Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
Knowledge brokerage - potential for increased capacities and shared power in
impact assessment
Maria Rosario Partidario a,⁎, William R. Sheate b, c
a
b
c
Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049–001 LISBOA, Portugal
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd, London, 1E, The Chandlery, 50 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7QY, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 28 March 2012
Keywords:
SEA
Sustainability
Knowledge
Brokerage
Participation
Power
a b s t r a c t
Constructive and collaborative planning theory has exposed the perceived limitations of public participation
in impact assessment. At strategic levels of assessment the established norm can be misleading and practice
is illusive. For example, debates on SEA effectiveness recognize insufficiencies, but are often based on questionable premises. The authors of this paper argue that public participation in strategic assessment requires
new forms of information and engagement, consistent with the complexity of the issues at these levels and
that strategic assessments can act as knowledge brokerage instruments with the potential to generate
more participative environments and attitudes. The paper explores barriers and limitations, as well as the
role of knowledge brokerage in stimulating the engagement of the public, through learning-oriented processes and responsibility sharing in more participative models of governance. The paper concludes with a discussion on building and inter-change of knowledge, towards creative solutions to identified problems,
stimulating learning processes, largely beyond simple information transfer mechanisms through consultative
processes. The paper argues fundamentally for the need to conceive strategic assessments as learning platforms and design knowledge brokerage opportunities explicitly as a means to enhance learning processes
and power sharing in IA.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In the early days Impact Assessment (IA) instruments were conceived to be analytical and technical-oriented instruments, designed
to deliver information to decision-making on the potential effects of
certain actions on the environment. The institutionalization of IA
was needed to ensure effectiveness in implementation, and better
and continued practice through the adoption of common rules and
normative approaches. But this was also a form of changing practices
of power sharing in development decision-making. With IA decisions
on development actions were no longer the prerogative of action proponents and sector licensing authorities, but they became also dependent on environmental responsible authorities that would ensure
environmental issues would be integrated at early stages. Paradoxically, in some jurisdictions, this changing practice may have led to
power being shifted from one elite to another, rather than actual
power sharing, in particular where the environmental authorities’
views and position became binding, making the IA process dependent
on the IA decision. Generally the engagement of civil society in this
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 351 21 8418341.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.R. Partidario), [email protected],
[email protected] (W.R. Sheate).
0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.02.002
IA power sharing versus shifting has been very limited, public participation often being limited to punctual consultation and performed as
part of a legal obligation. Only in more recent years has the value of
public participation to environmental decision-making been more
widely recognized (Diduck 2001; Fitzpatrick 2006; Fitzpatrick and
Sinclair 2003; Juntti et al. 2009; Raymond et al. 2010; Sinclair et al.
2008) and the importance of public space and capacities for engagement received greater attention (e.g. Elling, 2009; Habermas, 1989;
Stirling, 2006).
Over the same timescale the issue of governance has become more
prominent, i.e. we talk not just of governments governing but of ‘governance’ in recognition that decision-making is undertaken by a
range of actors – governments, economic actors/markets, IA consultants, lawyers, civil society, scientists increasingly working in
networks and collaborations - along with norms, rights and responsibilities influencing the way decisions are made. A number of driving
forces have increased the need to engage the public more in environmental governance, as a response to globalization and the increasing
internationalization of decision-making e.g. through the European
Union (EU), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN)
among others. It could seem strange that the public's involvement
becomes more important as decision-making becomes less local and
more distant; however that is justified by the risk of democratic
deficit and loss of accountability without more active means of
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
engaging citizens in decision-making beyond the electoral cycle (van
Kersbergen and van Waarden, 2004).
This inclusion of citizens in decision-making also reflects the increasing recognition of the value of knowledge other than expert
knowledge to decision-making. We refer to tacit (implicit) or lay
knowledge (Polanyi, 1958), arising from concrete experience and active experimentation, especially when issues are contested as is
often the case in relation to environmental and sustainability problems. Public involvement is increasingly becoming institutionalized
through IA legislation such as the EIA and SEA Directives in the EU,
and importantly by the UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental
Matters (Sheate, 2012; UNECE, 1998).
Notwithstanding the above developments, the perception, and
practice, of IA as an informative instrument based on experts’ knowledge, and how it is verified or shown to be ‘true’, is still often dominant. Limited investment – beyond formal consultation - has tended
to be made in the IA process or the consideration of societal values
and perceptions. However, recent thinking (e.g. Cashmore et al.,
2008; Fischer et al., 2009; Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Owens et al.,
2004; Partidario, 2009; Runhaar, 2009; Runhaar and Driessen, 2007)
increasingly shows that the effective role of IA is likely to be stronger
if it performs as a socio-political, rather than simply informative,
knowledge-based instrument. This recognition is motivated by two
fundamental reasons:
i) The causes of negative impacts are often a consequence of improper communication between proponents and authorities, insufficient attention to societal values and consequently deficient
understanding and implementation of IA outcomes; and
ii) The engagement of stakeholders in IA processes has considerable
possibilities for improvement as long as stakeholders are made
part of the process and not used only as a checking mechanism.
The institutionalization of IA is in part, and paradoxically (given
its current weak practice), responsible for this encouraging shift
in perception.
This paper explores the relevance of knowledge brokerage approaches in strategic assessment as a mechanism to increase capacities and shared power in IA processes. Within the constraints of the
paper it is taken as given that more participatory spaces may make
for better knowledge exchange (Habermas, 1989; Stirling, 2006).
We are interested specifically in knowledge brokerage, however,
rather than the rationales for public participation per se. Knowledge
brokerage is understood here as a mechanism for transferring research evidence into policy and practice (Ward et al., 2009), and as
a way of breaking down barriers that impede interaction, healthy
communication and collaboration (Sheate & Partidario, 2010).
Through knowledge sharing and exchange, mutual learning processes
can be stimulated, increasing the potential to build capacity among
stakeholders and improve outcomes. These gain considerable relevance within learning theories and constructivist approaches, as a
view of learning based on the belief that knowledge is not something
that can be simply given by an expert to a group of stakeholders, as
apparently advocated by some authors (Michaels, 2009; Weaver
et al. 2008). Rather, knowledge is constructed by learners through
an active, mental process of development; learners are the builders
and creators of meaning and knowledge (Colliver, 2002).
In strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and sustainability assessment (SA) public participation (including the engagement of
stakeholders, citizens and non-governmental organizations [NGOs]),
in the establishment of visions and identification of priorities that
precede the formulation of proposals, is still more the exception
than the rule. Practice shows that public participation is required,
and conducted, in SEA in very similar ways to environmental impact
assessment (EIA), to ensure information provision rather then knowledge creation through learning processes. Current legal requirements
27
for SEA, such as the EU Directive 2001/42/EC (or the Plan's EIA chapter in the China EIA Law), require that SEA be subject to public consultation, but practice reveals quite reactive and late public consultation
performance, where consultation is conducted mainly to meet legal
requirements, rather than to generate learning processes and active
contributions to strategy formation. The reactive nature of such
public participation practices does not work for strategic dimensions,
may simply increase the problem of participation fatigue, limit
the process of learning and reduce power-sharing opportunities.
Throughout this paper, illustrative (rather than representative) case
examples are used to highlight specific points from practical experience, to illustrate how a broad appreciation of knowledge brokerage
in IA could bring real benefits in terms of long-term knowledge creation and power sharing, and break down some of the barriers.
This paper is structured around three important premises that
support our argument and proposal for the adoption of SEA/SA as
knowledge brokerage platforms:
1. Knowledge is a construction process led by learners;
2. Knowledge is power, power is knowledge; and
3. There is insufficient sharing of knowledge, and power, in IA, amongst
stakeholders, and an urgent need for enhancing trust among actors.
2. Knowledge as a construction process
This section sets the scene with respect to the concept of knowledge,
as well as of knowledge brokerage - the central focus of this paper - to
allow for further exploration in the context of strategic assessment.
2.1. What is knowledge?
The theories of knowledge reveal a crucial shift from realism to
constructivism which is very relevant to understanding the main
focus of this paper. In particular, it can help to explain how different
actors acquire knowledge and the value of knowledge exchange, in
view of different types of knowledge (Raymond et al., 2010), and
also provide insights into how IA can help broker knowledge.
