The conceptual development of a geocybernetic relationship between sustainable

development and Environmental Impact Assessment

Jason Phillips
College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter e Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, United Kingdom
Keywords:
Geocybernetics
Sustainable development
Environmental Impact Assessment
a b s t r a c t
The imprecise nature of sustainable development is often a cause for concern. This concern has however
not prevented the suggestion of a relationship between sustainable development and EIAs. As a result,
there is a need to develop a more formal conceptual basis for the relationship between EIA and
sustainable development.
The paper discusses the conceptual development of a geocybernetic perspective of the relationship
between sustainable development and EIAs in respect to impact identication methodologies. The paper
considers the ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, uses relevant
literature to support the relationships found, and provides examples to support the relationships
developed within the paper.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Purpose of paper
The paper intends to demonstrate the development of a concep-
tual relationship between sustainable development and Environ-
mental Impact Assessment (EIA). This will be achieved by utilising
the geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, as
developed and highlighted by Schellnhuber (1998, 1999, 2001) and
Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998). The paper intends to develop this
relationship in respect to impact identication methodologies. This
is the key to the conducting and performance of an EIA, as the whole
point of conducting an EIA is the identication of potential or actual
impacts of a proposed or current project. In addition, impact iden-
tication methodologies are capable of being used elsewhere in the
EIA process (Fig. 1). This includes determining the scoping of rele-
vant issues and impacts, as well as the making of recommendations
for corrective action and/or mitigation. Therefore, it is appropriate
and necessary to underpin the use of such methodologies as
a mechanism towards the evaluation and attainment of sustainable
development.
The paper reects and forms a key part of a larger body of
research. This research has been concerned with the development
andapplicationof a mathematical model of sustainable development
as detailed in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d). Conse-
quently, the paper underpins the conceptual basis for the application
of the model in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d), in the quanti-
tative evaluation of the level and nature of sustainable development
of local level projects using quantitative-based EIAs. The paper
intends to achieve its intended purpose in the following ways:
1. Outline the interference made to the attainment of sustainable
development through EIA within the current literature.
2. Outline the concept of Geocybernetics, and specically the ve
fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable devel-
opment, as developed by Schellnhuber (1998, 1999, 2001).
3. Outline the concept of EIA in respect to the process, the
concepts of impact and signicance, and the fundamental
methodologies of impact identication.
4. Apply conceptually the ve fundamental geocybernetic para-
digms of sustainable development in respect to the role and use
of impact identication methodologies.
5. Where relevant, highlight the geocybernetic relationship
between sustainable development and EIA with appropriate
examples, predominantly in respect to Phillips (2009, 2010a,
2010b, 2010c, 2010d).
6. Outline the practical potential and implications of the sug-
gested geocybernetic relationship between EIA and sustainable
development.
Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has undergone
a transformation from evaluating purely environmental impacts, to
also evaluating economic and social issues. Todays EIA tends to be
a more integrated instrument of environmental, economic and E-mail address: jp1@tiscali.co.uk.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Geography
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apgeog
0143-6228/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.015
Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979
social issues of development, as well as having legislative authority.
Conducting an EIA is now required before any signicant or major
development proceeds in a growing number of countries.
EIAs has signicantlychangedandimprovedover recent years, to
suchanextent that manyargue that EIAs canbe usedfor the purpose
of assessing the extent of sustainable development occurring (Abdel
Wahaab, 2003; Dalal-Clayton, 1992; Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick,
2005; Lawrence, 1997b; Sadler, 2003). Glasson et al. (2005) argues
that the EIAis one of the instruments capable of achieving the goal of
sustainable development. This is due to the accepted belief that
environmental assessments can make valuable contributions
towards sustainability (Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders,
2004), as environmental impacts are at the core of sustainability
concerns (Sadler, 1999). However, the underlying critical problem
Fig. 1. The key steps in the cyclic process of conducting an EIA, adapted from Glasson et al. (2005).
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 970
with this, in that there is no clear agreement regarding what
sustainable development actually is (ORiordan, 2000).
Therefore, the absence of an adequate conceptual framework
which formally provides an objective understanding of the rela-
tionship between sustainable development and EIAs, has created
the unfortunate position of so near, but yet so far. Geocybernetics
however may be of enormous value in the development of
a conceptual framework for the objective use of EIAs in order to
achieve sustainable development.
Geocybernetics has been instrumental in the conceptualisation,
modelling and assessment of the Earth System. If an approach
based on the fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable
development could be developed for use with EIAs, then this could
offer potential opportunities and benets for the practical appli-
cation and management of sustainable development.
Theory and context
The concept of geocybernetics
Geocybernetics is dened by Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998) as:
the art of controlling the complex dynamic Earth System under
uncertainties of all kinds. This means that if it is the intention of
humanity to live on the Earth for the maximum possible amount of
time, then the prudent and effective use of resources must occur at
all spatial and temporal scales. Schellnhuber (1998) argues that this
is about the co-evolution between N (ecosphere) and A (anthro-
posphere), where the ecosphere is the environment and the
anthroposphere is the human world and society. However this may
be perceived or viewed, it still boils down to the same critical
concept in essence - the concept of sustainable development.
Geocybernetics is primarily concerned with the answers to two
questions: what kindof a worlddowewant? andwhat must we do
to get there? (Blackburn, 1992; Clark, 1989 cited by Schellnhuber,
1998). Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998) state with respect to these
questions, that various approaches towards sustainable develop-
ment are required. These could be identied as the ve fundamental
geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development (as shown in
Table 1), within which all conjectures, theories, strategies of
sustainable development can be placed (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999).
The ve fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable
development can be summarised as follows:
Standardization
This paradigm provides for the application of sustainable
development via instruments such as sustainability indicators. The
co-evolutionary path of the N-A system(to be referred to in the rest
of the paper as the environment-human system for the purpose of
simplicity) is considered to be correct, if the values of the indicators
occur within the safe range limits of the system (Gallopin, 2003).
Optimization
This paradigm is concerned with the obtainment of the best
design for the environment-human system. This is achieved by
choosing the optimal path for co-evolution over a xed period of
time (Gallopin, 2003; Schellnhuber, 1999).
Pessimization
This paradigm is about looking to undertake the smallest
amount of damage for the maximum amount of potential benet -
the precautionary principle (Gallopin, 2003). It is therefore the least
speculative and most essential concept for the development of a set
of minimum standards for the safe operation of the Earth System
(Schellnhuber, 1999).
Equitization
This paradigm is in essence the Brundtland notion - the preser-
vation of options for future generations (Gallopin, 2003). Thus, the
notion of equity is associated with equality of the environmental
and developmental options for future generations (Gallopin, 2003).
Stabilization
This is concerned with the intent to bring the environment-
human system into a desirable state of co-evolution, and then
maintain it through the use of good management (Gallopin, 2003).
Environmental Impact Assessment
The EIA process
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic process
that examines the environmental consequences of development
action, in advance (Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, the EIA as
Glasson et al. (2005), Munn (1979) and Walthern (1988) suggest, is
a process that is systematic, holistic and multidisciplinary
(Glasson et al., 2005), and is cyclical in nature requiring feedback
and interaction throughout.
The key elements of the cyclic process of EIA are outlined in
Fig. 1, and described in a little more detail in Table 2.
Impact and signicance in the EIA
In the conduct of any EIA, there are usually two key concepts
that the assessors and decision-makers require a primary under-
standing of: Impact and Signicance.
