lable at ScienceDirect

Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979

Contents lists avai

Applied Geography

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/apgeog

The conceptual development of a geocybernetic relationship between sustainabledevelopment and Environmental Impact Assessment

Jason PhillipsCollege of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter e Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, United Kingdom

Keywords:GeocyberneticsSustainable developmentEnvironmental Impact Assessment

E-mail address: jp1@tiscali.co.uk.

0143-6228/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.015

a b s t r a c t

The imprecise nature of sustainable development is often a cause for concern. This concern has howevernot 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 andsustainable development.

The paper discusses the conceptual development of a geocybernetic perspective of the relationshipbetween sustainable development and EIAs in respect to impact identification methodologies. The paperconsiders the five fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, uses relevantliterature to support the relationships found, and provides examples to support the relationshipsdeveloped 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 utilisingthe geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development, asdeveloped and highlighted by Schellnhuber (1998, 1999, 2001) andSchellnhuber and Kropp (1998). The paper intends to develop thisrelationship in respect to impact identification methodologies. Thisis the key to the conducting and performance of an EIA, as thewholepoint of conducting an EIA is the identification of potential or actualimpacts of a proposed or current project. In addition, impact iden-tification methodologies are capable of being used elsewhere in theEIA process (Fig. 1). This includes determining the scoping of rele-vant issues and impacts, as well as the making of recommendationsfor corrective action and/or mitigation. Therefore, it is appropriateand necessary to underpin the use of such methodologies asa mechanism towards the evaluation and attainment of sustainabledevelopment.

The paper reflects and forms a key part of a larger body ofresearch. This research has been concerned with the developmentandapplicationof amathematicalmodelof sustainabledevelopmentas detailed in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d). Conse-quently, the paper underpins the conceptual basis for the applicationof the model in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d), in the quanti-tative evaluation of the level and nature of sustainable development

All rights reserved.

of local level projects using quantitative-based EIAs. The paperintends to achieve its intended purpose in the following ways:

1. Outline the interference made to the attainment of sustainabledevelopment through EIA within the current literature.

2. Outline the concept of Geocybernetics, and specifically the fivefundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainable devel-opment, as developed by Schellnhuber (1998, 1999, 2001).

3. Outline the concept of EIA in respect to the process, theconcepts of impact and significance, and the fundamentalmethodologies of impact identification.

4. Apply conceptually the five fundamental geocybernetic para-digms of sustainable development in respect to the role and useof impact identification methodologies.

5. Where relevant, highlight the geocybernetic relationshipbetween sustainable development and EIA with appropriateexamples, 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 sustainabledevelopment.

Introduction

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has undergonea transformation from evaluating purely environmental impacts, toalso evaluating economic and social issues. Today’s EIA tends to bea more integrated instrument of environmental, economic and

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) 969e979970

social issues of development, as well as having legislative authority.Conducting an EIA is now required before any significant or majordevelopment proceeds in a growing number of countries.

EIAs has significantlychanged and improvedover recent years, tosuch an extent thatmanyargue that EIAs can beused for the purposeof assessing the extent of sustainable development occurring (AbdelWahaab, 2003; Dalal-Clayton, 1992; Glasson, Therivel, & Chadwick,

2005; Lawrence, 1997b; Sadler, 2003). Glasson et al. (2005) arguesthat theEIA is oneof the instruments capable of achieving the goal ofsustainable development. This is due to the accepted belief thatenvironmental assessments can make valuable contributionstowards sustainability (Pope, Annandale, & Morrison-Saunders,2004), as “environmental impacts are at the core of sustainabilityconcerns” (Sadler, 1999). However, the underlying critical problem

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 971

with this, in that there is no clear agreement regarding whatsustainable development actually is (O’Riordan, 2000).

Therefore, the absence of an adequate conceptual frameworkwhich formally provides an objective understanding of the rela-tionship between sustainable development and EIAs, has createdthe unfortunate position of ‘so near, but yet so far’. Geocyberneticshowever may be of enormous value in the development ofa conceptual framework for the objective use of EIAs in order toachieve sustainable development.

Geocybernetics has been instrumental in the conceptualisation,modelling and assessment of the Earth System. If an approachbased on the fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainabledevelopment could be developed for use with EIAs, then this couldoffer potential opportunities and benefits for the practical appli-cation and management of sustainable development.

Theory and context

The concept of geocybernetics

Geocybernetics is defined by Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998) as:“the art of controlling the complex dynamic Earth System underuncertainties of all kinds”. This means that if it is the intention ofhumanity to live on the Earth for the maximum possible amount oftime, then the prudent and effective use of resources must occur atall spatial and temporal scales. Schellnhuber (1998) argues that thisis about the co-evolution between N (ecosphere) and A (anthro-posphere), where the ecosphere is the environment and theanthroposphere is the humanworld and society. However this maybe perceived or viewed, it still boils down to the same criticalconcept in essence - the concept of sustainable development.

Geocybernetics is primarily concerned with the answers to twoquestions: ‘what kind of aworld dowewant?’ and ‘whatmustwedoto get there?’ (Blackburn, 1992; Clark, 1989 cited by Schellnhuber,1998). Schellnhuber and Kropp (1998) state with respect to thesequestions, that various approaches towards sustainable develop-ment are required. These could be identified as thefive fundamentalgeocybernetic paradigms of sustainable development (as shown inTable 1), within which all conjectures, theories, strategies ofsustainable development can be placed (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999).

The five fundamental geocybernetic paradigms of sustainabledevelopment can be summarised as follows:

StandardizationThis paradigm provides for the application of sustainable

development via instruments such as sustainability indicators. Theco-evolutionary path of theN-A system (to be referred to in the restof the paper as the environment-human system for the purpose ofsimplicity) is considered to be correct, if the values of the indicatorsoccur within the ‘safe range’ limits of the system (Gallopin, 2003).

OptimizationThis paradigm is concerned with the obtainment of the “best”

design for the environment-human system. This is achieved by

Table 1A table of the notation and qualification of the five fundamental geocyberneticparadigms of sustainable development, as described by Schellnhuber (1998).

