Global megatrends and their implications for environmental
assessment practice
Francois Retiefa,⁎, Alan Bondb ,c, Jenny Poped, Angus Morrison-Saunderse, Nicholas Kingf
aResearch Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South AfricabSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United KingdomcResearch Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South AfricadIntegral Sustainability, Australia; Research Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South AfricaeMurdoch University, Australia; Research Unit for Environmental, Sciences and Management, North-West University, South AfricafResearch Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South Africa
abstract
article info
Article history:
Received 9 December 2015
Received in revised form 7 July 2016
Accepted 7 July 2016
Available online xxxxThis paper addresses the future of environmental assessment (EA) practice in light of a rapidly changing world.
We apply a literature review-based methodology to ﬁrstly identify key global megatrends and then re ﬂect upon
the implications for EA practice based on some known challenges. The key megatrends identi ﬁed are synthesised
into six categories: i) demographics, ii) urbanization, iii) technological innovation, iv) power shifts, v) resource
scarcity and vi) climate change. We then discuss the implications of these megatrends for EA practice against
four known EA challenges namely: dealing with i) complexity and uncertainty, ii) ef ﬁciency, iii) signi ﬁcance
and iv) communication and participation. Our analysis suggests important implications for EA practice such as:
increased dif ﬁculties with accuracy of prediction; the need for facilitative adaptation; an increase in the occur-
rence of unexpected events; higher expectations for procedural ef ﬁciency; challenges with information and com-
munication management; dealing with signi ﬁcance judgements; and mitigation amidst resource scarcity and
increasing pressures on earth systems. The megatrends underscore the need for continued evolution of EA think-
ing and practice, especially moving away from seeking a predictable single future or outcome towards the pos-
sibility of multiple scenarios with associated adaptability and enhanced system resilience capable of
responding to rapid change. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords:
Environmental assessment
Megatrends
Challenges
Value
Effectiveness
Uncertainty
Complexity
Efﬁciency
Signi ﬁcance
Communication
Participation
EA practice
Future of EA
1. Introduction: a rapidly changing world
Environmental Assessment (EA) is arguably one of the most success-
ful environmental policy interventions of the past four decades being
now applied in almost 200 countries ( Morgan, 2012). EA is founded
on the basic premise that it makes sense to consider consequences be-
fore decisions are made and actions taken ( Caldwell, 1989). EA is pred-
icated on the founding assumption that future development can be
anticipated and formally planned for, in a relatively static world. How-
ever, the world in which EA was initially introduced during the 1960s
and 70s was very different from that of today and, moreover, it is pre-
dicted that humanity is now entering a period of potentially unprece-
dented and even more rapid global change driven by human activities,
the so-called Anthropocene ( Steffen et al., 2015). These global changes
are typically referred to as megatrends ( Sadler, 1996; Sunter, 2013).The Oxford English Dictionary de
ﬁnes a megatrend as “an important
shift in the progress of a society or of any other particular ﬁeld or activ-
ity ”(oed.com). Ilbury and Sunter (2004) note that the term megatrend
is frequently used within the scenario planning literature, especially as a
particular step in scenario planning methodology, where it is commonly
understood to mean those global in ﬂuencing factors which have a high
degree of certainty but over which there is little control. Megatrends
therefore refer to trends that are global and call for strategies for adap-
tation, rather than strategies for effecting change to the trends them-
selves. Because understanding these trends is highly relevant to major
ﬁ elds of human ‘development ’such as economics, agriculture, energy,
urban planning, resource planning, etc. a body of practitioner literature
around megatrends has emerged in recent years ( EEA, 2015; KMPG,
2012; PWC, 2014; EY, 2015; Hajkowicz et al., 2012; Vielmetter and
Sell, 2014 ). The earliest example in the EA literature we can ﬁnd
where explicit reference is made to megatrends and subsequent impli-
cations for EA practice is the effectiveness of environmental assessment
study by Sadler (1996) . In this instance Sadler (1996)drew attention to
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: francois.retief@nwu.ac.za (F. Retief).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.07.002
0195-9255/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

megatrends in the context of thinking about the future of EA, but with
little suggestion as to what the implications for EA practice might be.
The topic has since received scant attention by the EA community.