Constructivists would suggest that the appropriate form of learning
is one that involves “world making rather than world mirroring, creating
rather than finding, focusing on activities rather than on things and substances” (Colliver, 2002: 50). To Colliver (2002) constructivism refers to:
- a theory of learning;
- a revolutionary view of knowledge.
As a theory of learning – constructivism is “a spinoff that muddles
the distinction between knowledge, in the sense of body of human
knowledge and how it is verified or shown to be true, and learning, in
the sense of individual learner and the principles, theories, methods
and technologies that characterize and facilitate the learning process”
(Colliver, 2002: 49).
Knowledge, as in ‘a body of knowledge’, can be synonymous
with information or understanding (Blackmore, 2007). The literature
on IA expressively associates knowledge to information creation and
gathering, understanding and sharing particularly across experts
(Jha-Thakur et al., 2009; Weaver et al., 2008). Weaver et al. (2008)
for example refer to knowledge as information generation, gathering
and analysis, stating that “EIA [environmental impact assessment] can
contribute to developing a body of good scientific knowledge, particularly in information-poor areas” (Weaver et al. 2008: 95) and exemplifying with the benefits of implementing robust baseline studies in the
EIA process namely to expand “knowledge on the range and distribution of known species” (Weaver et al. 2008: 96).
Knowledge can also refer to a state of knowing, but as Blackmore
(2007) recognizes there are different ways of knowing with different
degrees of rationality, ranging from scientific and philosophical
to more intuitive and innate. Knowledge is often understood in
28
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
pedagogical terms as information that can be recalled (Bloom et al.,
1956). Knowledge however is often imbued with a higher order quality than might be recognised in the educational learning field. In
Bloom's hierarchy of the cognitive domain (Bloom et al., 1956)
knowledge is the lowest order of learning, followed by comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation above it, on an
ascending scale. In IA and environmental decision-making more generally, when we talk about knowledge and different forms of knowledge, there tends to be an implicit assignment of greater value to
it – that it is not just information that can be recalled, but information
that has been processed through learning to create understanding
and insight (Sheate and Partidario, 2010). Jha-Thakur et al. (2009) explore Bloom's taxonomy of progressive learning in appraisal to refer
to learning in SEA, distinguishing between learning about SEA, in relation to knowledge and comprehension, and learning through SEA,
when referring to synthesis and evaluation. One might also suggest
that knowledge may increase with experience to result in something
we might call ‘wisdom’, or the best use of knowledge.
Blackwell and Colmenar (1999) illustrate how inserting the community building approach into policymaking can produce better
policies that reflect the wisdom, experience and voice of local constituencies. The authors propose a strategy for improving policymaking
by transforming the policy process itself into one that builds community. Different forms of knowledge can be acquired: expert (explicit)
knowledge and lay (implicit or tacit) knowledge (Polanyi, 1958),
the latter being that which is unwritten, kept in the mind. There can
be variations in between since even lay knowledge may in some
cases actually be expert knowledge, even if not explicit (i.e. written
down and easily transferable) (Petts and Brooks, 2006). Raymond
et al. (2010) for example distinguish between experiential/local
knowledge, scientific knowledge and hybrid knowledge, as classes
of knowledge, and within these the authors identify 12 different
types of knowledge: indigenous, traditional ecological knowledge,
local ecological, personal, lay, local or situated, tacit, implicit, informal, non-experts, novice experts, explicit and formal.
Science-policy debates centre on the value of different forms of
knowledge in policy making and the role in particular of science
and how science is used in policy making (Owens, 2009; Raymond
et al., 2010; Weichselgartner and Kasperson, 2009). Traditionally science found its way into policy through a distinctly linear model of
knowledge transfer, from the scientific experts to the policy makers.
However, especially in the environmental field, where policy problems are increasingly beset by complexity and uncertainty and
where issues are publicly contested, science cannot be the only determinant of policy. Sarewitz (2000) suggests that rather than resolving
political debate, science can often become ammunition in partisan
squabbling and that scientific experts on each side of the controversy
can cancel each other out, and the more powerful political or economic interests prevail.
Best and Holmes (2010) and Nutley et al. (2010), as well as
McFarlane (2006) explore the way in which different forms of knowledge may be used in policy making. McFarlane (2006) talks about the
movement of knowledge in the mainstream development literature
where knowledge is viewed as travelling in a linear way, however
with the assumption that information and knowledge circulate globally.
This view is influenced by the traditional rationalism conception of
knowledge and “its resonances in contemporary conceptions of knowledge
formation as a linear process, whereby unstructured data are concerted to
structured information, before being added to a stock of knowledge that can
inform wiser beliefs or judgments” (McFarlane, 2006: 289). Best and
Holmes (2010) provide a framework for distinguishing between three
generations of knowledge-to-action thinking which reflect the way in
which our understanding of knowledge has evolved:
• Linear models (1960s to mid-1990s) – research is handed over to
others to use, i.e. through ‘knowledge transfer’
• Relationship models (mid-1990s to present) – networks of collaborating research producers and users result more in ‘knowledge
exchange’
• Systems models (over the last five years) – knowledge is embedded
within organizations and systems and in the priorities and cultures
of those organization and systems so that the result is ‘knowledge
integration’, ‘translation’ and ‘mobilization’.
In this way we can see a shift from a way of thinking in which research knowledge was something that was expert driven and separate from policy knowledge to one where the two realms of
knowledge are increasingly blurred (Nutley et al., 2010). This reflects
a shift from a very linear model of knowledge transfer (from those
who know to those who do not) to a much more dynamic view of
knowledge, embedded in learning processes where knowledge circulates among communities of practice (Wenger, 1998, as cited in
McFarlane, 2006). For Wenger (1998) communities of practice are
groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something
they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. Communities of practice focus on learning as social participation while
knowing is the ability to competently participate in the practices of
a community. Learning as a practice has two aspects for Wenger: experience and regimes of competence (McFarlane, 2006). In communities of practice knowledge enables informal action, choice, critical
judgment, and greater capacity to take part in governance processes.
In IA we can see a similar shift from a linear and rational model in
the early years of EIA (1970s) to one where there was some sharing of
knowledge (the recognition that people should be consulted) to more
of a variety of forms of assessment today where, in best practice at
least, there is a recognition that citizens need to be involved in an
early and effective manner in decision-making, e.g. through the institutionalization of accountability through the UNECE 1998 Aarhus
Convention (Sheate, 2012).
2.2. What is knowledge brokerage?
Knowledge brokerage is the process of facilitating knowledge
transfer and knowledge exchange, in short knowledge in transition.
Knowledge brokerage is a rapidly emerging field (Clark and Kelly,
2005) and has a particularly strong pedigree in the health sector
(Findlay, 2003), but also in the business world (Walter et al., 2007).
A particular perspective can be seen in the definition provided by
the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (2003, p.ii):“Knowledge brokering is one of the human forces behind knowledge transfer. It is a dynamic activity that goes well beyond the
standard notion of transfer as a collection of activities that helps
move information from a source to a recipient. Brokering focuses
on identifying and bringing together people interested in an
issue, people who can help each other develop evidence-based solutions. It helps build relationships and networks for sharing existing research and ideas and stimulating new work. Knowledge
brokering supports evidence-based decision-making by encouraging the connections that ease knowledge transfer”
This clearly moves beyond a simple linear model of knowledge
transfer into two-way or even multiple ways of connecting people to
share ideas and stimulate solutions, as implicit in its use in the context
of networks that are based on less directional models. Ward et al.
(2009) summarise the three main theories available for underpinning
knowledge brokerage: knowledge management (relatively passive
dissemination of knowledge); linkage and exchange (active engagement between researchers and decision-makers); and capacity building (fostering greater self-reliance in both the researcher and
the decision-maker, e.g. through enhancing the knowledge transfer/
communication skills of the researcher and the analytical and
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
interpretive skills of the decision-maker). They also recognise the importance of sufficient time and resources being allocated for successful
knowledge brokerage to occur, and that in practice the knowledge
brokerage process is poorly understood.
