MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4382199112 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3088652/v1

Analyzing the Effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment in Paraná, Brazil and California, United States With Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process

2023· preprint· en· W4382199112 on OpenAlexaff
John James Loomis, Maurício Dziedzic

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderNormativeQualitative comparative analysisStakeholder analysisStakeholder engagementSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Process managementManagement scienceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningPublic relationsEngineeringComputer scienceGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become one of the most widespread environmental management instruments. Despite this, EIA is routinely criticized for being ineffective at impacting decision-making. This study compared the EIA systems of Paraná, Brazil and California, United States using the effectiveness dimensions from the EIA literature. This study formats the cases into contextual conditions using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions that cause effective outcomes. These effectiveness outcomes are then ranked by EIA stakeholders via the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to identify stakeholder priorities and to improve stakeholder management. The results show that in Paraná stakeholders identified normative effectiveness as the most important dimension, while stakeholders in California identified this dimension as the second-most important following substantive effectiveness. Public participation was found to be a necessary condition for both substantive and normative effectiveness to occur. Early project definition was found to be sufficient for substantive effectiveness and necessary for normative effectiveness, for which stakeholder coordination was a sufficient condition. This suggests that in order for EIA to influence decision-making and foster sustainable development, greater care needs to be taken to actively engage stakeholders in public participation, with clear roles and project design communicated early on, and a clear role for regulatory authority to promote stakeholder coordination for acceptable outcomes. These findings suggest that some effectiveness dimensions are caused by similar conditions, which could help focus stakeholder management efforts and point to new avenues for future EIA effectiveness research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments→French-language works237,207→