EDIAIS :Conference papers

This paper will focus upon 'bridging the gap' between research-oriented contributions to integrated assessments (IAs) and the processes and methods by which practitioners seem able and willing to undertake and use IAs. In other words, it is concerned with the gap between 'supply-driven' and 'demand-driven' approaches to IA and the absence of a clear, shared understanding between them.

The paper will outline one possible approach in helping to resolve this problem. This involves the use of a Common Assessment Framework (CAF) to assist the parties involved in any specific IA to develop a shared understanding of what is to be undertaken, taking into consideration the circumstances of the specific case. The paper will concentrate on strategic-level IAs, which may need to be applied to a diverse range of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs) in very different planning situations. Sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) will be treated as a special category of IA.

The Common Assessment Framework contains three interconnected components, labelled Assessment Context, Assessment Process and Assessment Methodology. The first component involves consideration of those contextual features, which may need to be taken into account in shaping a particular IA/SIA. These features may include: the regulatory, procedural and institutional context within which the assessment is to be undertaken, the characteristics of the PPP to be assessed, and the resources likely to be available for carrying out the assessment.

The second component is concerned with the main stages to be followed in the assessment process, their timing in relation to corresponding stages in the planning process, and the relationship between these two processes and other parallel PPP processes which may impact on development within the study area. One of the conclusions is that the screening and scoping stages are of crucial importance in ensuring that appropriate simplifications are identified at a sufficiently early stage in the assessment process and agreed by appropriate stakeholders and decision-makers.

The third component is concerned with the choice of methods to be used in carrying out a specific assessment. This involves a tasks-methods analysis where, for each assessment task, choices are made between alternative methods, based on such criteria as: the nature of the assessment task; the level of detail and degree of accuracy needed in the assessment; consistency with other methods used for other tasks within the assessment; the data, expertise, time and other resource requirements of each of the alternative methods under consideration; and the transparency, intelligibility and credibility of each method as perceived by decision-makers and stakeholders. There are likely to be many situations where simplification in assessment methods and data requirements can be achieved without loss of appropriate rigour or of broad stakeholder acceptance. Key to this is the role of stakeholder participation (representative and technical) in determining the most appropriate set of assessment methods to be used.

These outline proposals for a Common Assessment Framework need to be further tested, elaborated and refined. A programme of ex post case studies and ex ante trial runs, serving this purpose, would be helpful. A review of existing IA/SIA research activities, based on the CAF approach, may lead to a significant re-ordering of research priorities. This might be followed by the preparation of IA/SIA guidance, supported by case study examples of its application, and the development of training courses using these materials.

to top of page

The Adobe Acrobat Reader can be downloaded by clicking here