Symbol Name of paradigm Positive goal Negative motive

P0 Standardization Order DespotismP1 Optimization Prosperity GreedP2 Pessimization Security CowardiceP3 Equitization Fairness JaundiceP4 Stabilization Reliability Indolence

choosing the optimal path for co-evolution over a fixed period oftime (Gallopin, 2003; Schellnhuber, 1999).

PessimizationThis paradigm is about looking to undertake the smallest

amount of damage for the maximum amount of potential benefit -the precautionary principle (Gallopin, 2003). It is therefore the leastspeculative andmost essential concept for the development of a setof minimum standards for the safe operation of the Earth System(Schellnhuber, 1999).

EquitizationThis paradigm is in essence the Brundtland notion - the preser-

vation of options for future generations (Gallopin, 2003). Thus, thenotion of “equity” is associated with equality of the environmentaland developmental options for future generations (Gallopin, 2003).

StabilizationThis is concerned with the intent to bring the environment-

human system into a desirable state of co-evolution, and thenmaintain it through the use of good management (Gallopin, 2003).

Environmental Impact Assessment

The EIA processEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is “a systematic process

that examines the environmental consequences of developmentaction, in advance” (Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, the EIA asGlasson et al. (2005), Munn (1979) and Walthern (1988) suggest, isa process that is “systematic, holistic and multidisciplinary”(Glasson et al., 2005), and is cyclical in nature requiring feedbackand interaction throughout.

The key elements of the cyclic process of EIA are outlined inFig. 1, and described in a little more detail in Table 2.

Impact and significance in the EIAIn 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 Significance.

The concept of ‘what is an impact?’ is a key component of theEIA. An EIA is primarily concerned with identifying, predicting andmanaging impacts. Walthern (1988) provides a detailed descriptionof what an impact is within the context of an EIA. An impact has“.both spatial and temporal components, and can be described asthe change in an environmental parameter, over a specified periodand within a defined area, resulting from a particular activitycompared with the situation which would have occurred had theactivity not been initiated” (Walthern, 1988). This, from a geo-cybernetic viewpoint, provides for the necessary context for thedetermination and management of local level impact within theEarth System. However, any project can have an impact (positive ornegative) upon the environment. Therefore, the key questionbecomes ‘how significant is that impact?’

Rossouw (2003) states that “significance as a concept is at thecore of impact identification, prediction, evaluation and decision-making.”. However, there is currently no consensus amongstpractitioners on how to assess significance internationally(Rossouw, 2003), which is a view that Thompson (1990) concurswith. So, how is significance defined or understood?

Gilpin (1995) states that significance is ‘something outside ofacceptable limits’, where the acceptable levels in the physical andsocial sciences statistically is considered to be 5%. However, wherethe loss of an ecological habitat is involved, this can pose presentproblems, particularly in the case of rare or endangered species orin the loss of a perceived magnificent vista (Gilpin, 1995). Rossouw

Table 2A table outlining the key steps in the conducting of and basic purpose of each step ofan EIA, based on Glasson et al. (2005). It should be noted that the order of the stepsof the process may vary in accordance with the project/development underconsideration.

Screening An initial assessment to decide whether a projectrequires an EIA based on current legislation and/orsignificance of potential impacts.

Scoping All of the potential impacts and alternatives identified,and those that are highly significant to be addressedwithin the terms of reference and feasibility studies

Assessmentof impacts

The identification, prediction, evaluation and analysis ofsignificance of the impacts.Requires the description of the project, theenvironmental baseline determined before the aboveis 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 createdby the project/development.

Reporting The presentation of the results of the EIA in anappropriate and useable format e theEnvironmental 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 currentand existing plans, policies and legislation.

Decision-making The consideration of the proposal with all appropriateand relevant materials by the appropriate authorityin order to determine whether or not the project/development can proceed, and the attachments of anyconditions necessary to minimise environmental impacts.

Monitoring &managing

The implementation of measures to mitigate andmonitor impacts to ensure compliance, as well ascheck to see if impacts were as predicted and takeaction if necessary to ameliorate any problems.

Public consultation& participation

This is important throughout the entire process, andtypically occurs during the scoping and review, butcan and should occur at all stages of the EIA process,in order to ensure continued ‘quality, comprehensivenessand effectiveness of the EIA’ (Glasson et al., 2005), and inorder to ensure the views of the public are adequatelytaken into account, particularly in the decision-making stage.Such public involvement must though be undertakenin a manner that is appropriate to the culture of thepeople involved.

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979972

(2003) citing Sippe (1999) argues on the hand that significance canbe simplified into the following common definitional elements:Environmental significance is a value judgement; the extent ofenvironmental significance is dependent upon the impact’s nature;the importance is assessed in the context and terms of bothbiophysical and socio-economic values; and the determination ofsignificance involves the amount of change to the environment thatis perceived to be acceptable to the affected communities.

Significance consequently tends to be an anthropogenic conceptand thus highly subjective, as it depends upon the judgement of theassessor(s). However, such judgements are based on the accumu-lated knowledge and experience of the assessor(s), coupled witha strong influence of the likely reaction of the public and the media(Gilpin, 1995). Nevertheless, without a consistent definition ofsignificance, a concept at the core of the EIA, any inference tosustainable development may be of little value. As a result, there isa need for a clear conceptual framework to draw such inferences.

Impact identification in the EIA ProcessImpact identification is concerned with the characterisation and

baseline environmental conditions. This ensures that all environ-mental impacts that can potentially occur, whether adverse or

beneficial, are identified and are able to be taken into accountwithin the EIA process (Glasson et al., 2005). Methodologies ofimpact identification are either quantitative or qualitative innature. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assess-ment (IEMA) states that “quantitative techniques tend to involvea prescriptive method being set out and followed, whereas quali-tative techniques rely less upon a prescribed method insteadrelying heavily upon professional judgement” (IEMA, 2008).

The generic methodologies of impact identification 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 wherea team of experts are assembled for a short period of time toperform the EIA. Each expert is able to bring a unique combi-nation of expertise, training and intuition that is able to formconclusions which in turnwill form the final report (ADB,1997).

� Checklists - It is an approach that is widely used in order toensure that a prescribed and comprehensive list of potentialimpacts and effects associated with a specific project ordevelopment are considered within the EIA (NWMO, 2004;Storey, 2005).