The concept of what is an impact? is a key component of the
EIA. An EIA is primarily concerned with identifying, predicting and
managing impacts. Walthern (1988) provides a detailed description
of what an impact is within the context of an EIA. An impact has
.both spatial and temporal components, and can be described as
the change in an environmental parameter, over a specied period
and within a dened area, resulting from a particular activity
compared with the situation which would have occurred had the
activity not been initiated (Walthern, 1988). This, from a geo-
cybernetic viewpoint, provides for the necessary context for the
determination and management of local level impact within the
Earth System. However, any project can have an impact (positive or
negative) upon the environment. Therefore, the key question
becomes how signicant is that impact?
Rossouw (2003) states that signicance as a concept is at the
core of impact identication, prediction, evaluation and decision-
making.. However, there is currently no consensus amongst
practitioners on how to assess signicance internationally
(Rossouw, 2003), which is a view that Thompson (1990) concurs
with. So, how is signicance dened or understood?
Gilpin (1995) states that signicance is something outside of
acceptable limits, where the acceptable levels in the physical and
social sciences statistically is considered to be 5%. However, where
the loss of an ecological habitat is involved, this can pose present
problems, particularly in the case of rare or endangered species or
in the loss of a perceived magnicent vista (Gilpin, 1995). Rossouw
Table 1
A table of the notation and qualication of the ve fundamental geocybernetic
paradigms of sustainable development, as described by Schellnhuber (1998).
Symbol Name of paradigm Positive goal Negative motive
P
0
Standardization Order Despotism
P
1
Optimization Prosperity Greed
P
2
Pessimization Security Cowardice
P
3
Equitization Fairness Jaundice
P
4
Stabilization Reliability Indolence
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 971
(2003) citing Sippe (1999) argues on the hand that signicance can
be simplied into the following common denitional elements:
Environmental signicance is a value judgement; the extent of
environmental signicance is dependent upon the impacts nature;
the importance is assessed in the context and terms of both
biophysical and socio-economic values; and the determination of
signicance involves the amount of change to the environment that
is perceived to be acceptable to the affected communities.
Signicance consequently tends to be an anthropogenic concept
and thus highly subjective, as it depends upon the judgement of the
assessor(s). However, such judgements are based on the accumu-
lated knowledge and experience of the assessor(s), coupled with
a strong inuence of the likely reaction of the public and the media
(Gilpin, 1995). Nevertheless, without a consistent denition of
signicance, a concept at the core of the EIA, any inference to
sustainable development may be of little value. As a result, there is
a need for a clear conceptual framework to draw such inferences.
Impact identication in the EIA Process
Impact identication is concerned with the characterisation and
baseline environmental conditions. This ensures that all environ-
mental impacts that can potentially occur, whether adverse or
benecial, are identied and are able to be taken into account
within the EIA process (Glasson et al., 2005). Methodologies of
impact identication are either quantitative or qualitative in
nature. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assess-
ment (IEMA) states that quantitative techniques tend to involve
a prescriptive method being set out and followed, whereas quali-
tative techniques rely less upon a prescribed method instead
relying heavily upon professional judgement (IEMA, 2008).
The generic methodologies of impact identication are all gener-
ally agreed amongst academics and practitioners (e.g. ADB, 1997;
Bisset, 1988; Canter, 1996; Clark, Chapman, Bisset, & Walthern,
1979; Glasson et al., 2005; IAIA, 2002; Munn, 1979; NWMO, 2004;
Rossouw, 2003; Shopley & Fuggle, 1984; Storey, 2005; Thompson,
1990; Westman, 1985 and Wolfe, 1987). These are as follows:
Ad hoc - A typical approach via this methodology is where
a team of experts are assembled for a short period of time to
perform the EIA. Each expert is able to bring a unique combi-
nation of expertise, training and intuition that is able to form
conclusions which in turnwill formthe nal report (ADB, 1997).
Checklists - It is an approach that is widely used in order to
ensure that a prescribed and comprehensive list of potential
impacts and effects associated with a specic project or
development are considered within the EIA (NWMO, 2004;
Storey, 2005).
Matrices - In essence, matrices are an expansion of checklists
but in two dimensions (Glasson et al., 2005; Storey, 2005;
Westman, 1985; Wolfe, 1987). Matrices require information in
respect to the environmental components and project activi-
ties, which is achieved by subjective judgement by experts, or
by the use of extensive databases (ADB, 1997).
Quantitative methods - attempts to compare the relative
importance of all impacts by weighting, standardizing and
aggregating them to produce a composite index (Glasson et al.,
2005). The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (Dee
et al., 1973) is the most well-known of this type of method.
Networks - Networks are owcharts which illustrate the
impacts of the project fromactions to end effects (Wolfe, 1987).
Hence, they are able to show the causeeeffect relationships
and environmental characteristics (IAIA, 2002; Wolfe, 1987).
Specically, they are capable of illustrating primary, secondary,
tertiary and higher order impacts (ADB, 1997; IAIA, 2002).
Overlays - The general purpose of overlays is to identify,
predict, assign relative signicance to and communicate
impacts (Glasson et al., 2005; Munn, 1979). The overlays
themselves consist of a number of transparent maps, each
containing data of the spatial distribution of a particular
environmental characteristic/parameter (ADB, 1997).
GIS - In recent years, GIS has become a very effective tool in
respect to spatial analysis and presentation due to its ability to
allow the identication of impacted zones via the overlay
technique (NWMO, 2004). During the screening, scoping,
baseline inventory and monitoring, the use of GIS through
remote sensing can be of signicant value (NWMO, 2004).
Further, the use of map layers allows for both decision-makers
and the public to assess the environmental scenarios con-
cerning the project (NWMO, 2004).
Whilst predominantly the generic methodologies listed are
associated with impact identication (Glasson et al., 2005), as
highlighted inTable 3, these approaches can be of signicant benet
in the other stages of the EIA process (re: Fig. 1) - impact prediction,
evaluation, communication, mitigation, presentation, monitoring
and auditing. It is therefore appropriate to collectively term all of
these processes as impact analysis (Glasson et al., 2005).
Table 2
A table outlining the key steps in the conducting of and basic purpose of each step of
an EIA, based on Glasson et al. (2005). It should be noted that the order of the steps
of the process may vary in accordance with the project/development under
consideration.
Screening An initial assessment to decide whether a project
requires an EIA based on current legislation and/or
signicance of potential impacts.
Scoping All of the potential impacts and alternatives identied,
and those that are highly signicant to be addressed
within the terms of reference and feasibility studies
Assessment
of impacts
The identication, prediction, evaluation and analysis of
signicance of the impacts.
Requires the description of the project, the
environmental baseline determined before the above
is able to occur.
Methods available to undertake this step: Ad Hoc;
Checklists; Matrices; Quantitative; Networks;
Overlays; and GIS.
Mitigation The development of measures in order to prevent,
reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts created
by the project/development.
Reporting The presentation of the results of the EIA in an
appropriate and useable format e the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Reviewing A systematic appraisal of the adequacy of the EIA/EIS,
taking into account of the views of stakeholders involved,
assessing the acceptability of the proposal within current
and existing plans, policies and legislation.
Decision-making The consideration of the proposal with all appropriate
and relevant materials by the appropriate authority
in order to determine whether or not the project/
development can proceed, and the attachments of any
conditions necessary to minimise environmental impacts.
Monitoring &
managing
The implementation of measures to mitigate and
monitor impacts to ensure compliance, as well as
check to see if impacts were as predicted and take
action if necessary to ameliorate any problems.