Given the wide ranging implications of megatrends, and the inherent
challenges they pose, we are interested in how EA practice might need
to adapt to remain an effective and value adding policy implementation
intervention into the future.Since EA emerged in the 1970s, it has been adapted to changing cir-
cumstances and government rhetoric. For example with the advent of
the sustainable development discourse, entrenched in global policy
after the Rio ‘Earth Summit ’in 1992, it has generally been interpreted
as a tool for achieving sustainable development ( Sheate, 2010; Pope et
al., 2013; Morrison-Saunders et al., 2014; Bond, 2015 ). This adaptation
has led to changes in the scope of assessments, and also general im-
provements over time in the extent to which the process engages
with citizens. Going forward it is clear that there will be a continuing
need for EA to evolve and adapt in light of current and future trends
and challenges. The megatrends are global and will likely play out in dif-
ferent ways within the different jurisdictions in which EA takes place
depending upon the process and capacity characteristics and speci ﬁc
environmental and social setting. However some common challenges
and experiences can be expected. It is thus timely to re ﬂect on what
the implications of current global megatrends might be for EA practice,
and how EA practice might change or adapt if it is to remain as the de-
cision-aiding tool of choice for countries across the globe. Thus the aims
of this paper are to:
1. Identify consensus on the key global megatrends;
2. Re ﬂect upon the implications of the key global megatrends for EA
practice based on four main challenges.
The next section describes the identi ﬁed key global megatrends. This
is followed by a discussion on the implications of the megatrends for EA
practice framed against four challenges. In light of these challenges and
implications we conclude in the ﬁnal section by making recommenda-
tions for future EA research, especially the need to identify speci ﬁc strat-
egies to deal with the different implications.
1.1. Identifying key global megatrends
In order to address the ﬁrst aim of identifying consensus on key
global megatrends we conducted a literature search on the term
‘ megatrends ’. Since the academic literature on megatrends is limited,
our approach focused on internet search engines rather than academic
databases. We identi ﬁed mainly work from the business sector that operates at a global level and recognises the strategic importance of
considering megatrends in forward planning. Megatrend reports have
been produced recently by global accounting and management consul-
tancy
ﬁrms KPMG (2012) ,EY(EY, 2015 ), Hay Group ( Vielmetter and
Sell, 2014 ) and Price Waterhouse Coopers ( PWC, 2014), as well as re-
search organisations such as the Australian Commonwealth Scienti ﬁc
and Industrial Research Organisation ( Hajkowicz et al., 2012) and the
European Environment Agency ( EEA, 2015). This‘grey ’literature is
not peer-reviewed, but arguably it does re ﬂect the agendas and policies
of multilateral agencies and global companies; as such it re ﬂects the cur-
rent scenario planning focus of international organisations that drive
practice in resource management. Consensus is de ﬁned
 as agreement
across the source literature whereby at least ﬁve of the six sources
must identify the megatrend. This de ﬁnition is pragmatic: requiring
complete consensus would limit the number of megatrends identi ﬁed
for analysis. For the purposes of our analysis we prepared a matrix, shown in
Table 1 , listing our sources against the megatrends identi ﬁed therein.
The sources included in Table 1cover a total of 16 recently identi ﬁed
megatrends. The purpose of the matrix analysis, however, was to iden-
tify megatrends that are common to the majority of sources, suggesting
some level of consensus, or at least convergence. In doing so, we
adopted the labels and descriptions employed in each study, some of
which overlap with labels used in different reports. The analysis identi-
ﬁ ed the following six categories of key global megatrends to be common
in some form to ﬁve or more of the sources, namely: i) rapidly changing
demographics, ii) rapid urbanization, iii) accelerated technological in-
novation, iv) power shifts, v) resource scarcity and vi) climate change.
Each of these is introduced in more detail below. However, it is stressed
that these key megatrends all interact and therefore there is no sugges-
tion that these trends could be isolated or should be considered in isola-
tion. For example changing demographics is also re ﬂected and
in ﬂuenced by urbanization, and power shifts are made possible by ac-
celerated technological innovation. Furthermore, we acknowledge that
there are regional variances across the different trends and that some
have been ongoing in certain regions. For example, demographic trends
differ widely between regions and the impacts of urbanization have
already been felt for a considerable time, particularly in the develop-
ing world. However, notwithstanding these regional differences, the
global interconnected nature of the world means that global
megatrends warrant consideration across regions. For example, the
young demographic pro ﬁle and low levels of urbanization in Africa
has implications for other regions in terms of migration patterns,
trade, consumption, etc.
Table 1
Megatrend matrix analysis.
International megatrends Selected megatrends literature
European Environment Agency
(2015) KPMG
(2012)PWC
(2014)EY
(2015)Hajkowicz et al.