� Matrices - In essence, matrices are an expansion of checklistsbut in two dimensions (Glasson et al., 2005; Storey, 2005;Westman, 1985; Wolfe, 1987). Matrices require information inrespect to the environmental components and project activi-ties, which is achieved by subjective judgement by experts, orby the use of extensive databases (ADB, 1997).

� Quantitative methods - “attempts to compare the relativeimportance of all impacts by weighting, standardizing andaggregating them to produce a composite index” (Glasson et al.,2005). The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (Deeet al., 1973) is the most well-known of this type of method.

� Networks - Networks are flowcharts which illustrate theimpacts of the project from actions to end effects (Wolfe, 1987).Hence, they are able to show the causeeeffect relationshipsand environmental characteristics (IAIA, 2002; Wolfe, 1987).Specifically, 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 significance to and communicateimpacts’ (Glasson et al., 2005; Munn, 1979). The overlaysthemselves consist of a number of transparent maps, eachcontaining data of the spatial distribution of a particularenvironmental characteristic/parameter (ADB, 1997).

� GIS - In recent years, GIS has become a very effective tool inrespect to spatial analysis and presentation due to its ability toallow the identification of impacted zones via the overlaytechnique (NWMO, 2004). During the screening, scoping,baseline inventory and monitoring, the use of GIS throughremote sensing can be of significant value (NWMO, 2004).Further, the use of map layers allows for both decision-makersand the public to assess the environmental scenarios con-cerning the project (NWMO, 2004).

Whilst predominantly the generic methodologies listed areassociated with impact identification (Glasson et al., 2005), ashighlighted in Table 3, these approaches can be of significant benefitin the other stages of the EIA process (re: Fig. 1) - impact prediction,evaluation, communication, mitigation, presentation, monitoringand auditing. It is therefore appropriate to collectively term all ofthese processes as ‘impact analysis’ (Glasson et al., 2005).

Table 3A comparison table of methodologies of impact identification, based on and adaptedfrom Glasson et al. (2005).

Criterion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

ChecklistsSimple/Question

Threshold

MatricesSimple

Magnitude

Leopold

Weighted

QuantitativeEES/WRAM þ þ þ þ þNetworkSorenson

Overlay maps

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 973

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. Significant vs. insignificant 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, thesemay be challenged by relevant parties or authorities. i.e. theassumption in Dee et al. (1973) that the certain individualparameters of water quality (e.g. dissolved oxygen at 31 points)is of more significance than employment and housingcombined at 26 points total (based on Glasson et al., 2005).

Results and discussion: the geocybernetic relationshipbetween EIA and sustainable development

Standardization paradigm and EIA

Standardization paradigm is concerned with the potentialcontrol of the environment-human system. This is achieved throughobjectively-derived data and evaluation. In the case of EIA, it refersto impact identification methods which determine the nature andtype of impacts as well as their significance. Therefore, this meansthat 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 ofthe Standardization paradigm, it is necessary to determine theappropriate method(s) of impact identification. With that in mind,the following criterion was developed during the research to meetthis intended goal:

The approach undertaken in respect to impact analysis wouldneed to be such that it is verifiable and repeatable to an acceptabledegree of correlation in terms of: methodology; data collection andassimilation; any modifications and/or assumptions clearly statedand justified; and the conclusions reached and drawn from theavailable data.

Based on this criteria, the research determined that the onlygeneric methodology of impact identification which met thiscriteria was quantitative methods, for the following reasons.

Quantitative methods tend to have an advantage over the othergeneric impact identification methodologies in their ability to‘substantiate’ numerically that a specified course of action is betterthan options (Glasson et al., 2005). Methods which adopt forexample a weighted approach, such as the Battelle EnvironmentalEvaluation System (Dee et al., 1973), are capable of providing a steptowards a more detailed evaluation. This can be further enhancedthrough the participation of relevant multiple stakeholders(Westman,1985), which can be achieved through the application ofa Delphi methodology. This involves a small monitor team whichdesigns a questionnaire that is sent to a larger group to respond(Linstone & Turoff, 2002). After the questionnaire is returned, themonitor team summarises the results, and based upon the resultsobtained, a new questionnaire is designed for the respondent group(Linstone & Turoff, 2002). The respondent group is typically given atleast one opportunity to re-evaluate its original answers basedupon 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 largeproportion 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 alternativesmay however save the time and resources of decision-makers(Glasson et al., 2005). Further, it also provides for the opportunity toensure 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 quantitativemethods fulfil the necessary conditions for the co-evolutionbetween the environment and humans (sustainable development).

Quantitative methods do however have three identified genericweaknesses, as highlighted in the literature:

1. The acceptability of the method is dependent upon theassumptions made, particularly to those using weightings(Glasson et al., 2005). Therefore, there is the possibility ofmanipulation of the results based upon alteration of theassumptions (Bisset, 1978). This is due to, as the potential forinappropriate pressure from internal or external superiors inorder to give favourable assessment (Bisset, 1978).

2. Such methods, tend to break the environment into discreteunits that relate the impacts to specified parameters (Glassonet al., 2005). As a result, information is lost when it isreduced 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).

In respect to these, it is fair to say that each and everymethodwillalways have particular strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979974

of quantitative methods of impact identification however can bereasonably addressed with further reference to the literature.

In respect to Weakness 1, provided that any and all assumptionsare clearly stated, as any rational objective approach wouldundertake, then the method’s context and parameters wouldreflect the local environment and relevant issues accurately.Indeed, the issue of weighting is based upon the use of life-cycleassessment (LCA) (Heikkila, 2004). Therefore, if there is a ‘precise’weight assessment, integration of experts’ opinion based uponclearly defined and exhaustive criterion of impact assessment(Goyal & Deshpande, 2001), then weighting can be an usefuladdition in the conveyance of the level of harmful effects onto theenvironment (Heikkila, 2004).

In respect to Weakness 2, then a review of EIA methods wouldillustrate that the best attempts are those which ‘model’ thepotential impacts and consequences of a project and alternatives,within a constructive framework (Glasson et al., 2005). However,whether suchmethods adopt a qualitative or quantitative approachis critical, due to two issues. The first is whether information is lostdue to an inability to manage data, biased and subjective withimplicit 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 isrespect to indirect impacts, interrelated or cumulative impacts(Lawrence, 1993).