Public consultation
& participation
This is important throughout the entire process, and
typically occurs during the scoping and review, but
can and should occur at all stages of the EIA process,
in order to ensure continued quality, comprehensiveness
and effectiveness of the EIA (Glasson et al., 2005), and in
order to ensure the views of the public are adequately
taken into account, particularly in the decision-
making stage.
Such public involvement must though be undertaken
in a manner that is appropriate to the culture of the
people involved.
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 972
Key to criterion:
1. Compliance with regulations;
2. Comprehensive coverage of the Impacts/Issues e Economic,
Social, and Physical;
3. Positive vs. negative, reversible vs. irreversible impacts, etc.;
4. Secondary, indirect, cumulative impacts;
5. Signicant vs. insignicant impacts;
6. Comparison of alternatives;
7. Compare against carrying capacity;
8. Use of qualitative and quantitative information;
9. Ease of use;
10. Unbiased, consistent;
11. Summarises impacts for use in the EIS
Due to the nature of how the weightings are arrived at, these
may be challenged by relevant parties or authorities. i.e. the
assumption in Dee et al. (1973) that the certain individual
parameters of water quality (e.g. dissolved oxygen at 31 points)
is of more signicance than employment and housing
combined at 26 points total (based on Glasson et al., 2005).
Results and discussion: the geocybernetic relationship
between EIA and sustainable development
Standardization paradigm and EIA
Standardization paradigm is concerned with the potential
control of the environment-humansystem. This is achievedthrough
objectively-derived data and evaluation. In the case of EIA, it refers
to impact identication methods which determine the nature and
type of impacts as well as their signicance. Therefore, this means
that it offers the potential to determine impacts at the local level of
the environment-human system created by projects and any alter-
natives (other project options). However, to meet the parameters of
the Standardization paradigm, it is necessary to determine the
appropriate method(s) of impact identication. With that in mind,
the following criterion was developed during the research to meet
this intended goal:
The approach undertaken in respect to impact analysis would
need to be such that it is veriable and repeatable to an acceptable
degree of correlation in terms of: methodology; data collection and
assimilation; any modications and/or assumptions clearly stated
and justied; and the conclusions reached and drawn from the
available data.
Based on this criteria, the research determined that the only
generic methodology of impact identication which met this
criteria was quantitative methods, for the following reasons.
Quantitative methods tend to have an advantage over the other
generic impact identication methodologies in their ability to
substantiate numerically that a specied course of action is better
than options (Glasson et al., 2005). Methods which adopt for
example a weighted approach, such as the Battelle Environmental
Evaluation System (Dee et al., 1973), are capable of providing a step
towards a more detailed evaluation. This can be further enhanced
through the participation of relevant multiple stakeholders
(Westman, 1985), which can be achieved through the application of
a Delphi methodology. This involves a small monitor team which
designs a questionnaire that is sent to a larger group to respond
(Linstone & Turoff, 2002). After the questionnaire is returned, the
monitor team summarises the results, and based upon the results
obtained, a newquestionnaire is designed for the respondent group
(Linstone &Turoff, 2002). The respondent group is typically given at
least one opportunity to re-evaluate its original answers based
upon examination of the group response (Linstone & Turoff, 2002).
Therefore, this methodology is a combination of a polling proce-
dure and a conference procedure, that attempts to change the large
proportion of the effort required for individuals to communicate,
from the larger respondent group to the smaller monitor team
(Linstone & Turoff, 2002).
The ability to numerically substantiate a series of alternatives
may however save the time and resources of decision-makers
(Glasson et al., 2005). Further, it also provides for the opportunity to
ensure consistency in respect to the assessment and results
(Glasson et al., 2005). Consequently, within the context of Stan-
dardization paradigm, it would certainly appear that quantitative
methods full the necessary conditions for the co-evolution
between the environment and humans (sustainable development).
Quantitative methods do however have three identied generic
weaknesses, as highlighted in the literature:
1. The acceptability of the method is dependent upon the
assumptions made, particularly to those using weightings
(Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, there is the possibility of
manipulation of the results based upon alteration of the
assumptions (Bisset, 1978). This is due to, as the potential for
inappropriate pressure from internal or external superiors in
order to give favourable assessment (Bisset, 1978).
2. Such methods, tend to break the environment into discrete
units that relate the impacts to specied parameters (Glasson
et al., 2005). As a result, information is lost when it is
reduced to numbers (Glasson et al., 2005).
3. The rigidity of such approaches removed the ability of decision-
makers to exercise subjective judgement over certain issues
(Skutsch & Flowerdew, 1976).
Inrespect tothese, it is fair to saythat eachandeverymethodwill
always have particular strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses
Table 3
A comparison table of methodologies of impact identication, based on and adapted
from Glasson et al. (2005).
Criterion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Checklists
Simple/Question
Threshold
Matrices
Simple
Magnitude
Leopold
Weighted
Quantitative
EES/WRAM
Network
Sorenson
Overlay maps
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 973
of quantitative methods of impact identication however can be
reasonably addressed with further reference to the literature.
In respect to Weakness 1, provided that any and all assumptions
are clearly stated, as any rational objective approach would
undertake, then the methods context and parameters would
reect the local environment and relevant issues accurately.
Indeed, the issue of weighting is based upon the use of life-cycle
assessment (LCA) (Heikkila, 2004). Therefore, if there is a precise
weight assessment, integration of experts opinion based upon
clearly dened and exhaustive criterion of impact assessment
(Goyal & Deshpande, 2001), then weighting can be an useful
addition in the conveyance of the level of harmful effects onto the
environment (Heikkila, 2004).
In respect to Weakness 2, then a review of EIA methods would
illustrate that the best attempts are those which model the
potential impacts and consequences of a project and alternatives,
within a constructive framework (Glasson et al., 2005). However,
whether such methods adopt a qualitative or quantitative approach
is critical, due to two issues. The rst is whether information is lost
due to an inability to manage data, biased and subjective with
implicit values, and potentially in certain cases has been deliber-
ately misrepresentative in the case of qualitative approaches
(Hobbs and Voelker, 1978). The second is the loss of information is
respect to indirect impacts, interrelated or cumulative impacts
(Lawrence, 1993).
It would therefore be reasonable to say that no method will be
a wholly complete list of impacts upon the environment and
humans. Hence, a more prudent approach from a geocybernetic
perspective could be to use a combined approach. This would entail
the use of a quantitative method of impact identication in the
determination of impacts identied as potentially of the most
signicance, whether positive or negative in nature. This would
occur in conjunction with a qualitative approach which would
evaluate secondary, cumulative or indirect impacts, for the purpose
of evaluating the more intangible and subtle impacts. The qualita-
tive aspect would consider, for example, the value of a rare species
within the context of the local environment and community. This
combined approach will be discussed in more depth later in respect
to the Pessimization paradigm.
In respect to Weakness 3, the nature of quantitative methods
provides the opportunity to improve objectivity in the EIAprocess. If
such assessments are conducted in order to identify, predict and
explain potential and actual change, then the evaluation based upon
subjective judgement must be substantiated (Lawrence, 1993).
Consequently, any inferences or conclusions drawnfromanobjective
framework must be capable of being supported through the
following: a clear reference to present knowledge; the unbiased
explanations of the data presented; the presentation of clear state-
ments of any assumptions and hypotheses undertaken; and a clear
and valid reasoning and justication of previous points. Provided
that these are performed as a transparent approach, then judge-
ments of interpretation, evaluation and prescription (Lawrence,
1993) can be considered valid and appropriate.
