformative change;

• changes are needed in philosophies and in technologies, in individual and in collective behaviors and practices;

• transitions involve multiple actors, being agency driven, non-linear and dynamic, promoting ‘actionable knowledge’ (Argyris 1996) reflecting the learning capability of individuals and organizations to connect with social, political, economic, and scientific elements, to be tailored to context.

Perhaps unwillingly, IA seems to be locked in procedural control rationales that limit more integrative, collaborative and constructive governance approaches needed to face global challenges. IA needs to take proactivity, and strategic and systemic thinking, more seriously to cope with those increasing levels of complexity and uncertainty that feature current and future challenges.

4. Concluding remarks

In this letter, I argue for the need to shift the dominant paradigm in IA thinking and practice. In the lines of ST theory, the purpose is to enhance IA' transformative capacity, in incorporating environmental, social and, in general, sustainability issues in decision-making in a positive, constructive and creative way. IA needs to become truly influential, not occasionally, and not only by legal force but by enhanced routines based on good reasoning and better practices.

Global changes, societal needs and emerging challenges and demands require renovated systemic and constructive approaches that enable learning, co-creation of knowledge and collaborative processes to drive change away from current persistent and unsustainable practices. As previously argued, increasingly global persistent problems cannot be solved by traditional approaches alone and many authors have argued for the need to use IA differently. IA needs to become a creative and constructive future-oriented approach, driven by benefits rather than losses.

Knowing that radical change is hard but incremental change insufficient, I have attempted to demonstrate in the paragraphs above that persistent and ever-increasing global problems, and unknown futures, require changing paradigms to recognize the complexity of systems, the uncertainty of processes and problems and the need to enable systemic change. The pathway to better fit IA to the current global challenges faced by society, and the environment, will involve

• recognition that society is characterized by large scale, non-linear complex systems that require new approaches to be dealt with;

• fundamental systemic changes, and innovations, in societal regimes to promote change;

• governance strategies to escape configurations and the lock-ins that impede change;

• engaging and empowering citizens in creating, and promoting, the needed change;

• more fundamental transformation as opposed to incremental processes for reaching sustainable development (and the SDGs by 2030).

An important axiom in complexity theory is that complexity requires strategic and systemic thinking. Current and future IA is about complexity. That is why we need systemic changes involving various disruptive innovations to shift the IA regime, from a linear, bureaucratic control to a collaborative, constructive and more strategic approach. Concluding, IA needs to become more engaging, persuasive, a leverage to enable changing practices and a positive instrument in transitions for sustainability.

Notes

1. The scope of IA used here follows Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014) quoted in Bond et al. (2018) – an umbrella term for an a process (including, amongst others, environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental essessment (SEA), health impact assessment (HIA), social impact assessment (SIA) and sustainability assessment (SA)) that is applied at all levels of decision-making and across many sectors.