It would therefore be reasonable to say that no method will bea wholly complete list of impacts upon the environment andhumans. Hence, a more prudent approach from a geocyberneticperspective could be to use a combined approach. This would entailthe use of a quantitative method of impact identification in thedetermination of impacts identified as potentially of the mostsignificance, whether positive or negative in nature. This wouldoccur in conjunction with a qualitative approach which wouldevaluate secondary, cumulative or indirect impacts, for the purposeof evaluating the more intangible and subtle impacts. The qualita-tive aspect would consider, for example, the value of a rare specieswithin the context of the local environment and community. Thiscombined approachwill be discussed inmore depth later in respectto the Pessimization paradigm.

In respect to Weakness 3, the nature of quantitative methodsprovides the opportunity to improve objectivity in the EIA process. Ifsuch assessments are conducted in order to identify, predict andexplain potential and actual change, then the evaluation based uponsubjective judgement must be substantiated (Lawrence, 1993).Consequently, any inferencesor conclusionsdrawn fromanobjectiveframework must be capable of being supported through thefollowing: a clear reference to present knowledge; the unbiasedexplanations of the data presented; the presentation of clear state-ments of any assumptions and hypotheses undertaken; and a clearand valid reasoning and justification of previous points. Providedthat 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 justification for the use of quantitative methodsof EIA, in respect to the Standardization paradigm, can be sum-marised in respect the following two points. The first is the fact thatany project must exist within the confinement of the environment-human system, which is reflected by the concept of carryingcapacity (re: Ehrlich & Holdren, 1971) (to be discussed in greaterdepth within the Pessimization Paradigm section) and the recentwork of Rockstrom, Steffen, Noone, and et al. (2009) regardingplanetary boundaries. Hence, any project must not exceed, orcontribute to exceed, the limits of environment-human system atwhatever spatial or temporal context. The adoption of thisapproach 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 theunderstanding and assessment of human activities and environ-ment, as well as a wide range of instruments for action (Lawrence,1997a). Consequently, EIA can be an extremely useful and adaptabletool for the realisation of sustainable development. However, this ison 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 ofmanagement options in order to ensure effective co-evolutionbetween the environment and humans (sustainable development),and the avoidance of catastrophic consequences (i.e. climatechange). Therefore, the potential objectivity of quantitativemethods, can provide a greater opportunity to achieve co-evolutionbetween the environment and humans within the context of theStandardization paradigm. So, how does all of this apply withina ‘real world’ context?

The previous and current research of Phillips (2009, 2010a,2010c, 2010d) provides the basis to demonstrate the applicabilityof this Standardizationparadigm. Thiswas achieved through the useof three quantitative methodologies of impact identification: theBattelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES) (Dee et al., 1973);the Folchi method (Folchi, 2003) and the Rapid Impact AssessmentMatrix (RIAM) (Pastakia, 1998; Pastakia & Jensen, 1998).

The BEES method would certainly appear to be a quantitativemethodology which conforms to the goals of Standardizationparadigm. This is due to the capability of ‘modelling’ the relevantlocal environmental-human system, and highlighting the mostsignificant 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 animprovement or decline in the environmental quality of the loca-tion in respect to the project. This is would be evaluated in respectto the before project scenario compared to the after projectscenario in respect to without and with an EnvironmentalManagement Plan (EMP). From this, it is possible to calculate thechange that has occurred in regards to the before-after scenarios.Therefore, the BEES method offers a potentially powerful tool inthe attainment of sustainable development within the context ofStandardization paradigm. This is due to the fact that clear areas ofweakness can be identified and corrected through appropriateenvironmental management. This has certainly been highlightedby Phillips (2009, 2010a, and 2010d) in that the application of themodel to the BEES method, which has shown considerable promisein the evaluation of sustainable development. In particular, thebefore-after comparison inherent in the BEES method has beensignificant in explaining why calculated values of sustainabledevelopment, derived from the application of the model, haveimproved or deteriorated. This has therefore allowed for theopportunity to highlight potential areas of concerns for thepurpose of improving the obtained values of sustainabledevelopment.

This is also the case with the Folchi method (Folchi, 2003) whichis an impact identification methodology that also adoptsa weighted approach. However, it is industry-specific, designed toevaluate impacts in respect to mining operations. The use of thismethodology has provided a consistent mechanism to evaluate andcompare impacts between mining operations, which is importantgiven the sensitivity concerning issues of sustainable development(environment, social and economic) that are inherent within theindustry. Therefore, the application of the model via the Folchimethod, during the current research, has provided an appropriatemechanism to address the issues at the heart of the concept of‘sustainable mining’.

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 975

The RIAM method on the other hand requires the individualimpacts to be scored by the assessor in respect to two criteria:‘Criteria A’ that denotes the importance to the condition, and whichcan individually change the score obtained; and ‘Criteria B’ thatdetermines the impact value to the situation. From these scores, anoverall ‘Environmental Score’ (ES) is calculated for each individualparameter using a set of simple formulae, and which reflects thenature and level of impact. This ES-value ranges from�108 toþ108,whereby the negative sign refers to a negative impact, and thepositive sign refers to a positive impact. Further, the range reflectsthe level and significance of the impact. Consequently, an ES-valueof �100 would be considered to be a very significant negativeimpact upon the environment. The method, whilst assessor-based,does require clear and transparent justification by the assessor(s)for the scores given based on the data collected (Pastakia, 1998;Pastakia & Jensen, 1998). In Phillips (2009, 2010c), the resultsfrom the RIAM method required some modifications in order toapply the model, due to the potential of negative ES scores. Despitethis, the RIAM method does comply with the Standardizationparadigm. This is because of its capability of being repeatable interms of the results obtained, as well as the in-built featurerequiring clear justification for the scores determined and derived.Further, the RIAM also highlights the nature of impacts and theirsignificance in a clear and transparent way, far more so than in theBEES and Folchi methods. The use of negative and positive valuesdenotes this fact, and consequently provides for a strong indicationof the significance of the impact. The application of the model, inrespect to Phillips (2009, 2010c), has certainly benefited from thisapproach. This is due to the clear highlighting of potential areas ofweakness, following the calculation of the level of sustainabledevelopment for the project being evaluated. In the case of Phillips(2010c), the evaluation of a proposed geothermal power plant inIran produced a result that indicated the project would onlycontribute to very weak sustainability. In point of fact, the valueobtained was bordering on being unsustainability. Therefore, theRIAM assessment of the individual parameters provided strongindications as to why a renewable energy power plant, longthought 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 sufficientevidence to provide the proper context for the model resultsobtained, 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 ofthe optimal path for achieving sustainable development (Gallopin,2003; Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999, 2001). This means having a rangeof different paths available and choosing the best option in the lightof the collected evidence and interpretation. In the case of impactidentification methodologies, this refers to two key issues: the useof alternatives; and the ability of compare the results to othersimilar projects.