Therefore, the justication for the use of quantitative methods
of EIA, in respect to the Standardization paradigm, can be sum-
marised in respect the following two points. The rst is the fact that
any project must exist within the connement of the environment-
human system, which is reected by the concept of carrying
capacity (re: Ehrlich & Holdren, 1971) (to be discussed in greater
depth within the Pessimization Paradigm section) and the recent
work of Rockstrom, Steffen, Noone, and et al. (2009) regarding
planetary boundaries. Hence, any project must not exceed, or
contribute to exceed, the limits of environment-human system at
whatever spatial or temporal context. The adoption of this
approach within the EIA, and in particular in quantitative
methodologies is a critical factor (Glasson et al., 2005; Noorbakhsh
& Ranjan, 1999and Rees (1990).
Secondly, quantitative methods offer a construct for the
understanding and assessment of human activities and environ-
ment, as well as a wide range of instruments for action (Lawrence,
1997a). Consequently, EIAcan be an extremely useful and adaptable
tool for the realisation of sustainable development. However, this is
on the proviso that it is only part of a broader range of strategies.
This means in geocybernetic terms, that it is part of a range of
management options in order to ensure effective co-evolution
between the environment and humans (sustainable development),
and the avoidance of catastrophic consequences (i.e. climate
change). Therefore, the potential objectivity of quantitative
methods, can provide a greater opportunity to achieve co-evolution
between the environment and humans within the context of the
Standardization paradigm. So, how does all of this apply within
a real world context?
The previous and current research of Phillips (2009, 2010a,
2010c, 2010d) provides the basis to demonstrate the applicability
of this Standardizationparadigm. This was achieved throughthe use
of three quantitative methodologies of impact identication: the
Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES) (Dee et al., 1973);
the Folchi method (Folchi, 2003) and the Rapid Impact Assessment
Matrix (RIAM) (Pastakia, 1998; Pastakia & Jensen, 1998).
The BEES method would certainly appear to be a quantitative
methodology which conforms to the goals of Standardization
paradigm. This is due to the capability of modelling the relevant
local environmental-human system, and highlighting the most
signicant impacts through the weighting of the parameters.
Further, it evaluates the determined parameters of the environ-
ment-human system within the context of environmental quality.
Consequently, this would determine whether there would be an
improvement or decline in the environmental quality of the loca-
tion in respect to the project. This is would be evaluated in respect
to the before project scenario compared to the after project
scenario in respect to without and with an Environmental
Management Plan (EMP). From this, it is possible to calculate the
change that has occurred in regards to the before-after scenarios.
Therefore, the BEES method offers a potentially powerful tool in
the attainment of sustainable development within the context of
Standardization paradigm. This is due to the fact that clear areas of
weakness can be identied and corrected through appropriate
environmental management. This has certainly been highlighted
by Phillips (2009, 2010a, and 2010d) in that the application of the
model to the BEES method, which has shown considerable promise
in the evaluation of sustainable development. In particular, the
before-after comparison inherent in the BEES method has been
signicant in explaining why calculated values of sustainable
development, derived from the application of the model, have
improved or deteriorated. This has therefore allowed for the
opportunity to highlight potential areas of concerns for the
purpose of improving the obtained values of sustainable
development.
This is also the case with the Folchi method (Folchi, 2003) which
is an impact identication methodology that also adopts
a weighted approach. However, it is industry-specic, designed to
evaluate impacts in respect to mining operations. The use of this
methodology has provided a consistent mechanismto evaluate and
compare impacts between mining operations, which is important
given the sensitivity concerning issues of sustainable development
(environment, social and economic) that are inherent within the
industry. Therefore, the application of the model via the Folchi
method, during the current research, has provided an appropriate
mechanism to address the issues at the heart of the concept of
sustainable mining.
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 974
The RIAM method on the other hand requires the individual
impacts to be scored by the assessor in respect to two criteria:
Criteria A that denotes the importance to the condition, and which
can individually change the score obtained; and Criteria B that
determines the impact value to the situation. From these scores, an
overall Environmental Score (ES) is calculated for each individual
parameter using a set of simple formulae, and which reects the
nature and level of impact. This ES-value ranges from108 to 108,
whereby the negative sign refers to a negative impact, and the
positive sign refers to a positive impact. Further, the range reects
the level and signicance of the impact. Consequently, an ES-value
of 100 would be considered to be a very signicant negative
impact upon the environment. The method, whilst assessor-based,
does require clear and transparent justication by the assessor(s)
for the scores given based on the data collected (Pastakia, 1998;
Pastakia & Jensen, 1998). In Phillips (2009, 2010c), the results
from the RIAM method required some modications in order to
apply the model, due to the potential of negative ES scores. Despite
this, the RIAM method does comply with the Standardization
paradigm. This is because of its capability of being repeatable in
terms of the results obtained, as well as the in-built feature
requiring clear justication for the scores determined and derived.
Further, the RIAM also highlights the nature of impacts and their
signicance in a clear and transparent way, far more so than in the
BEES and Folchi methods. The use of negative and positive values
denotes this fact, and consequently provides for a strong indication
of the signicance of the impact. The application of the model, in
respect to Phillips (2009, 2010c), has certainly beneted from this
approach. This is due to the clear highlighting of potential areas of
weakness, following the calculation of the level of sustainable
development for the project being evaluated. In the case of Phillips
(2010c), the evaluation of a proposed geothermal power plant in
Iran produced a result that indicated the project would only
contribute to very weak sustainability. In point of fact, the value
obtained was bordering on being unsustainability. Therefore, the
RIAM assessment of the individual parameters provided strong
indications as to why a renewable energy power plant, long
thought to be contributing strongly towards sustainable develop-
ment, was in fact on the cusp of very weak sustainability-unsus-
tainability in nature. Therefore, the RIAM provided sufcient
evidence to provide the proper context for the model results
obtained, as well as the broader implications for similar projects.
Optimization paradigm and EIA
The Optimization paradigm is concerned with attaining the
best design for the environment-human system. This conse-
quently infers the choosing, development and implementation of
the optimal path for achieving sustainable development (Gallopin,
2003; Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001). This means having a range
of different paths available and choosing the best option in the light
of the collected evidence and interpretation. In the case of impact
identication methodologies, this refers to two key issues: the use
of alternatives; and the ability of compare the results to other
similar projects.
Alternatives are regarded within the EIA process as options,
choices or courses of action (Steinemann, 2001). In respect to the
Optimization paradigm, this means that the EIA should at all times
present a range of options for the project, such as: differing localities
or design; whether or not they include an Environmental Manage-
ment Plan (EMP); or whether or not a project should proceed, etc.
This therefore means that the presentation of alternatives within the
impact identication methodology would ensure that a range of
geocybernetic paths for sustainable development are made avail-
able. This consequently enables the choice of the optimal path, based
upon the available information. Goodland (1994) supports this by
arguing that sustainability should be able both to progressively
reduce and eliminate unsustainable actions, and enhance the char-
acter of natural and human systems (Lawrence, 1997a). However,
Lawrence (1997a) argues further that the EIA is an action-forcing
mechanismthat is concerned with potential and/or actual impacts of
proposed or current human activities, as well as alternatives, upon
the natural and human environment. Hacking (2004) supports this
by stating: the need to consider alternatives is another widely
promoted feature of sustainable development directed assess-
ments. Nevertheless, EIA tends rarely to consider alternatives to
a project, and instead the project is approved, rejected or passed
subject to impact amelioration (Pope, 2003 citing Dovers, 2002).