Sheate and Partidario (2010) explore the potential of the knowledge brokerage concept in the context of strategic assessments,
such as SEA and SA and concluded that for knowledge brokerage to
succeed in the context of environmental decision-making a number
of conditions are likely to be needed (Sheate and Partidario, 2010):• Range of stakeholders - the appropriate range of stakeholders needs
to be engaged in the decision-making process;
• Opportunity space - resources, time and space need to be created for
engagement and exchange of knowledge to take place;
• Conducive to knowledge exchange - that time and space need to provide a conducive, open-dialogue and non-judgmental environment
in which that exchange can take place;
• Learning environment – conditions need to be established to enable creation and transformation of knowledge through learning processes;
• Receptiveness of proponent - a proponent will need to be alerted to
the advantages of knowledge input to make him/her receptive to
external inputs to decision-making;
• Willingness to use of different knowledges - a proponent as well as the
EIA or SEA/SA authorities will need to be actually willing to make
use of other forms of knowledge.
Knowledge brokerage may be attributed to different schools of
thought about its purpose. In this paper we suggest a classification of
the purposes behind – or context for – knowledge brokerage into
three broad categories (or schools of thought): the policy-science
school, the impact assessment school and the facilitator/learning school.
2.2.1. The science-policy school
Often knowledge brokerage is acknowledged as being provided by
individuals or organizations that act as intermediaries between those
who produce knowledge, often researchers, and those who are consumers of that knowledge, such as policy-makers (Michaels, 2009;
Pielke, 2007; Ward et al., 2009). Due to their ability to structure and
interpret scientific knowledge, knowledge brokers are particularly influential where there is considerable scientific uncertainty, as is often
true for environmental problems (Liftin, 1994 as cited by Michaels,
2009). This might include scientific advisory committees, for example, in acting as intermediaries between scientific researchers and
policy makers. Notwithstanding increasing efforts to do otherwise,
this category emphasizes still the linear model of knowledge thinking
or of knowledge transfer discussed above (Owens, 2009) and is
strongly associated with the science-policy debate.
2.2.2. The impact assessment school
For some authors knowledge brokerage is about networks that enable knowledge transfer (albeit in a two-way or in multiple ways
manners) (e.g. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation,
2003), more in line with the relationship model and therefore knowledge exchange. Often the debate is still between two key stakeholders: experts, or researchers, and regulators, or decision-makers
(Weaver et al., 2008). Partnerships and voluntary agreements to
encourage cooperation, shared understanding, consistency, effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of environmental services have
been acknowledged as crucial in promoting knowledge in IA.
Weaver et al. (2008) provide examples of partnering agreements, as
well as activities that promote interaction across networks of interested stakeholders, including joint seminars and workshops, training
courses, funded research based on practitioners’ surveys and interviews to identify problems within existing EIA practices, and ways
to resolve them. Through communication and cooperation practitioners can collaborate with regulators to improve effectiveness.
Innes (1998) has emphasized that decision makers involved in
29
creating knowledge are more inclined and better able to incorporate
such knowledge into their deliberation than when they are not
involved.
2.2.3. The facilitator/learning school
In this paper, and previously (Sheate and Partidario, 2010), we
have defined knowledge brokerage in the context of IA in broader
terms than either of the above. We have proposed to extend brokerage to cover the philosophy and the context created by strategic assessments, as well as the role that techniques used in IA can play, in
acting as platforms for facilitating knowledge creation, transference
and exchange; in other words knowledge in transition among stakeholders, in order to promote learning processes. In the facilitator/
learning school we assume that we work with complex systems
that require knowledge to understand how specific variables, and
their components, relate to each other. We assume that we need to
work with the whole system, but in a systemic and organized way
that allows us to manage complexity, and its inherent uncertainty.
Ostrom (2009) says that without a common framework to organize
findings, knowledge does not accumulate. We recognize that often
in IA there are multiple frameworks derived from different theories
and models used by different disciplinary backgrounds that restrict
their analysis to their parts of a complex multilevel whole. Our understanding of knowledge brokerage, therefore, recognizes that we need
to bridge across those bounded realities (cultural values, disciplinary
theories) that impede the travelling of knowledge (McFarlane, 2006),
and contribute to create a constructive learning process where multiple knowledges interact, accumulate and multiply in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary way. Crucial to this category is that
long-term benefits of knowledge creation and exchange are established beyond the immediate life of the IA process (policy, plan, programme or project).
Jha-Thakur et al. (2009) explore and discuss ‘learning about’ and
‘learning through’ appraisal. Their whole argument happens within
the realms of SEA, and not by looking at SEA as an instrumental approach to learning. Interestingly, in all the three cases studied, compared and reported in that paper, the authors reveal that SEA was
recognized by the practitioner-experts involved as providing a methodological and instrumental role in the planning and appraisal
approach, with subtle but still beneficial learning outcomes, but adding very little to existing environmental knowledge, understanding
and sensitivity. This conclusion contrasts with that from Weaver
et al., 2008, where the authors consider, and provide evidence, on
how “EIA can contribute to developing a body of good scientific knowledge, particularly in information-poor areas” (p.95). Perhaps this
contrasting conclusion on the role of these impact assessment instruments provides support to the idea that EIA and SEA are essentially different instruments, with different purposes and roles, and
that EIA-based SEA approaches are therefore misleading us as to the
expected role of SEA as a strategic-based instrument (Partidario,
2007a, 2007b).
Like McFarlane (2006) we believe that learning is not a linear addition of information or knowledge, but is a ‘transformation of knowing’. Learning involves strengthening the practices of communities
and the abilities of individuals to participate in those practices
(Wenger, 1998). Learning also requires that organizations may become learning organizations, where knowledge as a technical entity,
that delivers development solutions, moves into knowledge as socially produced, whereby ‘Information becomes knowledge when it is interpreted by individuals, given a context and anchored in the beliefs and
commitments of individuals’ (Nonaka et al., 2000: 7). Linnenluecke
and Griffiths (2010) suggest a link between the cultural orientation
of an organization and the pursuit of corporate sustainability principles, arguing that to fully respond to environmental and social challenges, organizations will have to undergo significant cultural
change and transformation. This could be acceptable for both private
30
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
as well as public organizations, and as argued in this paper, strategic
assessment, through knowledge brokerage, can have a fundamental
role in this organizational cultural change. For us, knowledge brokerage therefore means in practice:
1. Working together, and with each other;
2. Using common, non-technical, language for a common problem;
3. Facilitating creation and horizontal, as well as vertical, exchange of
knowledge;
4. Encouraging the knowledge-learning nexus; and
5. Increasing capacities and innovation.
This necessitates a holistic and transdisciplinary perspective in
environmental policy making and how it is seen to contribute to
sustainability.
3. Knowledge is power, power is knowledge in IA?
There is a normative assumption that the integration of knowledge and values is best achieved through involving the widest diversity of actors in the decision-making process that can contribute
their respective knowledge and values necessary to make effective,
efficient, fair and morally acceptable decisions (Habermas, 1989;
Renn and Schweizer, 2009; Webler, 1995). As mentioned above,
Innes (1998) emphasized that decision makers are more willing to incorporate knowledge in their deliberation when they are direct actors
in the process of creating knowledge.
Renn and Schweizer (2009) suggest there are six concepts of inclusive governance: functionalist, neo-liberal, deliberative, anthropological, emancipatory and post-modern concepts, that provide useful
constructs for exploring intended outcomes of different participation
methods. In the analysis below, this paper focuses mainly on the functionalist, deliberative and post-modern perspectives, since these are
designed to improve, respectively: the quality of decision output
(effectiveness and legitimacy), moral legitimacy to reflect social and
cultural values, and enlighten the policy process by including the diversity of factual claims, opinions and values (Renn and Schweizer,
2009).
This section emphasizes the role of power in the construction of
knowledge. Constructivism in effect reverses the adage ‘knowledge
is power’ to say that ‘power is knowledge’. The point is that “knowledge is determined by social and political factors in addition to logic
and reason, and even logic and reason are determined by social and political factors” (Colliver, 2002: 50).