Alternatives are regarded within the EIA process as options,choices or courses of action (Steinemann, 2001). In respect to theOptimization paradigm, this means that the EIA should at all timespresent a range of options for the project, such as: differing localitiesor 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 theimpact identification methodology would ensure that a range ofgeocybernetic 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 byarguing that sustainability should be able both to progressivelyreduce 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-forcingmechanism that is concernedwith potential and/or actual impacts ofproposed or current human activities, as well as alternatives, uponthe natural and human environment. Hacking (2004) supports thisby stating: “the need to consider alternatives is another widelypromoted feature of sustainable development directed assess-ments”. Nevertheless, EIA tends rarely to consider alternatives toa project, and instead the project is approved, rejected or passedsubject to impact amelioration (Pope, 2003 citing Dovers, 2002).Therefore, with respect to the Optimization paradigm and EIAs, thereis a need for an appropriate number of alternatives at an early stageof the planning process, since this will provide an opportunity fordetermining the optimal path for sustainable development for anyparticular project. Provided that the paradigm is restricted to thisspecific purpose, then the possibility of preventing into catastrophicconsequences can be prevented. The use of alternatives was high-lighted in Phillips (2009, 2010a, 2010d). Specifically, the BEES eval-uations usedwithin the research contained the following categories:Before Project (the baseline); With Project-Without EMP (Environ-mental Management Plan); and With Project-With EMP. This meantin respect to the application of the model, calculating three separatevalues of sustainable development (environmental or ecological).Through this, it provided an opportunity to compare and contrastbetween the alternatives, as well as evaluating the potentialimprovement 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 oralternatives can also offer the opportunity to fulfil the goal of theOptimization paradigm. This is because it makes it possible to drawlessons, so to ensure that suchmistakes are not repeatedwithin thecurrent proposed project. This from a geocybernetic perspectivemeans that the available paths towards co-evolution of the envi-ronment-human system should be improved, due to the balancingof the needs between environment and humans. In the case of theEIA, this means that the proposed project and/or alternative(s)should be improved in design, and consequently enhances theability of the project or alternative to contribute towards sustain-able development. The opportunity to achieve this is greatlyimproved if a quantitative approach is adopted, as highlighted inthe previous section. This increases the capability for directcomparison to be made through the use of a consistent method ofimpact identification. Consequently, it means that the significantissues in design, location and factors can be highlighted which maybe hindering sustainable development from occurring successfully.An example of this very point is in respect to Phillips (2010c), whichwas concerned with the evaluation of the nature and level ofsustainable development achieved by Sabalan geothermal powerplant. In Phillips (2010c), the results obtained from the SabalanRIAM evaluation (based on Yousefi, Ehara, Yousefi, & Seiedi, 2009),were compared to the model’s application to another RIAM eval-uation for geothermal power plant in Turkey (based on Baba, 2003).Phillips (2010c) highlighted that there was strong indicativeevidence of the potential lack of contribution which geothermalenergy 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 twokeyprinciples. Firstly, ensuring that theminimumamount of impactand consequences occur throughout the spatial and temporal scale

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979976

of the environment-human system (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999,2001). Secondly, ensuring that minimum levels of safeguards forthe environment-human system occur, and thus the prevention ofbreaches of critical threshold limits (Schellnhuber, 1998, 1999,2001).

A key mechanism in the achievement of these two criteria isthrough carrying capacity. Earlier in the paper, the notion ofcarrying capacity was introduced in respect to the Standardizationparadigm for the use of quantitative methods of impact identifi-cation. Specifically, in ensuring that the potential limits of theenvironment-human systemwere not exceeded, which in turn canlead towards the path of unsustainability. It is now appropriate,within the context of Pessimization paradigm, to explore theconcept of carrying capacity and its relevance to impact identifi-cation methodologies.

The use of the long-term environmental factors over short-termmarket forces are the primary determining factors in themanagement of land-use and resources (Rees, 1990). In order toachieve 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). Thismeans that, the conservation, rehabilitation and management ofthe environment can be achieved. However, such a process mustreflect the capabilities of the environment to repair itself, toa condition which is equivalent or as near as possible, to thatexisting before the intervention and impact of humans. It shouldalso assist the environment to a pre-existing condition by naturalmechanisms only, and not through the use of ‘social homeopathicremedies’ (Schellnhuber, 1998). This is the concept of societyintroducing environmental modifications in order to assist in the‘repair’ of the environment following damage caused by humanactivities, e.g. backfilling and landscaping in the post-managementstage for a former open pit mining operation to an anthropogenic-derived visualisation of the environment. However, this reduces theindividual and social perceptions of the true natural condition ofthe environment, and therefore perpetuates the illusion ofunspoiled nature, particularly at areas where environmentaldisturbances have occurred (Schellnhuber, 1998). This is thereforeconcerned with the preconceptions of humans as to the visual andphysical aspects of what the environment should be.

It is consequently prudent and necessary to obtain a baselinesurvey of the pre-existing environment (natural or anthropogeni-cally modified). A quantitatively-based impact identificationmethodology should certainly be able to undertake such anapproach, so that clear positive or negative differences can beascertained. However, it should be noted that this principle may bealso extended in respect to impacts of a social nature in respect tohealth risks. Steinemann (2000) citing Wingspread (1998) statedthat “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health orthe environment, precautionary measures should be taken even ifsome cause and effect relationships are not fully establishedscientifically”.