Therefore, with respect to the Optimizationparadigmand EIAs, there
is a need for an appropriate number of alternatives at an early stage
of the planning process, since this will provide an opportunity for
determining the optimal path for sustainable development for any
particular project. Provided that the paradigm is restricted to this
specic purpose, then the possibility of preventing into catastrophic
consequences can be prevented. The use of alternatives was high-
lighted in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010d). Specically, the BEES eval-
uations used within the research contained the following categories:
Before Project (the baseline); With Project-Without EMP (Environ-
mental Management Plan); and With Project-With EMP. This meant
in respect to the application of the model, calculating three separate
values of sustainable development (environmental or ecological).
Through this, it provided an opportunity to compare and contrast
between the alternatives, as well as evaluating the potential
improvement or deterioration in the level and nature of sustain-
ability of the local area created by the project options.
The comparison of the results between similar projects or
alternatives can also offer the opportunity to full the goal of the
Optimization paradigm. This is because it makes it possible to draw
lessons, so to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated within the
current proposed project. This from a geocybernetic perspective
means that the available paths towards co-evolution of the envi-
ronment-human system should be improved, due to the balancing
of the needs between environment and humans. In the case of the
EIA, this means that the proposed project and/or alternative(s)
should be improved in design, and consequently enhances the
ability of the project or alternative to contribute towards sustain-
able development. The opportunity to achieve this is greatly
improved if a quantitative approach is adopted, as highlighted in
the previous section. This increases the capability for direct
comparison to be made through the use of a consistent method of
impact identication. Consequently, it means that the signicant
issues in design, location and factors can be highlighted which may
be hindering sustainable development from occurring successfully.
An example of this very point is in respect to Phillips (2010c), which
was concerned with the evaluation of the nature and level of
sustainable development achieved by Sabalan geothermal power
plant. In Phillips (2010c), the results obtained from the Sabalan
RIAM evaluation (based on Youse, Ehara, Youse, & Seiedi, 2009),
were compared to the models application to another RIAM eval-
uation for geothermal power plant inTurkey (based on Baba, 2003).
Phillips (2010c) highlighted that there was strong indicative
evidence of the potential lack of contribution which geothermal
energy may have towards the sustainability of a local area.
Pessimization paradigm and EIA
The geocybernetic notion of the precautionary principle, high-
lighted within the Pessimization paradigm, is concerned with two
keyprinciples. Firstly, ensuring that the minimumamount of impact
and consequences occur throughout the spatial and temporal scale
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 975
of the environment-human system (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999,
2001). Secondly, ensuring that minimum levels of safeguards for
the environment-human system occur, and thus the prevention of
breaches of critical threshold limits (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999,
2001).
A key mechanism in the achievement of these two criteria is
through carrying capacity. Earlier in the paper, the notion of
carrying capacity was introduced in respect to the Standardization
paradigm for the use of quantitative methods of impact identi-
cation. Specically, in ensuring that the potential limits of the
environment-human system were not exceeded, which in turn can
lead towards the path of unsustainability. It is now appropriate,
within the context of Pessimization paradigm, to explore the
concept of carrying capacity and its relevance to impact identi-
cation methodologies.
The use of the long-term environmental factors over short-term
market forces are the primary determining factors in the
management of land-use and resources (Rees, 1990). In order to
achieve this, the hope is that the EIA process will provide envi-
ronmental information that will help.to take actions that protect,
restore and enhance the environment (Steinemann, 2001). This
means that, the conservation, rehabilitation and management of
the environment can be achieved. However, such a process must
reect the capabilities of the environment to repair itself, to
a condition which is equivalent or as near as possible, to that
existing before the intervention and impact of humans. It should
also assist the environment to a pre-existing condition by natural
mechanisms only, and not through the use of social homeopathic
remedies (Schellnhuber, 1998). This is the concept of society
introducing environmental modications in order to assist in the
repair of the environment following damage caused by human
activities, e.g. backlling and landscaping in the post-management
stage for a former open pit mining operation to an anthropogenic-
derived visualisation of the environment. However, this reduces the
individual and social perceptions of the true natural condition of
the environment, and therefore perpetuates the illusion of
unspoiled nature, particularly at areas where environmental
disturbances have occurred (Schellnhuber, 1998). This is therefore
concerned with the preconceptions of humans as to the visual and
physical aspects of what the environment should be.
It is consequently prudent and necessary to obtain a baseline
survey of the pre-existing environment (natural or anthropogeni-
cally modied). A quantitatively-based impact identication
methodology should certainly be able to undertake such an
approach, so that clear positive or negative differences can be
ascertained. However, it should be noted that this principle may be
also extended in respect to impacts of a social nature in respect to
health risks. Steinemann (2000) citing Wingspread (1998) stated
that when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or
the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if
some cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientically.
The use of the precautionary principle is also visible more
generally within the processes and methodological framework of
the EIA, as highlighted in Fig. 1 and Table 2. Snell and Cowell (2006)
argue that scoping is a crucial step in the implementation of the
precautionary principle in the investigation of all potentially
signicant impacts, including secondary, indirect and cumulative.
The use of precautionary principle however does raise questions
concerning how signicance is adjudged by practitioners (Snell &
Cowell, 2006). This however has been addressed to a satisfactory
level by Lawrence (2007). Lawrence (2007) argues that impact
signicance changes to a large extent when applying the precau-
tionary principle. At the very least, such judgements of signicance
are more tentative and cautious (Lawrence, 2007). Indeed, there is
greater emphasis given to uncertainty and harm avoidance in
determining impact signicance in respect to scoping, screening,
comparison of alternatives, and in the evaluation of need in respect
to migration and/or monitoring (Lawrence, 2007 citing Tickner,
1998). Nevertheless, the precautionary principle is controversial as
Lawrence (2007) observes, because it is not a unitary concept
(ORiordan & Jordan, 1995). This is due to it being open to inter-
pretation, and justifying everything from minimal changes to the
rejection of a project (Lawrence, 2007). However, from a geo-
cybernetic perspective, the use of the precautionary principle can be
a useful tool in ensuring all relevant information is available to make
the best judgement in order to achieve sustainable development.
This is on the proviso that the following two points are adhered to:
1). The precautionary principle is supported, and is based upon
a clear, objective rationale of evidence gathered in an appropriate
manner; and 2). The assumptions and judgements made, including
those values associated with the conclusions drawn from such
evidence, are reasonable and objective given the level of knowledge
and understanding at the time of the assessment.
The use of qualitative methods (i.e. matrices, networks, check-
lists) are able to address issues concerning secondary, cumulative
or indirect impacts within the context of the Pessimization para-
digm. This is due to the fact that a more human perspective may
require to the value of the affected parameter (i.e. a heathland,
playing space) within the environment-human system. This
approach could ensure that as perfect knowledge as possible, at
the time of the assessment, is collected concerning the impact of
a project upon the environment-human system. It also ensures that
no potentially signicant impact is missed, thus fullling the goal of
the precautionary principle.