Evidence-based policy, and appraisal, is argued to be indispensable for effective environmental policy-making, with experts playing
a crucial role in fact-finding and evidence generation, which then
they are expected to decipher and interpret to a wider public audience (Juntti et al., 2009). However, as Juntti et al. (2009: 208) argue
the “evidence-policy relationship is not as clear cut as some advocates
of more evidence based policy might like”. These authors advocate the
need for a wider definition of evidence, where scientific based knowledge and the knowledge of lay persons or stakeholders, which they
call experience-based experts, are both contributing to evidencebased policy. The reasons offered relate to the need to produce
knowledge in full recognition of its context of application, thus permitting that evidence so produced is fully embedded in a specific cultural and practical context. Juntti et al. (2009) further suggest that
although “institutionalized practices of decision-making seem to grant
the ‘universal validity’ of scientific knowledge a superior status, local
knowledge is rapidly gaining ground as a means of legitimising policy
and improving accountability and transparency” Juntti et al. (2009:
209).
As discussed earlier, Colliver (2002) advocates constructivism as a
theory of learning to distinguish between knowledge and learning. In
his view knowledge is a human, social invention – a construction,
whereby knowledge claims are only justified if they are seen as useful
in reaching practical goals, rather than by verification to prove that
they correspond to reality. This position contrasts profoundly with
the rational-determinism common in IA technical approaches.
McFarlane (2006) eloquently explores this theme with reference
to mainstream development and the North–south gap. To this author
in mainstream development knowledge and learning are commonly
viewed through rational lenses that frame learning as a cumulative
process of ‘adding’ new information to existing knowledge ‘stacks’
in a straightforward way in order to make them more effective
(McFarlane, 2006: 290), stating that the basic assumption is that all
that development agencies, non governmental organizations, and
think-tanks have to do is to improve their knowledge-management
strategies, including knowledge capture and sharing. This is meant
to be knowledge brokerage, while senior staff in development organisations see themselves as knowledge brokers.
As an example McFarlane (2006) uses Country Assessment Strategies (CASs) the purpose of which is apparently the identification of
‘knowledge gaps’, detailing ways of delivering the right kinds of development knowledge, and building the institutional capacities of
public, private and civil society organizations to get to the right
kinds of knowledge and manage it effectively. However this ‘knowledge for development’ reflects a political motivation, despite being
presented as a ‘knowledge gap’. Not only is there the problematic
claim that ‘knowledge’ is the most important feature in development,
it is also assumed that knowledge must originate in the ‘North’.
McFarlane (2006) refers to ‘knowledge about technology’ and
‘knowledge about attributes’ as the knowledge ‘gaps’ between the
North and the South, while in the development process instead of
‘re-creating existing knowledge’, poor countries are encouraged to
acquire knowledge from the North through open trade regimes and
foreign investment, even while they are encouraged to build on indigenous knowledge. In this process the North are framed as ‘senders’,
the South as ‘receivers’ (Power, 2003: 186 cited by McFarlane,
2006). Even where the internet is claimed to be an opportunity for
enlarged engagement, access to knowledge and capacity-building
for empowered communities, it is known to remain unavailable or
unreliable, particularly outside urban centres, leaving without access
a large majority of the population in poorer countries and poorer
communities. The actual role of indigenous knowledge is yet to be
widely seen, while the power shift remains in favour of those that
have, and deliver, knowledge.
This shows that while apparently there is a political tendency
to increase community empowerment through building capacity
and access to knowledge, the situation still remains embedded within
the conventional model of scientific-knowledge influencing decisionmaking, with reality showing a distinct lack of investment on more
socially-oriented and power sharing policy attitudes. Far from knowledge brokerage as we would see it, this is simply facilitating knowledge transfer, confirming the principle that knowledge is power.
McFarlane (2006) argues that the pervasive rationalist conception
of knowledge as objective, universal and instrumental is still dominant and that a post-rationalist perspective is needed to conceive
knowledge and learning as socially produced through practices, and
both spatially and materially specific. The concept of ‘knowledge in
travel’ suggested by McFarlane and discussed above is conceived as
“knowledge caught in translation” McFarlane (2006: 288), always
open to invention and change and multiple in form and effect. In
this paper we see this as being a fundamental premise for increasing
power sharing through knowledge in IA.
This insufficient knowledge sharing is not however a problem exclusive to the world in development. Even where IA structures and institutions have long been established, this scientific-based policy
process is still dominant, and deeply linked to reasons of power dominance. An example is provided by the situation concerning the sharing of responsibilities between environmental authorities and spatial
authorities, or sectoral authorities, within the EU. It is acknowledged
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
that public participation in IA is often legally mandated to institutions
and the public separately, the latter taking place usually after most
key decisions have been taken. So IA is too often taking place largely
in the absence of effective community engagement, even less empowerment. Some Member States are adopting institutional and governance approaches that enable at least an apparently acceptable
division of power to be reached, namely through collaborative platforms amongst responsible authorities (for example, see Box 6), but
many jurisdictions still compete fiercely in relation to power division
in IA decision-making. The exercise of power takes several forms, for
example for certain EIA and SEA authorities favourable decisions may
depend on data or study requirements in project or plan review processes, even where such data or studies might be totally irrelevant for
the IA. Making such decisions depend on their requirement is a sign of
power being exerted.
Another example of power tensions in IA relate to the practice of
EIA-based SEA, particularly when SEA applies to detailed plans that
are no more than large projects. Many IA professionals have often
agreed in meetings and discussions (Partidario, 2007a; Pinho and
Coutinho, 2008) that it would be more effective to conduct an
effects-based impact assessment in the framework of EIA even for detailed plans, as this would ensure a more detailed analysis of such
large projects being presented as plans (Nilsson and Dalkmann,
2001). However where powers concerning decisions in EIA and
SEA are separated, and respectively attributed to environmental
Box 1
Windenergy – off-shore, Portugal, 2011.
Portugal is a country where favourable natural resources, research and development and political conditions may enable a
prominent role in the leading development of the Offshore Renewables (ORs) (wave and wind energy) industry. The National
Maritime Spatial Plan recognizes this strong potential, including
both off-shore wind and wave energy. Some wave energy device prototypes have already been tested in Portugal and there
are plans and environmental impact assessments being developed for offshore wind devices to be installed in the near future.
The creation of the Portuguese Pilot Zone will promote new projects of ORs, which is predicted to reach a national target of
250 MW by 2020. But the successful implementation of ORs
is not only dependent on technical aspects, it very much relies
also on the ability of the social system to accept these technologies. A key condition for ORs diffusion in Portugal is that relevant stakeholders (coastal communities, environmentalists,
universities, tourism and industrial sectors, government, businesses and users in general) be aware, informed and participative in the development process, interacting with each other.
Benefits might outweigh the costs involved in the inevitable
changes that the technologies will introduce in the environmental, territorial, social and economic systems if learning process
start earlier than later, enabling dialogues, knowledge creation
and sharing. Evidence shows that the Portuguese society is still
rather unaware of this technological development and of its opportunities and consequences. The Wave Energy Centre in
Portugal, the key research and development organization, considers this is a good time to stimulate Portuguese stakeholders
to get involved, interact with each other, discuss and learn about
what is ahead of them with ORs, towards its possible acceptance, prior to major conflicts arising because of insufficient clarification. A research proposal was jointly submitted with IST to
initiate this learning process through knowledge brokerage approaches to improve the perception and knowledge about ORs
in Portugal.
31
Box 2
SA of the UK Government's draft Planning Policy Statement on Ecotowns and Eco-towns Programme, 2008.
The draft Eco-towns Planning Policy Statement (PPS) published
in November 2008 for consultation set out proposals for what
the UK Government considered “the highest levels of sustainable
development” (CLG, 2008, p.13), including achieving ‘zero carbon’ status across all the buildings in the eco-town and allocating 40 per cent of the area within the town to be green space.
The draft PPS also pledged that individual eco-towns would
need to submit planning applications in the same way as any
other major development proposal.