The use of the precautionary principle is also visible moregenerally within the processes and methodological framework ofthe EIA, as highlighted in Fig. 1 and Table 2. Snell and Cowell (2006)argue that scoping is a crucial step in the implementation of theprecautionary principle in the investigation of all potentiallysignificant impacts, including secondary, indirect and cumulative.The use of precautionary principle however does raise questionsconcerning how significance is adjudged by practitioners (Snell &Cowell, 2006). This however has been addressed to a satisfactorylevel by Lawrence (2007). Lawrence (2007) argues that impactsignificance changes to a large extent when applying the precau-tionary principle. At the very least, such judgements of significanceare “more tentative and cautious” (Lawrence, 2007). Indeed, there is

greater emphasis given to uncertainty and harm avoidance indetermining impact significance in respect to scoping, screening,comparison of alternatives, and in the evaluation of need in respectto migration and/or monitoring (Lawrence, 2007 citing Tickner,1998). Nevertheless, the precautionary principle is controversial asLawrence (2007) observes, because it is not a unitary concept(O’Riordan & Jordan, 1995). This is due to it being open to inter-pretation, and justifying everything from minimal changes to therejection of a project (Lawrence, 2007). However, from a geo-cybernetic perspective, the use of the precautionary principle can bea useful tool in ensuring all relevant information is available to makethe 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 upona clear, objective rationale of evidence gathered in an appropriatemanner; and 2). The assumptions and judgements made, includingthose values associated with the conclusions drawn from suchevidence, are reasonable and objective given the level of knowledgeand 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, cumulativeor indirect impacts within the context of the Pessimization para-digm. This is due to the fact that a more ‘human’ perspective mayrequire to the value of the affected parameter (i.e. a heathland,playing space) within the environment-human system. Thisapproach could ensure that as ‘perfect’ knowledge as possible, atthe time of the assessment, is collected concerning the impact ofa project upon the environment-human system. It also ensures thatno potentially significant impact is missed, thus fulfilling the goal ofthe 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 significant issuesthreatening impacts both locally and further up the scale of theEarth System in respect to sustainable development; and 2). Theuse of a qualitative approach that applies the precautionary prin-ciple in assessing impacts of a secondary, cumulative or indirectnature, as well as impacts of an intrinsic nature and value to thelocal area, or further up the Earth System (i.e. historical/cultural,rare or endangered species, community space). This approachwould satisfy the precautionary principle, which is fundamental tothe Pessimization paradigm for achieving theminimum standard ofsafe operation of the Earth System (Schellnhuber,1998,1999, 2001).

In respect to the application of this approach, the work ofPhillips (2009, 2010a, 2010b) entrenches this perspective in respectto the mathematical model of sustainable development. The modelclearly defines the fact that there are limits to the operation of theenvironment as well as to the development and progress of humansociety based on the available environment to support it. Thisreflects the concept of carrying capacity, as well as the notion ofweak and strong sustainability in that human capital is dependenton the available natural capital. Within the context of EIA therefore,the identification of impacts and their level is dependent onobtaining a clear indication of the pre-existing environment-human system conditions before the proposed project, and theconditions after the project is operational. Therefore, the model’sapplication to impact identification methodologies, as indicated inPhillips (2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2010d), highlights whether or not theenvironment-human system will be significantly impacted andwhether 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 beproperly evaluated, as such impacts may have significant up furtherin the environment-human system with potentially significantnegative results.

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 977

Equitization paradigm and EIA

The need to preserve options for future generations with respectto the environment and development is a fundamental concept ofsustainable development. In geocybernetic terms, this is concernedwith the maintenance of the maximum number of paths forsustainable development available, by not reducing the ability ofthe planet Earth to maintain and support life.

Therefore, within the context of the EIA process, the concept ofequity within the present generation and for future generations,becomes crucial. It is very true to say that a comprehensive analysisof all potential paths is probably impossible, certainly at present,although scientific progress is occurring all the time in this regard(Gallopin, 2003). Hence, the intent of equity within the EIA may beestablished in good faith given the information available at thetime. 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 EIAthrough the Equitization paradigm assist in the attainment ofsustainable development? Referring to George (1999), this questioncan be answered.

George (1999) argues that in the case of intergenerationalequity, this is one of the fundamental pillars of the principles ofsustainable development, and which was a core theme within theBrundtland Report (WCED, 1987). However, the notion of equitywithin development or intragenerational equity, whilst not asclearly defined as a theme within the Brundtland Report, it isnevertheless sufficient to be regarded as another fundamentalpillar of sustainable development. As a result, these pillars wereseen to be so essential to the concept (George,1999), that bothwerecombined in order to provided the revised definition of sustainabledevelopment within Principle 3 of the 1992 Rio Declaration onEnvironment and Development (United Nations, 1992). This statesthat sustainable development is “to equitably meet developmentaland environmental needs of present and future generations”(United Nations, 1992). The definition resolves the issue of ensuringthat 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 fulfil both compo-nents of the Rio definition in that: 1). It can assess whether or nota project is likely to have a significant negative impact upon theenvironment; and 2). Whether the project will be equitable forfuture 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 tooperationalise intergenerational and intragenerational equity(Bruhn-Tysk & Eklund, 2002). It therefore, provides a basis to beginto achieve paths of co-evolution between the environment andhumans that are naturally and socially equitable. However, associal, economic and technological knowledge improves, this mayprovide the ability to change to better co-evolutionary path optionsto strengthen the role of equity within the environment-humansystem.

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 besustainable development. The fact that EIA by itself is unable toachieve this is apparent, as it is a tool for impact analysis (Glassonet al., 2005). Therefore, the continuous day-to-day activities have tobe managed and regulated in a systematic approach throughappropriate environmental management plans and tools, such as

through ISO 14001. This ensures that appropriate processes andprocedures occur in order to ensure environmental best practicemanagement. However, recent literature has begun to make stronglinks between EIA and Environmental Management Systems(EMSs) which begins to fall within the remit of the geocyberneticparadigm of Stabilization.