Consequently, it would appear that a more prudent approach,
from a geocybernetic perspective, would consist of the following:
1). A quantitative-based method that addresses signicant issues
threatening impacts both locally and further up the scale of the
Earth System in respect to sustainable development; and 2). The
use of a qualitative approach that applies the precautionary prin-
ciple in assessing impacts of a secondary, cumulative or indirect
nature, as well as impacts of an intrinsic nature and value to the
local area, or further up the Earth System (i.e. historical/cultural,
rare or endangered species, community space). This approach
would satisfy the precautionary principle, which is fundamental to
the Pessimization paradigmfor achieving the minimumstandard of
safe operation of the Earth System(Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001).
In respect to the application of this approach, the work of
Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b) entrenches this perspective in respect
to the mathematical model of sustainable development. The model
clearly denes the fact that there are limits to the operation of the
environment as well as to the development and progress of human
society based on the available environment to support it. This
reects the concept of carrying capacity, as well as the notion of
weak and strong sustainability in that human capital is dependent
on the available natural capital. Within the context of EIA therefore,
the identication of impacts and their level is dependent on
obtaining a clear indication of the pre-existing environment-
human system conditions before the proposed project, and the
conditions after the project is operational. Therefore, the models
application to impact identication methodologies, as indicated in
Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d), highlights whether or not the
environment-human system will be signicantly impacted and
whether the goal of achieving meaningful sustainability will occur.
As the environment-human system is multi-layered, the assess-
ment of local impacts and sustainability must consequentially be
properly evaluated, as such impacts may have signicant up further
in the environment-human system with potentially signicant
negative results.
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 976
Equitization paradigm and EIA
The need to preserve options for future generations with respect
to the environment and development is a fundamental concept of
sustainable development. In geocybernetic terms, this is concerned
with the maintenance of the maximum number of paths for
sustainable development available, by not reducing the ability of
the planet Earth to maintain and support life.
Therefore, within the context of the EIA process, the concept of
equity within the present generation and for future generations,
becomes crucial. It is very true to say that a comprehensive analysis
of all potential paths is probably impossible, certainly at present,
although scientic progress is occurring all the time in this regard
(Gallopin, 2003). Hence, the intent of equity within the EIA may be
established in good faith given the information available at the
time. However, this can only occur when the precautionary prin-
ciple is utilised alongside an objective rationale for methodology,
judgement, evaluation and conclusion. Nevertheless, how can EIA
through the Equitization paradigm assist in the attainment of
sustainable development? Referring to George (1999), this question
can be answered.
George (1999) argues that in the case of intergenerational
equity, this is one of the fundamental pillars of the principles of
sustainable development, and which was a core theme within the
Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). However, the notion of equity
within development or intragenerational equity, whilst not as
clearly dened as a theme within the Brundtland Report, it is
nevertheless sufcient to be regarded as another fundamental
pillar of sustainable development. As a result, these pillars were
seen to be so essential to the concept (George, 1999), that both were
combined in order to provided the revised denition of sustainable
development within Principle 3 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development (United Nations, 1992). This states
that sustainable development is to equitably meet developmental
and environmental needs of present and future generations
(United Nations, 1992). The denition resolves the issue of ensuring
that development was equitable and sustainable at the same time,
in light of global environmental constraints (George, 1999).
Consequently, it could be argued that EIA can full both compo-
nents of the Rio denition in that: 1). It can assess whether or not
a project is likely to have a signicant negative impact upon the
environment; and 2). Whether the project will be equitable for
future generations and the present generation, in that order
(George, 1999).
EIA can therefore be a useful tool in the attainment of sustain-
able development in terms of intra and intergenerational equity.
This is because EIA contains many of the components necessary to
operationalise intergenerational and intragenerational equity
(Bruhn-Tysk & Eklund, 2002). It therefore, provides a basis to begin
to achieve paths of co-evolution between the environment and
humans that are naturally and socially equitable. However, as
social, economic and technological knowledge improves, this may
provide the ability to change to better co-evolutionary path options
to strengthen the role of equity within the environment-human
system.
Stabilization paradigm and EIA
The attainment and effective management of the environment-
human system, once in a desired state, is crucial if there is to be
sustainable development. The fact that EIA by itself is unable to
achieve this is apparent, as it is a tool for impact analysis (Glasson
et al., 2005). Therefore, the continuous day-to-day activities have to
be managed and regulated in a systematic approach through
appropriate environmental management plans and tools, such as
through ISO 14001. This ensures that appropriate processes and
procedures occur in order to ensure environmental best practice
management. However, recent literature has begun to make strong
links between EIA and Environmental Management Systems
(EMSs) which begins to fall within the remit of the geocybernetic
paradigm of Stabilization.
The developing relationship between EIAs and EMSs has been
recognised within the literature due to the ability of each to
contribute to the other. This is not necessarily a surprise to Sanchez
and Hacking (2002) given the common features between them
with respect to impact identication. Consequently, an EIA should
be capable of delivering improvements in environmental man-
agement. However, this is only if the predictive and preventative
planning aspects of the EIA can be utilised in the construction and
operation of the project (Bailey, 1997). The EIA of a proposed project
is therefore provides the initial starting point for the EMS (Glasson
et al., 2005). The stated thresholds within the impact identication
phase (e.g. levels of emissions) can be transferred as the dened
targets within the EMS, once the project is operational (Glasson
et al., 2005). This is also the case in the vice versa scenario when
wishing to open and operate a similar facility elsewhere. Further,
it does provide for the opportunity and ability to use a signicance
weighting approach, which would inform the identifying of ac-
tions and objectives for effective environmental management
(McDonach & Yaneske, 2002). The use of the Precautionary Prin-
ciple is therefore crucial to this, particularly as the methodology to
determine the signicance of impacts within EMS is not uniform
(McDonach & Yaneske, 2002). Consequently, given the importance
in setting targets in the pursuit of best environmental performance
in EMSs, the use of quantitative impact identication approaches
(as discussed in the Standardization paradigm) may provide the
reasonable solution to the problem of uniformity in signicance
weightings. This is of particular importance in the implementation
of proposed measures in the EIS (Environmental Impact State-
ment), in the production of enforceable commitments that the EMS
achieves through veriable actions (Sanchez & Hacking, 2002).
Within the context of the Stabilization paradigm, impact iden-
tication methods may also have a role in the balancing of human
needs with those of the environment. This can be achieved by the
application of appropriate strategic techniques and implementa-
tion, in order to ensure effective management of both the envi-
ronment and human endeavors. This, as Gallopin (2003) states, is
about good management via the conversion of sustainable devel-
opment to sustainability, i.e. balancing the components of the
Earth System and achieving a desirable path for sustainable
development to occur.
In respect to appropriate examples, Phillips (2009, 2010a,
2010d) utilised the results obtained from EIAs that adopted the
BEES method to evaluate project. The evaluation of the proposed
project with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was part of
the assessment of potential impacts. The inclusion of EMPs, within
the impact identication process, provided the opportunity to
evaluate the effectiveness of such plans in the attainment of
sustainable development through the application of the model. In
the case study of Caneli Dongor mine used in Phillips (2009, 2010d),
it showed that the inclusion of an EMP certainly minimised the
level of potential impacts, but no more than that. In point of fact,
the level of ecological sustainable development decreased slightly
compared to the baseline by 0.002. In the case of mining, this could
be considered as very reasonable given the signicant impacts
which mining creates in terms of environmental, social and
economic. However, an EMP should be able to improve the existing
environment-human system for the present and future genera-
tions, in line with the Equitization paradigm. This occurred in the
case study of the Bangalore Metro Rail Scheme evaluated in Phillips
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 977
(2009, 2010a). The results indicated a conversion from unsustain-
ability in the Before Project scenario, to values indicating strong
sustainability in the With Project-With EMP scenario. Therefore,
this indicated a signicant improvement in the environment-
human system, and a strong contribution towards meaningful
sustainable development.
