Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T04:05:11.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Objective and Subjective Judgements in Environmental Impact Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

William H. Matthews
William H. Matthews
Affiliation:
Arthur D. Little Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, U.S.A.; Visiting Faculty Member, Centre d'Etudes Industrielles, 1231 Conches, Geneva, Switzerland.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Analyses of environmental impacts, and descriptions of methodologies for conducting them, have not always been explicitly cognizant of the subjective value-judgements that must be made in the process of collecting, refining, assessing, and presenting, objective scientific information. This paper has outlined the types of objective and subjective judgements that are made in each of the following major steps of the analysis: identifying major activities; selecting environmental components; selecting types of impacts; assessing the possibilities and/or probabilities of occurrences; determining the degree of the impacts; determining the time-frame of impacts; designating impacts as positive, neutral, or negative; and determining trade-offs among activities and impacts.

The subjective judgements that must be made are based on values, feelings, beliefs, and prejudices, and are functions of the personal, institutional, professional, and societal, contexts of the analyst. If great care is not taken in making these judgements, and in making very explicit the value-framework used, the effectiveness and credibility of the analyst may be sharply reduced. There is also the danger that society and its decision-makers will be presented with an analysis having so many built-in biases that the legitimate role of the decision-makers in assessing the analysis and then making important value trade-offs is seriously compromised. This paper has attempted to make the nature of the process of analysis explicit with respect to the introduction and treatment of values, so that these problems can be understood and, it is hoped, properly managed by both scientists and decision-makers.

Information

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Summer 1975, pp. 121 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bagley, M. D. (1972). Aesthetic Assessment Methodology for Environmental Impact Analysis. Technical Note, TN-OED-004, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California: 85 pp.Google Scholar
Baumgold, M. S. & Enk, G. A. (Eds) (1972). Towarda Systematic Approach to Environmental Impact Review. The Institute of Man and Science, Rensselarville, New York: 59 pp.Google Scholar
Bishop, A. B. (1972). An approach to evaluating environmental, social and economic factors in water resources planning. Water Resources Bulletin, 8, pp. 724–35.Google Scholar
Caldwell, L. K. (1968). Biopolitics: science, ethics, and public policy. Pp. 423–35 in The Politics of Science (Ed. Nelson, W. R.). Oxford University Press, New York: x + 495 pp.Google Scholar
Daetz, D. & Schlesinger, B. (1973). A conceptual framework for applying environmental assessment matrix techniques. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 16, pp. 11–6.Google Scholar
Ditton, R. B. & Goodale, T. I. (1972). Environmental Impact Analysis: Philosophy and Methods. Sea Grant Publication WIS-SG-72–111, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay: 171 pp.Google Scholar
Kneese, A. V. & Bower, B. T. (Eds) (1972). Environmental Quality Analysis—Theory and Method in the Social Sciences. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland: ix + 408 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, B. B. & Balsley, J. R. (1971). A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 645, Washington, D.C.: 13 pp.Google Scholar
National Science Board (1971). Environmental Science—Challenge for the Seventies: Third Annual Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: 75 pp.Google Scholar
Neufville, R. De & Stafford, J. (1971). Systems Analysis for Engineers and Managers. McGraw-Hill, New York: xiii + 353 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Quade, R. S. (1970). On the Limitation of Quantitative Analysis. Rand Corporation Report 4530, Santa Monica, California: 77 pp.Google Scholar
Ruckelshaus, W. D. (1974). Yes—the environment can be saved. Saturday Review: World, Fiftieth Anniversary Special Year-end Issue, 12 1974, pp. 38–41.Google Scholar
Sorenson, J. C. & Moss, M. L. (1973). Procedure and Programs to Assist in the Environmental Impact Statement Process. University of Southern California, USC-SG-AS2–73: 38 pp.Google Scholar
Stover, L. V. (1972). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Procedure. STV, Pottstown, Pennsylvania: 25 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (1970). Environmental Quality: First Annual Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1, pp. 243–9.Google Scholar
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (1973). Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines. Federal Register, 38 (147), pp. 20549–62.Google Scholar
Whitman, I. L., Dee, N., Mcginnis, J. T., Fahringer, D. C. & Baker, J. K. (1971). Design of an Environmental Evaluation System. Battelle Columbus Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio: vii + 61 pp.Google Scholar