{"title":"Unfolding simplification beyond drawbacks: types and reasoning for simplifying environmental assessment","authors":"L. Kørnøv, I. Lyhne","doi":"10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The need for simplifying Environmental Assessment (EA), and potential that simplification holds, has not only been raised by policymakers but also by scholars. Despite recent years’ focus and increased push for simplifying EA world-wide – hereunder argued because of the need for accelerating climate investments and green transition – and the fact that simplification is not a new agenda, studies exploring types and effects of simplification remain scarce. Although there is potential in simplifying EA, several concerns have also been raised, including the risk of ‘oversimplification.’ This letter outlines different reasoning behind simplification of EA and further presents a simplification triangle distinguishing between three interdependent types of simplification: Regulatory, administrative, and praxis. The reasoning and categorization of simplification is illustrated and discussed through four Danish cases, which reveal simplification as a multifaceted set of processes for which we need a more precise terminology. The reasoning and types of simplification presented in this letter may offer a basis for communicating the nature of the simplification processes that the EA may be facing – or needing.","PeriodicalId":47528,"journal":{"name":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","volume":"41 1","pages":"228 - 232"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2023.2193914","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT The need for simplifying Environmental Assessment (EA), and potential that simplification holds, has not only been raised by policymakers but also by scholars. Despite recent years’ focus and increased push for simplifying EA world-wide – hereunder argued because of the need for accelerating climate investments and green transition – and the fact that simplification is not a new agenda, studies exploring types and effects of simplification remain scarce. Although there is potential in simplifying EA, several concerns have also been raised, including the risk of ‘oversimplification.’ This letter outlines different reasoning behind simplification of EA and further presents a simplification triangle distinguishing between three interdependent types of simplification: Regulatory, administrative, and praxis. The reasoning and categorization of simplification is illustrated and discussed through four Danish cases, which reveal simplification as a multifaceted set of processes for which we need a more precise terminology. The reasoning and types of simplification presented in this letter may offer a basis for communicating the nature of the simplification processes that the EA may be facing – or needing.
期刊介绍:
This is the international, peer-reviewed journal of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). It covers environmental, social, health and other impact assessments, cost-benefit analysis, technology assessment, and other approaches to anticipating and managing impacts. It has readers in universities, government and public agencies, consultancies, NGOs and elsewhere in over 100 countries. It has editorials, main articles, book reviews, and a professional practice section.