ABSTRACT
Formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes around the world require various combinations of scientific investigation and public participation to support the ultimate goals of environmental protection and sustainable development. L. A. Greig and Peter N. Duinker prefer to place research scientists into more constructive roles with respect to EIA practice. According to Greig and Duinker, science outside EIA is needed to create robust ecological effects knowledge for practitioners, while science inside EIA is needed to apply that knowledge to generate reliable impact predictions for decision-makers. In short, Cashmore places science and politics at odds with one another in the battle to influence sustainable development decisions. Weak science, even in situations of strong participatory processes and successful navigation of bureaucratic administration, may lead to developments that have undesirable environmental impacts. In sum, science – conceived here as the production of reliable knowledge about the potential biophysical impacts of development alternatives – is an absolutely necessary yet wholly insufficient element of competent EIA.