Sustainability Appraisal (SA, incorporating SEA) was applied to
the draft Eco-towns Planning Policy Statement and to the Ecotowns Programme (the short-list of potential locations in
England). A consultation exercise in April 2008 (Communities
and Local Government, CLG, 2008) sought views from the public and interested parties on a preliminary short-list of 15 potential sites to go forward for further study, following an early call
from the Government for developers to come forward with proposals for possible locations for eco-towns in July 2007 (Communities and Local Government, CLG, 2007). A major debate
ensued as a result of this policy initiative, including the creation
of a number of local campaign groups against individual ecotown locations as well as the principle of such settlements, websites, online fora and judicial reviews concerned about the implications of the proposed eco-towns on their local environment
and economy, and the fact that they were being promoted outside the normal (regional and local) planning processes. Trust
of Government intentions with the eco-town proposals evaporated rapidly in the face of what was seen as circumvention of
normal planning rules and of the SEA Directive, where there
was a failure to address ‘reasonable alternatives’ in the SEA process, only business as usual and the draft PPS (Sheate, 2008).
The SEA consequently missed the opportunity to generate real
debate around, and evaluate, a much wider range of alternative
policy options that could have delivered greater environmental
benefits more quickly and with more widespread public and
stakeholder support. This restricted the opportunity space for
knowledge brokerage and reflected the limited willingness of
the proponent to make use of other knowledge, even while being
(apparently) moderately open to other inputs. Consequently,
rather than knowledge exchange, accountability became the focus with campaign groups seeking to have their local proposed
eco-towns removed from the programme and/or seeking judicial
review. Not only NGOs lost faith in the legitimacy of the Government decision-making process, so did some local authorities,
and even a number of the developers of eco-town proposals
withdrew from the process because they felt it was ruining their
chances of engaging productively with local communities (Sheate and Partidario, 2010).
authorities, for EIA, and spatial planning or sectoral authorities for
SEA, the fear of losing power leads spatial planning authorities to
fiercely refuse to recognize that such detailed plans have little strategic dimension and are no more than project planning, actually being a
first level of assessment in good practice EIA. For that reason there are
cases where urban development projects are developed as detailed
plans to avoid falling within the scope of EIA, and the more detailed
scrutiny and control of environmental authorities (Pinho and
Coutinho, 2008). However, legally, in such situations, both the EIA
and SEA Directives may apply so there is a need to understand the relative roles for SEA (outward facing) and EIA (inward facing) in such
32
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
Box 3
Vale da Telha rehabilitation plan and SEA, 2011, Portugal.
In the late 1970s an illegal urban and tourism spatial occupation
emerged in the south-east coast of Portugal, in a place known as
Vale da Telha. Over the years this and other human pressures on
the whole south-east natural and wild coastal area determined
the establishment of a designated natural protected area in
1986 – the Protected Area of Sudoeste Alentejano and Costa
Vicentina – which later was up-graded to a Natural Park. In 1996
the Natural Park Spatial Plan entered into force, but community involvement was limited and the situation evolved with more building in the Vale da Telha urban area. A rehabilitation spatial plan
for the Vale da Telha area was determined in 2010 by the Ministry
of Environment as an attempt to finally control the situation, considering the damaging effects of an inappropriate human occupation, the sensitivity of the surrounding area and the fact that it is
fully inserted in the Natural Park, determining major ecological impacts. While an environmental assessment of the plan is required
by national legislation, a sustainability-led strategic approach
was commissioned to better take into account the different stakeholder interests as well as the long-term conflicting objectives for
the area. The purpose of the plan, and SEA, is to find an urban design solution that can approach trade-offs and enhance the spatial
link with the natural park, attempting to resolve major problems,
creating a new spatial nexus, while meeting individual, collective
and institutional expectations, and compromises, achieved over
the years. The case is exemplified by potential conflicts across
multi-stakeholder interests, confronting individual building expectations and natural park interests, local authorities financial revenues and national authorities’ conservation policy. Stakeholders
involved include the central administration, the local authority,
the natural park authority, the real estate and building owners,
tourism business developers, Vale da Telha families, natural park
users and local population interests and expectations. There is
much pressure and the situation is far from being easily negotiable.
This is a case where early involvement of stakeholders, following
adequate community engagement methodologies, through learning processes supported by knowledge brokerage approaches
would be crucial to find viable solutions. However, the technical
and legal approaches are culturally dominant and the sociopolitical dimension is falling behind.
circumstances (Sheate et al., 2005) and for power to be shared accordingly. Both knowledge sharing, and the respective power sharing,
is impeded by this institutional power struggle across government
departments.
4. Enhancing trust through knowledge brokerage and IA
Previous sections have elaborated on the importance to expand
the concept of knowledge from something that is given by an expert
to a group of stakeholders, particularly policy-makers and other
decision-makers. The notion that there are different types of knowledge (Petts and Brooks, 2006; Polanyi, 1958; Raymond et al. 2010)
needs to be explored in knowledge brokerage processes to equate
the travelling of knowledge to different purposes and target groups.
Many of the obstacles to enlarging participative processes to include multiple types of knowledge and stakeholders are linked to
strong beliefs on scientific truths (Best and Holmes, 2010; Owens,
2009; Weaver et al., 2008; Weichselgartner and Kasperson, 2009)
and the power of such knowledge in relation to tacit or lay forms of
knowledge. Arguments against this position are based on the need to
Box 4
SA and mountain landscapes and livelihoods in Norway, 2002-2005.
As part of a European 5th Framework Programme project – BioScene (2002-2005) - sustainability assessments were undertaken
for a range of policy scenarios for managing agricultural restructuring and biodiversity in European mountain regions (Partidario
et al., 2009; Sheate et al., 2008). In each of six countries stakeholder panels were established reflecting the range of local community perspectives and interests. As a research project – rather
than an actual ‘plan’ – the project had the advantage of being
able to distance itself from any immediate impact on the local
community, but was seen as a way of helping to inform European policy makers. While it could never be a ‘neutral’ space, it
was less politically charged than might otherwise be the case,
and the SA process was sufficiently flexible that the stakeholders in the Norwegian case study area (Jotunheimen mountains) themselves decided on an additional scenario they
wanted to assess – the Environment and Solidarity Scenario
(with the developing world) (Olsson, 2011). This was beyond
the three main scenarios of business as usual (BAU), agricultural
liberalization and managed changed for biodiversity (MCB). Power in this context was sufficiently shared among the researchers
and the stakeholders to enable this alternative scenario to be
assessed and for the assessment process to act as platform for
knowledge brokerage among the different interests, from local
businesses to farmers, to conservation to recreation providers
and hunters. The interesting outcome was that the stakeholders’
own scenario proved to be less sustainable than some of the alternatives, the most favourable being the MCB scenario because
it would halt the decline in small-scale farming, tourism and forestry and maintain habitats and landscape mosaic. Here the assessment process and the techniques employed would appear
to have actively facilitated - in an inter- and trans-disciplinary
way - knowledge brokerage, and supported a sharing of power
among stakeholders and among the researchers.
recognize social values associated with choices in key decisions,
namely those that engage in IA (Sinclair et al., 2008). Many authors
are increasingly supportive of the role of citizens in governance
(Blackwell and Colmenar 1999; Commission of the European
Communities, 2001; Juntti et al. 2009; Newig and Fritsch, 2009;
Raymond et al. 2010; Takeda and Ropke 2010), where social processes
such as community-building (Blackwell and Colmenar 1999) communities of practice (McFarlane 2006; Wenger 1998), and learning organizations (Fitzpatrick 2006 and also McFarlane 2006), as discussed
above, can play a key role. Particularly these types of organizations
are often driven by trust amongst its key actors (Weichselgartner
and Kasperson 2009). Trust in decision-making, however, is also
linked closely to wider issues around political and administrative culture (see e.g. Perlitz and Seger, 2004; Trompenaars and HampdenTurner, 2000; Hofstede, 1991; Blair, 2000).
Notwithstanding other determinants of trust, IA techniques and
processes may help to enhance trust among stakeholders and proponents, providing proponents and decision-makers, including environmental and spatial planning or sectoral authorities, are open and
receptive to a diversity of forms of knowledge inputting into the assessment and decision-making process, instead of seeing that as a
threat to their institutionalized power. This is a big ‘ask’, but it is crucial that stakeholders can see how their input might be valued (as opposed to rejected or ignored). This has been one of the reasons used
to justify participation fatigue or public disappointment with IA
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
Box 5
Integrated SA (incorporating SEA and Health Impact Assessment) of
the Greater London Authority's (GLA) Water Strategy, 2009, UK.