(2012) Vielmetter and Sell
(2014)
1. Rapidly changing demographics ✓✓ ✓–✓✓
2. Rapid urbanization ✓✓ ✓✓✓ –
3. Accelerating technological innovation ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓
4. Power shifts ✓✓ ✓–✓✓
5. Resource scarcity ✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓
6. Climate change ✓✓ ✓–✓✓
7. Global health risks ✓––✓––
8. Continuing economic growth ✓–––– –
9. Ecosystem pressure ✓–––– –
10. Increasing environmental pollution ✓–––– –
11. Diversifying approaches to governance ✓
–––– –
12. Individualism –✓––– ✓
13. Economic interconnectedness –✓–✓––
14. Public debt –✓––– –
15. Entrepreneurship rising –– –✓––
16. Technological convergence –– ––– ✓ 53
F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

1.1.1. Megatrend 1: rapidly changing demographicsRapidly changing demographics was identi ﬁed as a key megatrend
( Table 1 ) with the world population expected to level off by 2050 some-
where between 9 and 11 billion people ( KPMG, 2012; UNFPA, 2014;
PWC, 2014; UNFPA, 2014; Vielmetter and Sell, 2014 ). However, devel-
oped and developing countries exhibit different demographic pro ﬁles
and trends. For example between 2015 and 2050 the population of Afri-
ca is expected to double while that of Europe will likely decline, and by
2050 the average age in Nigeria is expected to be 21 years while in Japan
it will be more than twice that at 53 ( KPMG, 2012; UNFPA, 2014; PWC,
2014 ). The variability in the age distribution suggests that the more de-
veloped countries will have to contend with an older population placing
pressure on the tax base while developing countries will have to accom-
modate the higher proportion of young people with resultant pressure
on demands for education, employment and resources ( Sunter, 2013;
UNFPA, 2014 ). A larger proportion of young people within a population
is in economic terms considered a ‘demographic dividend ’due to the
expanding working age population, which in turn means that society
can bene ﬁt from having more people who are both able to work and
eager to consume ( Sunter, 2013; UNFPA, 2014 ). However, a growing
younger population on its own cannot provide the expected bene ﬁts,
particularly in the light of growing resource scarcity. Preparing these
young people to contribute economically means ﬁrst providing quality
education, access to healthcare and investment in the economy to gen-
erate productive employment. If these elements are not in place, demo-
graphic dividends can easily turn into demographic burdens in the form
of mounting youth unemployment and underemployment with resul-
tant social and political discontent ( UNFPA, 2014). It is evident that fu-
ture policy directions internationally as well as within nation states
will have to consider these demographic pro ﬁles especially in relation
to their implications for inter- and trans-generational equity, which
are key considerations in EA ( Gibson, 2006; Bond et al., 2013 ).
1.1.2. Megatrend 2: rapid urbanization In 1800 only 2% of the world population lived in cities but by 1950
this had increased to 30%. The UN forecasts that by 2050 around 70%
of the global population will live in cities (UN Habitat, 2012;UN
Habitat, 2014 ). The main reasons why people urbanize is re ﬂected in
the UN Habitat's The State of the World's Cities 2012/13 Report, which
shows that the Human Development Index (HDI) for almost all major
cities exceeds that of the country's national average HDI (UN Habitat,
2012 ). This applies to developed and developing countries alike al-
though the gap between the urban and national average HDI is greater
for developing countries. Re ﬂecting the rapid urbanization trend, the
100 year period 1950 to 2050 is sometimes described as the ‘age of
city building ’(Howard, 2013 ) and hence, it is not surprizing that ﬁve
of the six sources identi ﬁed rapid urbanization as a key megatrend
( Hajkowicz et al., 2012; KPMG, 2012; EY, 2015; PWC, 2014; EEA,
2015 ). Such signi ﬁ
cant growth in urbanization suggests a critical chal-
le

nge in EA for more effective and far-sighted planning of urban areas
towards more sustainable and liveable places. The policy direction soci-
eties take now and in the coming decades will therefore have signi ﬁcant
implications for future generations primarily because poor city and land
use planning is exceedingly dif ﬁcult to reverse due to the decades-long
‘ lock-in ’of investment into physical built infrastructure. Consequently,
EA as a proactive decision aiding tool has an important role to play to in-
form and guide city planning at different tiers of decision making, to-
wards more innovative and sustainable outcomes.