The inclusion of a proper environmental management frame-
work, within the impact identication phase of an EIA, can provide
signicant indications whether or not sustainable development is
achievable and long-term. However, this must be achieved through
an appropriate mechanism to determine sustainable development,
such as the mathematical model developed and applied in Phillips
(2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d).
Conclusion: practical potential of the new relationship
It is reasonable to conclude that impact identication method-
ologies of EIA do have a sufciently robust role to play in the
attainment of sustainable development through the geocybernetic
paradigms, particularly where clear standards or limits are
imposed. EIAs can ensure that the impact upon the environment is
minimised by means of the attainment and maintenance of
minimum standards of operation, via the use of the precautionary
principle. Further, the primary goal of EIAs is the operation of the
Earth System at the highest possible level, including the co-
evolution and operation of the environment-human system.
However, there is a critical question that needs to be taken into
account in respect to the spatial dimension of the Earth System:
To what extent can local level impacts can have upon the Earth
System by disrupting the delicate balance within a system, or in
several systems? - i.e. transboundary impacts; and also, how well
are EIAs able to take into account such effects? According to
Devuyst (2000), one of the mechanisms for achieving sustainable
development is through (environmental) impact assessment.
Devuyst (2000) stresses that there is a need for an instrument
which can be called Sustainability Assessment which examines
if human activities will lead to a more sustainable society.
However, Sustainability Assessment makes only sense when
linked to an assessment framework (Devuyst, 2000). Therefore,
it would make sense if such a framework is based upon a set of
clear principles of the environmentehuman relationship using
Geocybernetics.
It is only at the local level that reasonable attainment of objec-
tive precision can be undertaken. Schellnhuber (1998) supports this
by stating that impacts at the local level accumulate in order to
make regional or global impacts upon the Earth System. Humans
are therefore capable of affecting the Earth System at all scales,
starting at the local level. This is because humans cause patches of
local environmental impacts, which over time produce large-scale
areas of degradation and operational disruption of the environment
(Schellnhuber, 1998). Examples of this process would include
tropical deforestation, the ozone layer hole, variable warming of the
planet etc.
Therefore, within the context of the Standardization and Stabi-
lization paradigms, suitable control at the local level may have
a sufcient effect in the mitigation and effective management of the
human factor upon the Earth System, and in the promotion of
sustainable development. By using the Standardization paradigm
as the basis, a set of environmental, social and economic parame-
ters which reect the local level situation can be employed. These
should consider the potential impacts of any new project, changes
to the local environment and the surrounding areas if relevant, and
any impacts further up to the scale of the Earth System. Even the
smallest local environmental impact may have signicant effects
further up the Earth System.
It is important however when following such an approach, that
the differing specic environmental conditions are properly acco-
unted for. Therefore, an approach that reects the actual balance of
the components is required. This would suggest that the use of
weighted approaches in conjunction with the use of Delphi meth-
odology, is an entirely reasonable strategy to employ within the
context of impact identication methodologies and Geocybernetics.
This approach would be able to model local conditions and the
potential impacts at the local and larger geographical scale.
In conclusion, the crux of Geocybernetics is about the mini-
misation of local impacts that have the potential to become larger
impacts up to the scale of the whole Earth System. Even if small
environmental changes at local level may seem insignicant in
comparison to the entire Earth System, they can in the longer term
produce signicant results, such as changes in human behaviour
towards the Earth System as a whole. If an EIA, and specically
impact identication methodologies, can be used in a more
objective way through using Geocybernetics, then the fundamental
goal of sustainable development will be a step closer - the co-
evolution of the environment and humans.
References
Abdel Wahaab, R. (2003). Sustainable development and environmental impact
assessment in Egypt: historical assessment. The Environmentalist, 23, 49e70.
Asian Development Bank (ADB). (1997). Overview. In Environmental impact assess-
ment for developing countries in Asia, Vol. 1. Manila, Philippines: Asian Devel-
opment Bank. http://www.adb.org.vn/Documents/Books/Environment_Impact/
chap3.pdf [12.12.06].
Baba, A. (2003). Geothermal environmental impact assessment with special reference
to the Tuzla geothermal area, Canakkale, Turkey. Reykjavik, Iceland: Geothermal
Training Programme, The United Nations University. Accessed from. www.
unugtp.is/solole/1421 [03.11.09].
Bailey, J. (1997). Environmental impact assessment and management: an under-
explored relationship. Environmental Management, 21, 317e327.
Bisset, R. (1978). Quantication, decision-making and environmental impact
assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 7, 43e58.
Bisset, R. (1988). Developments in EIA methods. In P. Walthern (Ed.), Environmental
impact assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 47e61). London: Routledge.
Summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Global change and the human
prospect: issues in population science, technology, and equity. (1992). In
C. Blackburn (Ed.). The Scientic Research Society.
Bruhn-Tysk, S., & Eklund, M. (2002). Environmental impact assessment - a tool for
sustainable development?: a case study of biofuelled energy plants in Sweden.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 129e144.
Canter, L. (1996). Environmental impact assessment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
Clark, B. D., Chapman, K., Bisset, R., & Walthern, P. (1979). Environmental impact
assessment. In D. Lovejoy (Ed.), Land-use and landscape planning (pp. 53e87).
Glasgow: Leonard Hill.
Clark, W. C. (1989). Managing planet earth. Scientic American, 261, 46e54.
Dalal-Clayton B. 1992. Modied EIA and Indicators of Sustainability: rst steps
towards sustainability analysis. Twelfth Annual Meeting of the International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Washington D.C., 19the22nd
August 1992.
Dee, N., Baker, J. K., Drobny, N. L., Duke, K. M., Whitman, I., & Fahringer, D. C. (1973).
An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water
Resources Research, 9, 523e535.
Devuyst, D. (2000). Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the
local level: The introduction of sustainability assessment systems. http://www.vub.
ac.be/MEKO/publications/linkingiasd.doc [25.04.08].
Dovers, S. (2002). Too deep a SEA? Strategic environmental assessment in the era of
sustainability. In S. Marsden, & S. Dovers (Eds.), Strategic environmental
assessment in Australasia. Leichhardt: The Federation Press.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1981). Impact of population growth. Science,
171(3977), 1212e1217.
Folchi R. 2003. Environmental impact statement for mining with explosives: A
quantitative method. I.S.E.E 29th Annual Conference on Explosive and Blasting
Technique, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., 2e5 February 2003.
Gallopin, G. (2003). A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development.
Sustainable development and human settlements division. Santiago, Chile: United
Nations.
George, C. (1999). Testing for sustainable development through environmental
assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 175e200.
Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment: Cutting edge for the twenty-rst
century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to environmental impact
assessment (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 978
Goodland, R. (1994). Environmental sustainability and the power sector. Impact
Assessment, 12, 275e304.
Goyal, S. K., & Deshpande, V. A. (2001). Comparison of weight assignment proce-
dures in evaluation of environmental impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 21, 553e563.
Hacking T. 2004. The Right Hand Rule for impact assessment: A framework for
clarifying the meaning of integrated, triple bottom-line and sustainability
assessment. IAIA04: Whose business is it?, 24e30th April 2004, Vancouver,
Canada.
Heikkila, K. (2004). Environmental impact assessment using a weighting method
for alternative air-conditioning systems. Building and Environment, 39,
1133e1140.
