AN ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE FOR UNCERTAINTY DISCLOSURE AND CONSIDERATION IN CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process designed to predict, and identify means to mitigate, the potential environmental effects of proposed development actions.As a decisionaiding tool, EIA assists decision-makers by providing them with the information needed to make an informed decision about the acceptability of a proposed development.Uncertainty is inherent in any process that is focused on future conditions, but recent research has shown that EIA practitioners do not fully disclose, consider or communicate uncertainties inherent in the EIAs for their development projects.The result is a reduction in the credibility and efficacy of EIA, and decisions potentially being made without full knowledge of, and thus consideration for, such uncertainties.Agencies and scholars have demanded that proponents and practitioners be more explicit about uncertainties in EIA reporting, but there has been no systematic examination of the requirements or guidance made available to practitioners concerning uncertainty reporting in EIA or the types of uncertainties that should be disclosed.The purpose of this research was to examine the provisions for communicating and addressing uncertainty in Canadian EIA.The research was conducted via review of Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial EIA legislation, regulations, and guidelines, which are publically available on the official websites of the corresponding agencies and authorities.Results indicate that requirements and recommendations for uncertainty disclosure and consideration exist in most of Canadian federal, provincial and territorial EIA legislation, regulations and guidelines, but they vary considerably from one jurisdiction to the next.The difference is reflected in many aspects, including: the extent of requirements and recommendations for addressing uncertainty in EIA; iii variability of the provisions given; differences in location of the requirements in legislation versus regulations versus guidelines; and differences in the clarity of requirements.In addition, the requirements and recommendations to manage uncertainty associated with the different stages and components of EIA are inconsistent.Some of the EIA stages were covered better than others, but none of the jurisdictions provided requirements and recommendations for addressing uncertainty in all stages of EIA.The results further indicate that existing requirements and recommendations for uncertainty treatment in Canadian EIA practice are, overall, inadequate and sometimes confusing.This is likely to result in insufficient communication and treatment of uncertainty and decisions being made without consideration of such uncertainty.Therefore, the development of national, standardized best practices and more systematic guidance are, at a minimum, required to ensure that uncertainty is properly addressed and communicated in EIA across EIA jurisdictions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».