1.1.3. Megatrend 3: accelerating technological innovation The rate of technological progress over the past 100 years is unprec-
edented in human history and has laid the foundation for much of the
dominance humans are exerting over the planet. All six of the future
megatrends studies reviewed ( Table 1) suggest that the pace of techno-
logical innovation will continue to accelerate, especially in critical areas
such as communication and energy technology. ‘Moore's Law ’dictates that the capabilities of many digital devices such as quality adjusted mi-
croprocessors, memory capacity, sensors, and screen resolution have
been improving at roughly exponential rates for decades, and is expect-
ed to continue to increase rapidly, albeit not necessarily at such rates
(
Moore, 2006 ). Future scenarios for technology put forward by the
Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network ( RF and GBN,
2010 ) suggest that the main challenge will not simply be development
of technology, rather it will be providing access to technologies that
could provide important contributions to human well-being such as ed-
ucation, health care or access to energy, and importantly also gover-
nance arrangements in dealing with the disruptive technologies
countries might not want such as those supporting global terrorism or
illegal trade. In this regard EA has more recently been applied in both
considering the impacts of technology (such as genetically modi ﬁed
foods) through so-called Technology Impact Assessment and putting
in place appropriate governance arrangements for proposal implemen-
tation and follow-up ( Shrader-Frechette, 1985; Porter, 1995; de
Jesus-Hitzachky and da Silveira, 2009; Russel et al., 2010 ).
1.1.4. Megatrend 4: power shifts The megatrends analysed ( Table 1) show that the future presents an
increasingly interconnected and bi-polar world without a single domi-
nant player. The wide ranging international effects of the global eco-
nomic crisis that began in 2008, continually highlights and reinforces
this progressive trend of global power shifts and interconnectedness.
This is also re ﬂected by the structure of the global economy and espe-
cially the global ﬁnancial system that shapes power relations. The reli-
ance of countries on each other is further entrenched through global
trade and lending. The 2015 World Bank report on international debt
statistics shows that global debt has grown by $57 trillion to reach
$199 trillion in the seven years following the ﬁnancial crisis ( WB,
2015 ). All major economies are now recording higher levels of borrow-
ing relative to gross domestic product (GDP) than they did in 2007. For
example, in 2014 the United States had a national debt level of 105% of
GDP with the major foreign holders of US debt being countries like
China and Japan ( WB, 2015). This establishes signi ﬁcant economic in-
terdependence and interconnectedness. Humanity is therefore increas-
ingly living in a world whereby our common future would seem better
served by alliances around common interests than attempts at hege-
monic self-interest. A further megatrend affecting power relations, especially between
citizens and their leaders, is the rapidly increasing access to information
and empowerment of individuals through digital media. For example,
between 2010 and 2020 three billion additional people are projected
to be connected to the Internet (66% of the total world population are
predicted to be connected to the Internet by 2020) thereby joining the
global conversation for the ﬁrst time ( Diamandis, 2012 ). The role of
power in decision making has always been recognised as a key compo-
n ent of EA and for example directly affects the way stakeholder and
public engagement is conducted in EA ( O'Faircheallaigh, 2010;
Morgan, 2012 ). Increased access to the Internet empowers individuals
to engage in decision making, thereby potentially shifting power from
the traditional elites to the broader population. The megatrend of
rapid urbanization also implies power shifts from nation states to city
governments. Barber (2013) suggests that this rise of city power is al-
ready being experienced in countries where the majority of citizens
live in cities, and associate more with their local governments, than
with national governments or nation states. Moreover, there is also in-
creasing power vested beyond nation states at international level in
the form of for example multinational companies, who are not bound
by national laws and are increasingly requiring additional governance
mechanisms such as international agreements and treaties. The future
therefore heralds an even more complex world of power-broking
and increased global interconnectedness, interdependence and
interconnectivity.
54 F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

1.1.5. Megatrend 5: resource scarcityAll the megatrend sources ( Table 1) suggest that humanity faces a
future of resource scarcity. Other sources show trends in global water,
energy and food demand to increase by 40% (from 2005), 50% (from
2014) and 35% (from 2014) respectively by 2030 ( WRG, 2009; FAO et
al., 2014; IEA 2014 ), while the stress on earth systems to provide
these resources are exceeding critical limits ( Steffen et al., 2015).
There are geographical variations in demand and supply but in general
these variations tend to make matters worse with regions of higher de-
mand also being regions with limited supply ( WRG, 2009). Moreover,
the demand for food will be highest in regions with very low agricultur-
al potential ( FAO et al., 2014 ). The age of resource scarcity and growing
demand is likely to result in so-called ‘super cycles ’of rising and volatile
commodity prices ( KPMG, 2012). For example it is predicted that food
prices for staple foods such as wheat, paddy rice and maize will increase
by 70 –90% between 2010 and 2030 ( FAO et al., 2014). Moreover, the
most recent annual global CEO survey conducted by PWC (2015)iden-
ti ﬁed water scarcity as the number one future Global Risk for Business.
