Quality Control for Environmental Policy Appraisal Tools: An Empirical Investigation of Relations Between Quality, Quality Control and Effectiveness

Abstract

The spectre of regulatory reform carried out in a range of Western countries has generated concern amongst parts of the environmental policy community. Quality and effectiveness are said to be at stake, but empirically there is a dearth of data on the relationship between provisions for quality control and the effects on quality and effectiveness. This research addresses this lacuna by analysing the effects of different quality control provisions in the Netherlands and Denmark for a globally institutionalized environmental appraisal tool—Environmental Assessment (EA). Extensive technical provisions for quality control in the Netherlands have led to it being described as the ‘Rolls Royce’ of EA systems, while in Denmark the polity is expected to take charge of quality control. The effects of quality control are investigated through surveys and in-depth interviews with actors centrally engaged with EA implementation. The results show that quality control provisions are poorly related to the perceived quality and effectiveness of EA. Only the appropriateness of the scope of EA reports is perceived to be strongly related to quality control provisions. The findings are relevant for environmental policy communities concerned with quality control systems and effectiveness of policy appraisal tools and policy-makers contemplating regulatory reforms.

Key Words:

• Environmental policy appraisal
• environmental assessment
• quality control
• effectiveness
• regulatory reform

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable input provided by three anonymous referees. We would also like to extend our thanks to the interviewees that took part in the research.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

The data about EA in the Netherlands are based on an evaluation of 25 years of EIA in the Netherlands sponsored by the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.

Supplemental Data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1053438.

Notes

1. We use the definitions made by Arts et al. (2012) in order to allow for international comparative data; with this paper we complement assessments of, amongst other things, quality and effectiveness of EA in the UK and the Netherlands with data from Denmark.

2. The absence of a qualified majority voting system at the time when the EU EIA legislation was debated in the 1980s resulted in the ambitions of the legislation being significantly curtailed by certain recalcitrant Member States, notably the UK (Wathern, 1988).

3. The VW Beetle was designed in Germany in the 1930s as a simple and economical car for the mass population. It was originally marketed simply as the Volkswagen, which means the people's car.

4. This will change in 2016. The project proponent will then become responsible for conducting project EAs in Denmark, bringing practice into line with most other EU Member States.

5. The survey questions are accessible as an online resource in the journal web page.

6. Based on information provided by the Danish Ministry of Environment. More people are involved in EA processes with minor roles.

7. KS Z = 1.215 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .104).

8. KS Z = 2.119 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .000).

9. Competent authority: KS Z = 2.087 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .000) and proponent: KS Z = 0.911 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .378)

10. Competent authorities: KS Z = 0.636 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .813). Proponents: KS Z = 0.802 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .540).

11. The primary effect: KS Z = 0.508 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = .959). The importance of quality: KS Z = 0.385 (Asymp Sig (two-sided) = 0.998)