The GLA required an integrated SA, incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Health Impact Assessment
(HIA) (i.e. a single appraisal), undertaken of their draft Water
Strategy. For a number of reasons, but particularly the London
Mayoral elections in 2008, the process was a protracted one
from 2006 through to 2009. The draft Water Strategy sought
to secure a fair share of water for Londoners and London's
water-related environment through the best use of the available
water; to minimise the release of wastewater into the clean water environment; and to reduce the threat to people and their
property from flooding and to mitigate its effects. A key technique used to help broker knowledge around the strategy was
a workshop with key health stakeholders as an essential component of the HIA, and therefore the SA process. A workshop was
convened as part of the SAs of the Water Strategy (Greater
London Authority, 2009) (and the Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy being developed alongside it), with the aim to:
• Raise awareness among key health stakeholders about
the Water Strategy and Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy;
• Provide an opportunity for stakeholders/experts to consider the potential impacts of key aspects of the strategies on health determinants, health outcomes and
health inequalities;
• Identify gaps in evidence and ways of addressing these
gaps; and
• Provide some clear recommendations that would guide
the SAs of the strategies.
These purposes reflected the receptiveness of the proponent to
receive external input and a recognition that other forms of
knowledge and expertise resided elsewhere and were essential
to the SA process. A wide range of ‘expert’ stakeholders were
invited to the workshop and a causal chain ‘carousel’ exercise
was undertaken where stakeholders were able to comment on
and annotate causal chain diagrams of the possible trends and
impacts in relation to the water environment in the future. Some
of the impacts differentially affect certain vulnerable groups and
could be significant cumulatively. The Health Workshop (see
Greater London Authority, 2009) proved to be particularly valuable in engaging with a key group of stakeholders that might not
otherwise have engaged in a traditional SEA/SA, but the focus
of the integrated appraisal to incorporate health impact assessment meant that valuable issues were identified by the stakeholders which fed directly into the strategy design process and
the integrated SA process. The use of causal chains and stakeholder engagement focused around a ‘carousel’ exercise of commenting on the draft causal chains in groups provided a rich
opportunity space for discussion, commentary and annotation
on the diagrams. This resulted in a highly conducive environment for knowledge exchange and by capturing shared knowledge led to the creation of new knowledge.
processes (Sheate and Partidario, 2010). Enhancing trust takes time
and resources at the earliest stages of planning and assessment processes and demands a degree of openness and flexibility on behalf
of the proponent, and being at ease with a degree of uncertainty
that such transparency and power sharing might entail (Eales and
Sheate, 2011). It may require a degree of enlightenment brought
33
Box 6
Maritime Spatial Plan, Portugal, 2009-2011.
Following the adoption of the European Maritime Spatial Plan,
Portugal, like all EU Member States, has been developing its national maritime spatial plan. An SEA was legally required and a
sustainability-led strategic approach was commissioned to conduct the SEA. The Plan itself was developed by a multidisciplinary team that involved 15 different national organizations of the
public administration that have policy and management responsibilities over the maritime spatial area of Portugal. Over two
years all planning activities were jointly developed by this team.
This has enabled a mutual learning process across institutions,
which despite several moments of tension, have also created
several opportunities to resolve conflicts and find joint solutions.
This institutional context enabled constructive links between the
development of the Plan and the SEA process, with mutual benefits. The development of the plan is considered to be a success
story in terms of institutional collaboration and governance.
However not all stakeholders had equal participative opportunities. Despite several attempts made by the SEA, the general
public, as well as the business sector and other representatives
of the civil society were not engaged in the planning and assessment process except for the final public discussion, as legally
mandated.
about only by experience of repeated failure of more traditional approaches (even that may not be enough). Box 1 above provides a
real case example that illustrates this point – that enhancing trust
seems to be a key condition for the success of SEA and SA contribution
to environmental and sustainability oriented decision-making.
If trust breaks down, however, then social learning and knowledge
exchange will no longer be the loftier goals in IA; the goal is then
more likely to be one of accountability (i.e. to hold to account/made
to take responsibility for one's actions), at least on behalf of those
stakeholders who have lost trust in the process (Sheate, 2012).
Knowledge and values owned by those other than proponents of projects, plans or policies may be critical in terms of their ability to hold
those proponents to account and whether decisions ultimately are
seen by others as legitimate, ie. “desirable, proper or appropriate”
(Suchman, 1995, p.574). Civil society organizations have a key role
to play in this, where NGOs frequently engage as critics of process
and quality of assessment, often because they have not been engaged
effectively at an early enough stage. An excellent example of this trust
building is provided by the Slovak Energy Policy SEA case whereby
environmental NGOs were partners in the policy-making and SEA
process from early stages, a process obviously led by the Ministry of
Energy. NGOs worked together with the Ministry of Energy to build
and assess energy policy options, and discuss openly with the authorities, helping to generate and conduct public debate with citizens, and
with the Ministry of Environment (Kosova and Szollos, 2000); an interesting contrast to the SA process for energy national policy statements in the UK (Eales and Sheate, 2011). Sheate (2012) suggests
that EIA and SEA – through scrutiny of aspects around quality of assessment and process – may provide platforms for accountability in
a similar way that assessment techniques may provide a platform
for knowledge brokerage (Sheate and Partidario, 2010). Power relations are then likely to mediate between these, i.e. the extent to
which knowledge is shared, trust is maintained and/or authorities/
proponents are held to account.
Where knowledge exchange takes place it is likely to be because power is also being shared - to a greater or lesser extent helping to provide a more conducive decision environment where
the proponent/authority is also willing to receive and make use
34
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
of other forms of knowledge and values. Where power is not shared,
knowledge exchange is less likely, the discourse becomes more adversarial and the accountability of the proponent becomes a much
more important issue, with the quality of the assessment and the
process coming under much greater scrutiny. Here power may
shift, if opponents have sufficient strength in numbers, resources
and argument to expose the weaknesses in the proponent's case
and illegitimacy of the decision-making process (see for example
Sheate, 1996; Sheate, 2008). On the other hand, where the NGO
movement is insufficiently mature or mobilized, the assessment
process rather than facilitating accountability may be used by proponents to legitimize the decision-making process (Elling, 2009;
Li, 2009). Examples provided in Boxes 2 and 3 show critical examples of insufficient public engagement and knowledge brokerage,
and deficient power sharing.
Civil society environmental NGOs are in a unique position in having particular knowledge, e.g. expert knowledge and/or knowledge
based on particular experience – but with a shared set of collective
values that mean that the application of their expert knowledge may
draw different conclusions from the same data provided by the IA or
the proponent's/authorities’ experts. Civil society organizations therefore have an increasingly important role to play in environmental governance (Commission of the European Communities, 2001; Newig and
Fritsch, 2009). This reflects the classic science-policy dilemma so prevalent in the environmental and sustainability field, where uncertainty
and complexity abound and where science alone cannot provide the
necessary answers, because scientists do not speak with one voice
(nor can they) (European Environment Agency, EEA, 2011; Sarewitz,
2000).
In this case NGOs holding both knowledge and shared values may
also be able to exert power, even when power would be assumed otherwise to reside in the executive. This may or may not reflect the
views of civil society as a whole, of course, since there will be multiple
perspectives among civil society and among NGOs. The exercise of
such power may not necessarily mean a project or plan is stopped
or changed – that may not in itself be entirely necessary for ‘success’
from an NGO's perspective. The ability to use its knowledge and
values to hold the proponent/executive to account – to make them
justify their actions and take responsibility for them – may be sufficient, particularly if it leads to subsequent change in process and procedures (Sheate, 2012).
5. IA - beyond information provision, towards
knowledge brokerage
As already noted, for knowledge brokerage to succeed a number of
conditions are needed (Sheate and Partidario, 2010; Ward et al.,
2009). While it is increasingly likely that a wide range of stakeholders
will be engaged in IA, and even good opportunity space presented
for sharing and exchange of knowledge, critical areas where real
improvements are needed would seem to be the creation of a decision environment conducive for learning, knowledge exchange and
willingness (openness of process) to make use of the different types
of knowledge made available through the assessment processes
(Sheate and Partidario, 2010). Just because a diverse range of stakeholders were engaged does not mean that a process will be conducive
to knowledge brokerage (Box 3 provides an evident case of a deficit of
social values through public engagement, despite good intentions to
ensure a wide set of stakeholders).