The developing relationship between EIAs and EMSs has beenrecognised within the literature due to the ability of each tocontribute to the other. This is not necessarily a surprise to Sanchezand Hacking (2002) given the common features between themwith respect to impact identification. Consequently, an EIA shouldbe capable of delivering improvements in environmental man-agement. However, this is only if the predictive and preventativeplanning aspects of the EIA can be utilised in the construction andoperation of the project (Bailey,1997). The EIA of a proposed projectis therefore provides the initial starting point for the EMS (Glassonet al., 2005). The stated thresholds within the impact identificationphase (e.g. levels of emissions) can be transferred as the definedtargets within the EMS, once the project is operational (Glassonet al., 2005). This is also the case in the vice versa scenario whenwishing to open and operate a similar facility elsewhere. Further,it does provide for the opportunity and ability to use a significanceweighting 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 todetermine the significance of impacts within EMS is not uniform(McDonach & Yaneske, 2002). Consequently, given the importancein setting targets in the pursuit of best environmental performancein EMSs, the use of quantitative impact identification approaches(as discussed in the Standardization paradigm) may provide thereasonable solution to the problem of uniformity in significanceweightings. This is of particular importance in the implementationof proposed measures in the EIS (Environmental Impact State-ment), in the production of enforceable commitments that the EMSachieves through verifiable actions (Sanchez & Hacking, 2002).

Within the context of the Stabilization paradigm, impact iden-tification methods may also have a role in the balancing of humanneeds with those of the environment. This can be achieved by theapplication 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, isabout good management via the conversion of ‘sustainable devel-opment’ to ‘sustainability’, i.e. balancing the components of theEarth System and achieving a desirable path for sustainabledevelopment to occur.

In respect to appropriate examples, Phillips (2009, 2010a,2010d) utilised the results obtained from EIAs that adopted theBEES method to evaluate project. The evaluation of the proposedproject with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP)was part ofthe assessment of potential impacts. The inclusion of EMPs, withinthe impact identification process, provided the opportunity toevaluate the effectiveness of such plans in the attainment ofsustainable development through the application of the model. Inthe case study of Caneli Dongormine used in Phillips (2009, 2010d),it showed that the inclusion of an EMP certainly minimised thelevel of potential impacts, but no more than that. In point of fact,the level of ecological sustainable development decreased slightlycompared to the baseline by 0.002. In the case of mining, this couldbe considered as very reasonable given the significant impactswhich mining creates in terms of environmental, social andeconomic. However, an EMP should be able to improve the existingenvironment-human system for the present and future genera-tions, in line with the Equitization paradigm. This occurred in thecase study of the Bangalore Metro Rail Scheme evaluated in Phillips

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979978

(2009, 2010a). The results indicated a conversion from unsustain-ability in the Before Project scenario, to values indicating strongsustainability in the With Project-With EMP scenario. Therefore,this indicated a significant improvement in the environment-human system, and a strong contribution towards meaningfulsustainable development.

The inclusion of a proper environmental management frame-work, within the impact identification phase of an EIA, can providesignificant indications whether or not sustainable development isachievable and long-term. However, this must be achieved throughan 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 identification method-ologies of EIA do have a sufficiently robust role to play in theattainment of sustainable development through the geocyberneticparadigms, particularly where clear standards or limits areimposed. EIAs can ensure that the impact upon the environment isminimised by means of the attainment and maintenance ofminimum standards of operation, via the use of the precautionaryprinciple. Further, the primary goal of EIAs is the operation of theEarth 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 intoaccount in respect to the spatial dimension of the Earth System:To what extent can local level impacts can have upon the EarthSystem by disrupting the delicate balance within a system, or inseveral systems? - i.e. transboundary impacts; and also, how wellare EIAs able to take into account such effects? According toDevuyst (2000), one of the mechanisms for achieving sustainabledevelopment is through (environmental) impact assessment.Devuyst (2000) stresses that “there is a need for an instrumentwhich can be called “Sustainability Assessment” which examinesif human activities will lead to a more sustainable society”.However, “Sustainability Assessment makes only sense whenlinked to an assessment framework” (Devuyst, 2000). Therefore,it would make sense if such a framework is based upon a set ofclear principles of the environmentehuman relationship usingGeocybernetics.

It is only at the local level that reasonable attainment of objec-tive precision can be undertaken. Schellnhuber (1998) supports thisby stating that impacts at the local level accumulate in order tomake regional or global impacts upon the Earth System. Humansare therefore capable of affecting the Earth System at all scales,starting at the local level. This is because humans cause ‘patches’ oflocal environmental impacts, which over time produce large-scaleareas of degradation and operational disruption of the environment(Schellnhuber, 1998). Examples of this process would includetropical deforestation, the ozone layer hole, variablewarming of theplanet etc.

Therefore, within the context of the Standardization and Stabi-lization paradigms, suitable control at the local level may havea sufficient effect in themitigation and effectivemanagement of thehuman factor upon the Earth System, and in the promotion ofsustainable development. By using the Standardization paradigmas the basis, a set of environmental, social and economic parame-ters which reflect the local level situation can be employed. Theseshould consider the potential impacts of any new project, changesto the local environment and the surrounding areas if relevant, andany impacts further up to the scale of the Earth System. Even thesmallest local environmental impact may have significant effectsfurther up the Earth System.

It is important however when following such an approach, thatthe differing specific environmental conditions are properly acco-unted for. Therefore, an approach that reflects the actual balance ofthe components is required. This would suggest that the use ofweighted approaches in conjunction with the use of Delphi meth-odology, is an entirely reasonable strategy to employ within thecontext of impact identification methodologies and Geocybernetics.This approach would be able to model local conditions and thepotential 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 largerimpacts up to the scale of the whole Earth System. Even if smallenvironmental changes at local level may seem insignificant incomparison to the entire Earth System, they can in the longer termproduce significant results, such as changes in human behaviourtowards the Earth System as a whole. If an EIA, and specificallyimpact identification methodologies, can be used in a moreobjective way through using Geocybernetics, then the fundamentalgoal 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 impactassessment 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 referenceto the Tuzla geothermal area, Canakkale, Turkey. Reykjavik, Iceland: GeothermalTraining Programme, The United Nations University. Accessed from. www.unugtp.is/solofile/1421 [03.11.09].

Bailey, J. (1997). Environmental impact assessment and management: an under-explored relationship. Environmental Management, 21, 317e327.

Bisset, R. (1978). Quantification, decision-making and environmental impactassessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 7, 43e58.

Bisset, R. (1988). Developments in EIA methods. In P. Walthern (Ed.), Environmentalimpact assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 47e61). London: Routledge.

Summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Global change and the humanprospect: issues in population science, technology, and equity. (1992). InC. Blackburn (Ed.). The Scientific Research Society.

