Search

Abstract: Scoping is a crucial yet under-researched stage of environmental impact assessment, in which practice falls well behind conceptual ideals. We argue that such ‘implementation deficits’ reflect dilemmas between two key rationales for scoping — environmental precaution and decision-making efficiency — and between technical and participatory conceptions of the decision-making process. We use qualitative research to understand how scoping practice in the UK reconciles these competing imperatives. Our findings suggest that practitioners mainly rationalise their approach in terms of decision-making efficiency, while justifying excluding the public from scoping on grounds of prematurity, delay and risks of causing confusion. The tendency to scope issues in rather than exclude them reflects a pervasive concern for legal challenge, rather than environmental precaution, but this reinforces standard lists of environmental considerations rather than the investigation of novel, cumulative or indirect risks. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]