Boxes 4, 5 and 6 above all provide positive examples of assessment
processes that include good opportunities and space for knowledge
brokerage, where stakeholders from diverse perspectives came together and provided their own valuable knowledge into the SEA/SA
process, where knowledge was exchanged and where new understandings were developed and new knowledge created through
learning. Critical to the success of these examples (which is not to
imply that the whole assessments were necessarily totally successful,
only that the elements highlighted could be considered to be good examples) was a conducive environment enabled by the techniques and
facilitation involved, and a lack of overt dominance of power by the
proponent, i.e. a genuine desire to learn from those bringing expert
and experience knowledge to share. Some techniques, such as the
creation of scenarios by stakeholders (see Box 4), the use of network
analysis/causal chains (see Box 5) or the establishment of intersectoral dialogues and shared responsibilities throughout the planning
process (see Box 6) allow shared knowledge to be captured, new
knowledge to be constructed and therefore subsequently capable of
being mobilised, communicated and integrated into the planning processes and systems, as in the systemic model described by Best and
Holmes (2010).
Earlier on in this paper we presented the case for a facilitator/
learning school of knowledge brokerage that would be based on the
concept of IA providing a platform for knowledge brokerage through
an appropriate use of IA techniques. Both the positive and negative
experiences offered in boxes 1–6 provide useful lessons for explicitly
designing knowledge brokerage into strategic approaches, which can
build on the inherent nature of the approaches and techniques used,
but which can give those approaches a wider value to the community
and the subject area than just the delivery of their intended (assessment) objectives. In designing knowledge brokerage into strategic assessment approaches, therefore, a number of key questions need to
be borne in mind:• What added value to the policy and assessment approaches can be
brought about by improved knowledge brokerage and knowledge
in transition (sharing and creation in learning processes)?
• What are the existing social networks and communities of practice
which have an interest in the strategic planning processes in hand?
• What are the likely power relationships among the proponents, authorities and stakeholders – how can knowledge be exchanged and
constructed collectively to help share power so that the process can
avoid becoming unduly adversarial?
• How can a conducive and trusting environment be created to facilitate the creation of new knowledge as part of the SEA/SA learning
process?
• Can new communities of practice based around the SEA/SA process
be created that forge lasting relationships and value into the future?
• Which are the engagement and assessment techniques that can
best support the opportunity space in which knowledge brokerage
can take place and new knowledge can be constructed?
• What institutional and governance mechanisms need to be put in
place to ensure the new communities of practice continue into
monitoring and follow-up phases of the SEA/SA process, and future
reviews and iterations?
• What time is needed – along with resources – to enable the SEA/SA
to provide the platform for effective knowledge brokerage through
facilitated learning processes?
6. Conclusions
It is fair to recognize that IA instruments have been enabling
learning processes for some time through the exchange of technical
knowledge, particularly between environmental consultants, proponents and environmental administrations. But this exchange of
knowledge is insufficient for what we have argued in this paper
should be the fundamental premises of knowledge brokerage, i.e.:• engage all interested stakeholders in a development process and
give them an opportunity to have a voice;
• act as a way of breaking down barriers that impede interaction,
healthy communication and collaboration;
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
• facilitate learning, sharing of knowledge and the creation of new
knowledge - a process we have named here ‘knowledge in
transition’;
• create opportunities for power sharing in IA processes; and
• aim at stimulating mutual learning processes to help build longterm capacity among stakeholders and improve outcomes.
Knowledge brokerage needs to go significantly beyond the transference of evidence and the exchange of technical knowledge. Essentially, our proposal in this paper calls for a different purpose to
stakeholder engagement in IA, not just (at worst) commenting on a
proposed solution, or (at best) the tapping into, or ‘mining’, of local
lay knowledge to make for a smoother planning process, but essentially a pragmatic approach (i.e. one which draws on both constructivist and rational perspectives) where various types of knowledge
are engaged to contribute to a collective learning process. A process
that draws heavily on knowledge created by learners, through communities of practice that share the power, and the responsibility of
contributing solutions to problems, while recognizing there is a
decision-making process that may still be administratively ‘rational’.
In other words, knowledge brokerage in IA should embrace an
approach where stakeholders are seen as part of the solution and
where long-term benefits may accrue through knowledge creation
and co-production among communities of practice.
The institutionalization of accountability through the Aarhus Convention (also enshrined in the SEA Directive through the requirement
for ‘early and effective’ participation) provides a legal basis and important lever should a knowledge-based approach to assessment
not be forthcoming. Access to information and public participation –
the first two pillars of Aarhus – are critical to enable knowledge
exchange and sharing to take place. But power - and power sharing in IA is critical for effective and efficient environmental decisionmaking in a transition to sustainability.
Knowledge brokerage, as we conceive it, cannot succeed without
power sharing, and a willingness of those with power to recognize
other partners in the decision-making process, and to reconfigure
power structures, if we all aim, as often suggested, for long-term community benefit. Failure to share power and knowledge leaves the only
recourse to use the assessment process as a means to seek accountability and ultimately justice (the third pillar of Aarhus). Greater legitimacy, however, may be achieved in the long term by building
shared knowledge through the enhanced use of IA processes and
techniques to support positive planning and ultimately more sustainable outcomes. That will entail explicitly designing knowledge
brokerage into IA and not simply hoping that it will happen. The lessons from the cases examined here is that where it happens, it happens because certain conditions are right, but those conditions
require effort, time and resources if knowledge brokerage is to
occur and create long term benefits beyond the specific decisionmaking event.
References
Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and
methods. Evid Policy 2010;6(2):145–59.
Blackmore C. What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environ Sci Policy 2007;10:
512–25.
Blackwell A, Colmenar R. Transforming policy through local wisdom. Futures 1999;31:
487–97.
Blair H. Participation and accountability at the periphery: democratic local governance
in six countries. World Dev 2000;28:21–39.
Bloom B, Englehart M, Furst E, Hill W, Krathwohl D. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New
York, Toronto: Longmans, Green; 1956.
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. The theory and practice of knowledge
brokering in Canada's Health System, executive summary; 2003. p. ii.
Cashmore M, Bond A, Cobb D. The role and functioning of environmental assessment:
Theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. J Environ
Manage 2008;88:1233–48.
35
Clark G, Kelly L. New directions for knowledge transfer and knowledge brokerage in
Scotland. Office of Chief Researcher Knowledge Transfer Team, Briefing Paper.
Scottish Executive; 2005.
Colliver JA. Constructivism: the view of knowledge that ended philosophy or a theory
of learning and instruction. Teach Learn Med 2002;14(1):49–51.
Commission of the European Communities. European Governance: A White Paper,
COM; 2001. 428 final.
Communities and Local Government (CLG). Eco-towns Prospectus. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2007.
Communities and Local Government (CLG). Eco-towns: Living a greener future - consultation paper. Department for Communities and Local Government; 2008.
Diduck, A.,. Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment: a
transformative perspective, 2001, PhD, University of Waterloo; Waterloo.
Eales RP, Sheate WR. Effectiveness of policy level environmental and sustainability assessment – challenges and lessons from recent practice. J Environ Assess Policy
Manage 2011;13:1-27.
Elling B. Rationality and Effectiveness: Does EIA/SEA Treat Them as Synonyms? Impact
Assess Proj Appraisal 2009;27(2):121–31.
European Environment Agency (EEA). . Main ReportBridging LOng-term Scenario and
Strategy analysis - Organisation and Methods (BLOSSOM), Final Report, 1. Copenhagen: EEA; 2011.
Findlay SC. Report of Pre-Conference Workshop, Knowledge-brokers: Linking Researchers and Policy Makers, June 28, Canmore, Alberta, as part of the International
Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC) 19th Annual Meeting.
available at; 2003 http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR14.pdf#172003.