Hobbs, B. F., & Voelker, A. H., 1978. Analytical multiobjective decision-making
techniques and power plant siting: A survey and critique. Prepared for the
Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (2002). Topic 6 e Impact
analysis, EIA training resources Manual (2nd ed.). http://www.iaia.org/Non_
Members/EIA/ManualContents/Sec_E_Topic_6.PDF [13.01.06].
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). (2008). Environ-
mental Impact Assessment (EIA). http://www.iema.net/download/readingroom/
ebrief/Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment/Environmental%20Impact%
20Assessment%20ebrief.doc [09.04.08].
Lawrence, D. P. (1993). Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: a false
dichotomy? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13, 3e11.
Lawrence, D. P. (1997a). Integrating sustainability and environmental impact
assessment. Environmental Management, 21, 23e42.
Lawrence, D. P. (1997b). The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 17, 79e107.
Lawrence, D. P. (2007). Impact signicance determination - pushing the boundaries.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.w007.02.010.
Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: techniques and application.
http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook [13.04.06].
McDonach, K., & Yaneske, P. P. (2002). Environmental management systems and
sustainable development. The Environmentalist, 22, 217e226.
Munn, R. E. (1979). Environmental impact assessment: Principles and procedures (2nd
ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Noorbakhsh, F., & Ranjan, S. (1999). A model for sustainable development: inte-
grating environmental impact assessment and project planning. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 17, 283e293.
Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). (2004). NWMO backgrounds
papers: 7e11 Methodologies for assessing spent nuclear fuel management
options. http://www.nwmo.ca/default.aspx? DN597,211,199,20,1,Documents
[13.01.06].
ORiordan, T. (2000). The sustainability debate. In T. ORiordan (Ed.), Environmental
science for environmental management (2nd ed.). (pp. 29e63) London: Prentice
Hall.
ORiordan, T., & Jordan, A. (1995). The precautionary principle in contemporary
environmental politics. Environmental Values, 4, 191e212.
Pastakia, C. M. R. (1998). The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) e a new tool
for environmental impact assessment. Accessed from. http://www.pastakia.
com/riam/publication.html [03.06.06].
Pastakia, C. M. R., & Jensen, A. (1998). The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM)
for EIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 461e482.
Phillips, J. 2009. The development and application of a geocybernetic model of
sustainability. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dept. of Geography (Streatham Campus)
and Camborne School of Mines (Cornwall Campus), University of Exeter: United
Kingdom.
Phillips, J. (2010a). The advancement of a mathematical model of sustainable
development. Sustainability Science, 5, 127e142.
Phillips, J. (2010b). A mathematical model of sustainable development using ideas
of coupled environment-human systems (Invited Article). The Pelican Webs
Journal of Sustainable Development, 6. May 2010, Available from. http://www.
pelicanweb.org/solisustv06n05page2jasonphillips.html.
Phillips, J. (2010c). Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development for
a geothermal power plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14,
2414e2427.
Phillips, J. (2010d). Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development of
a mining operation: a new approach using the ideas of coupled environment-
human systems. International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering, 2(3),
215e238.
Pope J. 2003. Sustainability assessment: What is it and how do we do it?
Proceedings of the International Sustainability Conference in Perth, Western
Australia, 17the19th September 2003, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle,
Western Australia.
Pope, J., Annandale, D., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2004). Conceptualising environ-
mental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 595e616.
Rees, W. E. (1990). Economics, ecology, and the role of environmental assessment in
achieving sustainable development. In P. Jacobs, & B. Sadler (Eds.), Sustainable
development and environmental assessment: Perspectives on planning a common
future (pp. 123e141), Background Paper for the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Research Council.
Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al.
(2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472e475.
Rossouw, N. (June 2003). A review of methods and generic criteria for determining
impact signicance. African Journal of Environmental Assessment and Manage-
ment, 6, 44e61.
Sanchez, L. E., & Hacking, T. (2002). An approach to linking environmental impact
assessment and environmental management systems. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 20, 25e38.
Sadler, B. (1999). A framework for environmental sustainability assessment and
assurance. In J. Petts (Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Envi-
ronmental impact assessment: Process, methods and potential, Vol. 1 (pp. 12e32).
London: Blackwell.
Sadler, B. (2003). EIA and sustainability. Newsletter, 18. EIA Unit, University of
Manchester, United Kingdom.
Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1998). Part 1: earth system analysis e the concept. In
H.-J. Schellnhuber, & V. Wenzel (Eds.), Earth system analysis: Integrating science
for sustainability (pp. 3e195). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1999). Earth system analysis and the second Copernican revo-
lution. Nature, 402, C19eC23, Millennium Supplement, 2nd December 1999.
Schellnhuber, H.-J. (2001). Earth system analysis and management. In E. Ehlers, &
T. Kraft (Eds.), Understanding the earth system: Compartments, processes and
interactions (pp. 17e55). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Schellnhuber, H.-J., & Kropp, J. (1998). Geocybernetics: controlling a complex
dynamic system under uncertainty. Naturwissenschaften, 85, 411e425.
Shopley, J. B., & Fuggle, R. F. (1984). A comprehensive review of current environ-
mental impact assessment methods and techniques. Journal of Environmental
Management, 18, 25e47.
Sippe, R. (1999). Criteria and standards for assessing signicant impact. In J. Petts
(Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Environmental impact
assessment: Process, methods and potential, Vol. 1 (pp. 74e92). London:
Blackwell.
Skutsch, M. M., & Flowerdew, R. T. N. (1976). Measurement techniques in envi-
ronmental impact assessment. Environmental Conservation, 3, 209e217.
Snell, T., & Cowell, R. (2006). Scoping in environmental impact assessment:
balancing precaution and efciency? Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
26, 359e376.
Steinemann, A. (2000). Rethinking human health impact assessment. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 20, 627e645.
Steinemann, A. (2001). Improving alternatives for environmental impact assess-
ment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21, 3e21.
Storey, K. (2005). Course notes on EIA methods. http://www.ucs.mun.ca/wkstorey/
newpage9.htm [11.01.06].
Thompson, M. A. (1990). Determining impact signicance in EIA: a review of 24
methodologies. Journal of Environmental Management, 30, 235e250.
Tickner J. 1998. A commonsense framework for operationalizing the precautionary
principle. The Wingspread Conference - Strategies for implementing the
Precautionary Principle, Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 25th January 1998. United
Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development. UNCED Report A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1. United Nations, New York.
Walthern, P. (1988). An introductory guide to EIA. In P. Walthern (Ed.), Environ-
mental impact assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 3e30). London: Routledge.
Westman, W. E. (1985). Ecology, impact assessment and environmental planning. New
York: Wiley & Sons.
Wingspread. 1998. Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. The
Wingspread Conference e Strategies for implementing the Precautionary
Principle, Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 25th January 1998.
Wolfe, L. D. S. (1987). Methods for scoping environmental impact assessments: A
review of literature and experience. 661 Barnham Road, West Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada: Larry Wolfe Associates. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/
301/ceaa-acee/methods_scoping_enviro/METHODSE.PDF [28.01.06].
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our
common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Youse, H., Ehara, S., Youse, A., & Seiedi, F. (2009). Environmental impact assessment
of Sabalan Geothermal Power Plant, NW Iran. Proceedings of the 34th Workshop
on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
9e11 February 2009. Accessed from: http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/
IGAstandard/SGW/2009/youse.pdf [13.01.09].
J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 979