Bruhn-Tysk, S., & Eklund, M. (2002). Environmental impact assessment - a tool forsustainable 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 impactassessment. In D. Lovejoy (Ed.), Land-use and landscape planning (pp. 53e87).Glasgow: Leonard Hill.

Clark, W. C. (1989). Managing planet earth. Scientific American, 261, 46e54.Dalal-Clayton B. 1992. Modified EIA and Indicators of Sustainability: first steps

towards sustainability analysis. Twelfth Annual Meeting of the InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Washington D.C., 19the22ndAugust 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. WaterResources Research, 9, 523e535.

Devuyst, D. (2000). Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at thelocal 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 ofsustainability. In S. Marsden, & S. Dovers (Eds.), Strategic environmentalassessment 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: Aquantitative method. I.S.E.E 29th Annual Conference on Explosive and BlastingTechnique, 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: UnitedNations.

George, C. (1999). Testing for sustainable development through environmentalassessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, 175e200.

Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment: Cutting edge for the twenty-firstcentury. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to environmental impactassessment (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

J. Phillips / Applied Geography 31 (2011) 969e979 979

Goodland, R. (1994). Environmental sustainability and the power sector. ImpactAssessment, 12, 275e304.

Goyal, S. K., & Deshpande, V. A. (2001). Comparison of weight assignment proce-dures in evaluation of environmental impacts. Environmental Impact AssessmentReview, 21, 553e563.

Hacking T. 2004. The ‘Right Hand Rule’ for impact assessment: A framework forclarifying the meaning of integrated, triple bottom-line and sustainabilityassessment. IAIA’04: Whose business is it?, 24e30th April 2004, Vancouver,Canada.

Heikkila, K. (2004). Environmental impact assessment using a weighting methodfor alternative air-conditioning systems. Building and Environment, 39,1133e1140.

Hobbs, B. F., & Voelker, A. H., 1978. Analytical multiobjective decision-makingtechniques and power plant siting: A survey and critique. Prepared for theDepartment of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A.

International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). (2002). Topic 6 e Impactanalysis, 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 falsedichotomy? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13, 3e11.

Lawrence, D. P. (1997a). Integrating sustainability and environmental impactassessment. Environmental Management, 21, 23e42.

Lawrence, D. P. (1997b). The need for EIA theory-building. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review, 17, 79e107.

Lawrence, D. P. (2007). Impact significance 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 andsustainable development. The Environmentalist, 22, 217e226.

Munn, R. E. (1979). Environmental impact assessment: Principles and procedures (2nded.). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Noorbakhsh, F., & Ranjan, S. (1999). A model for sustainable development: inte-grating environmental impact assessment and project planning. ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal, 17, 283e293.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). (2004). NWMO backgroundspapers: 7e11 Methodologies for assessing spent nuclear fuel managementoptions. http://www.nwmo.ca/default.aspx? DN¼597,211,199,20,1,Documents[13.01.06].

O’Riordan, T. (2000). The sustainability debate. In T. O’Riordan (Ed.), Environmentalscience for environmental management (2nd ed.). (pp. 29e63) London: PrenticeHall.

O’Riordan, T., & Jordan, A. (1995). The precautionary principle in contemporaryenvironmental politics. Environmental Values, 4, 191e212.

Pastakia, C. M. R. (1998). The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) e a new toolfor 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 ofsustainability. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dept. of Geography (Streatham Campus)and Camborne School of Mines (Cornwall Campus), University of Exeter: UnitedKingdom.

Phillips, J. (2010a). The advancement of a mathematical model of sustainabledevelopment. Sustainability Science, 5, 127e142.

Phillips, J. (2010b). A mathematical model of sustainable development using ideasof coupled environment-human systems (Invited Article). The Pelican Web’sJournal 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 fora geothermal power plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14,2414e2427.

Phillips, J. (2010d). Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development ofa 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, WesternAustralia, 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 inachieving sustainable development. In P. Jacobs, & B. Sadler (Eds.), Sustainabledevelopment and environmental assessment: Perspectives on planning a commonfuture (pp. 123e141), Background Paper for the Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Research Council.

Rockström, 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 determiningimpact significance. African Journal of Environmental Assessment and Manage-ment, 6, 44e61.

Sanchez, L. E., & Hacking, T. (2002). An approach to linking environmental impactassessment and environmental management systems. Impact Assessment andProject Appraisal, 20, 25e38.

Sadler, B. (1999). A framework for environmental sustainability assessment andassurance. 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 ofManchester, United Kingdom.

Schellnhuber, H.-J. (1998). Part 1: earth system analysis e the concept. InH.-J. Schellnhuber, & V. Wenzel (Eds.), Earth system analysis: Integrating sciencefor 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 andinteractions (pp. 17e55). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Schellnhuber, H.-J., & Kropp, J. (1998). Geocybernetics: controlling a complexdynamic 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 EnvironmentalManagement, 18, 25e47.

Sippe, R. (1999). Criteria and standards for assessing significant impact. In J. Petts(Ed.), Handbook of environmental impact assessment. Environmental impactassessment: 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 efficiency? Environmental Impact Assessment Review,26, 359e376.

Steinemann, A. (2000). Rethinking human health impact assessment. EnvironmentalImpact 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 significance in EIA: a review of 24methodologies. Journal of Environmental Management, 30, 235e250.

Tickner J. 1998. A commonsense framework for operationalizing the precautionaryprinciple. The Wingspread Conference - Strategies for implementing thePrecautionary Principle, Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 25th January 1998. UnitedNations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment. 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. NewYork: Wiley & Sons.

Wingspread. 1998. Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle. TheWingspread Conference e Strategies for implementing the PrecautionaryPrinciple, Racine, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 25th January 1998.

Wolfe, L. D. S. (1987). Methods for scoping environmental impact assessments: Areview of literature and experience. 661 Barnham Road, West Vancouver, BritishColumbia, 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). Ourcommon future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yousefi, H., Ehara, S., Yousefi, A., & Seiedi, F. (2009). Environmental impact assessmentof Sabalan Geothermal Power Plant, NW Iran. Proceedings of the 34th Workshopon Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,9e11 February 2009. Accessed from: http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2009/yousefi.pdf [13.01.09].