Fischer TB, Kidd S, Jha-Thakur U, Gazzola P, Peel D. Learning Through EC Directive
Based SEA in Spatial Planning? Evidence from the Brunswick Region in Germany.
Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29:421–8.
Fitzpatrick P. In it together: organizational learning though participation in environmental assessment. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2006;8(2):157–83.
Fitzpatrick P, Sinclair AJ. Learning through public involvement in environmental assessment hearings. J Environ Manage 2003;67(2):161–74.
Greater London Authority. The London Water Strategy Sustainability Appraisal. Available at http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/environment/london-water-strategy 2009. [accessed 18 April 2011].
Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity; 1989.
Hofstede G. Cultures and Organisations. London: McGraw-Hill; 1991.
Innes J. Information in communicative planning. J Am Plann Assoc 1998;64(1):52–63.
Jha-Thakur U, Gazzola P, Peel D, Fischer T, Kidd S. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment – the significance of learning. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal
2009;27(2):133–44.
Juntti M, Russel D, Turnpenny J. Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the
environment. Environ Sci Policy 2009;12:207–15.
Kosova M, Szollos J. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Slovak Energy Policies. In:
Dusik J, editor. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Public Participation
and Health Aspects in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Szentendre: REC;
2000. p. 87-104.
Li F. Documenting Accountability: Environmental Impact Assessment in a Peruvian
Mining Project. PoLAR: Polit Leg Anthropol Rev 2009;32:218–36.
Liftin KT. Ozone discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation.
New York: Columbia University press; 1994.
Linnenluecke M, Griffiths A. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. J
World Bus 2010;45:357–66.
McFarlane C. Knowledge, learning and development: a post-rationalist approach. Prog
Dev Stud 2006;6(4):287–305.
Michaels S. Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environ Sci Policy 2009;12:994-1011.
Newig J, Fritsch O. Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-Level – and Effective? Environ Policy Governance. 2009;19:197–214.
Nilsson M, Dalkmann H. Decision making and strategic environmental assessment. J
Environ Assess Policy Manage 2001;3(3):305–27.
Nonaka I, Toyama R, Konno N. SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation. Long Range Plann 2000;33:5-34.
Nutley S, Morton S, Jung T, Boaz A. Evidence and policy in six European countries: diverse approaches and common challenges. Evid Policy 2010;6(2):131–44.
Olsson G. The interrelationship of biodiversity and rural viability: sustainability assessment land use scenarios and Norwegian mountains in a European context. J Environ Assess Policy Manage 2011;13(2):251–84.
Ostrom E. A general framework for analysing sustainability of socio-ecological systems.
Science 2009;325:419–22.
Owens S, Rayner T, Bina O. New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice
and Research. Environ plann A 2004;36:1943–59.
Owens S. Learning across levels of governance: Expert advice and the adoption of carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets in the UK. Glob Environ Chang 2009;20(3):394–401.
Partidario MR. Strategic Environmental Assessment Good Practice Guidance—methodological guidance. Amadora: Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente; 2007a (http:
//www.seataskteam.net/library.php)
(http://www.iambiente.pt/portal/page?_
pageid=73,426033&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&not_c_qry=boui=15473913).
Partidario MR. Avaliação Ambiental Estratégica e a avaliação ambiental de planos e
programas exigida nos termos do Decreto-Lei no 232/2007, de 15 de Junho. Boletim APAI nº10. Lisboa: 6; 2007b http://www.apai.org.pt/index.php?idmenu=37.
Partidario MR. Does SEA change outcomes? Proceedings of the 18th International Transports
Research Symposium, Session 5Sustainable Inter-UrbanMobility,Discussion PaperNo.
2009–31, Madrid; 2009 http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Proceedings/
Symp2009/index.html.
36
M.R. Partidario, W.R. Sheate / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39 (2013) 26–36
Partidario MR, Sheate WR, Bina O, Byron H, Augusto B. Sustainability assessment for
agriculture scenarios in Europe's mountain areas: lessons from six study areas. Environ Manag 2009;43:144–65.
Perlitz M, Seger F. European cultural and management styles. Int J Asian Manage
2004;3:1-26.
Petts J, Brooks C. Expert conceptualisations of the role of lay knowledge in environmental decisionmaking: challenges for deliberative democracy. Environ Plann A
2006;38(6):1045–59.
Pielke RA. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. 188 pp.
Pinho R, Coutinho M. Planos de Pormenor. .. APAIAAE e/ou AIA?Proceedings of CNAI'08,
3ª Conferência Nacional de Avaliação de Impactes; 2008 www.ua.pt/idad/readobject.
aspx?obj=9441. 22–24 Oct'08, Beja.
Polanyi M. Personal Knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul; 1958.
Power M. Rethinking development geographies; 2003. Routledge.
Raymond CM, Fazey J, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC. Integrating local
and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage
2010;91:1766–77.
Renn O, Schweizer P-J. Inclusive Risk Governance: Concepts adn Application to Environmental Policy-Making. Environ Policy Governance 2009;19:174–85.
Runhaar H. Putting SEA in Context: a Discourse Perspective on How SEA Contributes to
Decision-making. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009;29:200–9.
Runhaar H, Driessen PPJ. What Makes Strategic Environmental Assessment Successful
Environmental Assessment? The Role of Context in the Contribution of SEA to
Decision-Making. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 2007;25(1):2-14.
Sarewitz D. Science and environmental policy: an excess of objectivity. In: Froderman
R, editor. Earth matters: the Earth sciences, philosophy and the claims of community. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000. p. 79–98.. 2000.
Sheate WR. The Search for a UK Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility: A Case Study of Disputed Project Definition Under the EC Directive 85/337/EEC on EIA. Environ Policy
Pract 1996;6(2):75–86.
Sheate WR. Purposes, paradigms and pressure groups: Accountability and sustainability in EU environmental assessment, 1985–2010. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2012;33(1):91-102.
Sheate WR. Letter to the BARD Campaign reviewing the Sustainability Appraisals of the
draft Eco-Towns Planning Policy Statement and Eco-towns programme. Available
at http://stopmiddlequinton.net-genie.co.uk/press/pressreleases/198064/the_sheate_
report.htm 2008.
Sheate WR, Byron H, Dagg S, Cooper L. The Relationship between the EIA and SEA Directives. Available at Final Report to the European Commission DG Environment.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2005
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/final_report_0508.pdf [accessed 20
April 2011].
Sheate WR, Partidario MR. Strategic Approaches and Assessment Techniques-Potential
for Knowledge Brokerage towards Sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2010;30:278–88.
Sheate WR, Partidario MR, Byron H, Bina O, Dagg S. Sustainability assessment of future
scenarios: methodology and application to mountain areas of Europe. Environ
Manag 2008;41:282–99.
Sinclair AJ, Diduck AP, Fitzpatrick PJ. Conceptualising learning for sustainability
through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008;28(7):415–28.
Stirling A. Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory
multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 2006;23(1):95-107.
Suchman MC. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20:571–610.
Takeda L, Ropke I. Power and contestation in collaborative ecosystem-based management: the case of Haida Gwaii. Ecol Econ 2010;70:178–88.
Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner CM. Building cross-cultural competence. Chichester:
Yale University Press; 2000.
UNECE. Aarhus Convention on Access to Information. Available atPublic Participation
in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; 1998 http://
www.unece.org/env/pp/.
van Kersbergen K, van Waarden F. ‚Governance’ as a Bridge between Disciplines:
Cross-disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of
Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy. Eur J Polit Res 2004;43:143–71.
Walter J, Lechner CH, Kellermanns FW. Knowledge transfer between and within
alliance partners: private versus collective benefits of social capital. J Bus Res
2007;60:698–710.
Ward V, House A, Hamer S. Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to
action chain? Evid Policy 2009(3):267–79.
Weaver A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Lochner P. Contributing to sustainability as an
environmental impact assessment practitioner. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal
2008;26(2):91–8.
Webler T. ‘Right’ discourse in citizen participation; an evaluation yardstick. In: Renn O,
Webler T, Wiedermann P, editors. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation – Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer;
1995. p. 35–86.
Weichselgartner J, Kasperson R. Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: towards a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Glob
Environ Chang 2009;20(2):266–77.
Wenger E. Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press; 1998.