In this survey water scarcity was ranked higher than traditional busi-
ness risks such as ﬁscal crises or energy price shocks. Based on these
forecasts it is evident that EA practice will have to contend with a
world of increased global resource scarcity and ﬁnd innovative ways
to reduce resource use, improving ef ﬁciency, promoting re-use and
recycling as well as exploring substitute material solutions. Fortunately,
the rapid advancement in technological innovations as outlined above
offer a myriad opportunities to rise to these challenges.
1.1.6. Megatrend 6: climate change The evidence that the planet is experiencing human-induced climate
change through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to industrial
burning of fossil fuels and land-use changes, is largely accepted across
the scienti ﬁc community and governments worldwide ( IPCC, 2014).
Equally it is acknowledged that current policy will do little to prevent
the extent of climate change that humanity is already locked-in to
through ongoing GHG emissions –it can only affect the degree of
change ( Arnell et al., 2013 ). The implications of climate change overlap
with other megatrends, and are largely recognised as exacerbating
existing stressors on natural systems and existing challenges to social
development. For example, resource scarcity is expected to be signi ﬁ-
cantly exacerbated by climate change ( Gibson et al., 2011); changing
demographics and disease can be driven by climate and rapid environ-
mental change ( McLeman and Smit, 2006; Adlard et al., 2015 ); and ev-
idence suggests that increased urbanization contributes to increasing
climate change ( Kalnay and Cai, 2003 ). What is less certain are the
local scale rami ﬁcations of climate change which, given projections of
differences at the regional scale ( Joshi et al., 2011), are expected to
vary across the globe thereby increasing the uncertainty at the scale typ-
ically covered by project-level EA. Further, we recognise the issue of
ocean acidiﬁ cation, which, although not climate change per se, is a
related issue in that it is driven by emissions of the same GHGs and
poses signi ﬁc
 ant, additional and compounding challenges for devel-
opment. In contrast with the previous ﬁve megatrends we have
discussed so far, we are aware that there is a growing body of litera-
ture arising from the EA community around how both mitigation
(reduction in emissions) and adaptation to climate change might
best be tackled by EA practitioners (which we do not intend to repli-
cate here).
1.2. Implications of key global megatrends for EA practice
We frame our discussion on the implications of the key megatrends
for EA practice around four known generic EA challenges, namely: deal-
ing with i) complexity and uncertainty, ii) ef ﬁciency, iii) signi ﬁcance
and iv) communication and participation. We identi ﬁed and justi ﬁed
these four challenges from the peer reviewed literature and against
the following two simple criteria, namely 1) They are pervasive challenges through the EA literature and 2) They are likely to have con-
tinuing, or enhanced, relevance for megatrends. Although we accept
these challenges as being important generic challenges for the purpose
of this paper, we do recognise that they are not exhaustive and that
other generic challenges and more context speci
ﬁc challenges might
also exist which could be justi ﬁed equally well. As one of our aims is
to stimulate further research into the implications of megatrends for
EA practice, this is a point we return to in the concluding section. As ev-
idenced by our selection criteria, we also acknowledge that these chal-
lenges are not new, but we argue that in light of the megatrends they
are elevated in importance. Finally, we acknowledge the interconnec-
tedness of these challenges, for example, the potential implications of
a more uncertain future (challenge 1) for ef ﬁciency (challenge 2) and
dealing with signi ﬁcance (challenge 3), etc. However, the increased
ability to share and disseminate information might also provide oppor-
tunities to improve communication towards better ef ﬁciency. There-
fore, there are no simple answers and ultimately integrated solutions
will probably have to be sought within context. Our ﬁrst challenge (complexity and uncertainty) is justi ﬁed based
on work by Bond et al. (2015) who argue that existing EA practice is
poor at dealing with complexity and uncertainty, meaning that predic-
tions can be plain wrong (e.g., Holling, 1978; Dipper et al., 1998; Bennett
et al., 2001 ). Indeed, arguments are made that EA should include consid-
eration of system resilience in order to better consider uncertainty
( Benson and Garmestani, 2001; Slootweg and Jones, 2011; Matthews
et al., 2014 ). Megatrends are characterised by certainty in terms of
their occurrence, but uncertainty in terms of their implications.
The threat caused to EA by the global recession as highlighted by
Bond et al. (2014) , justiﬁes our second challenge of ef ﬁciency. This chal-
lenge was also identi ﬁed by a number of authors contributing to a spe-
cial issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal that examined the
state of the art of different EA tools. In this, the need for ef ﬁciency to
counteract the perceived threat to EA was identi ﬁed in relation to EIA
( Morgan, 2012 ), SEA (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012 )and
Sustainability Assessment ( Bond et al., 2012). We expect the drive for
ef ﬁciency to remain as there is for example increasing competition for
scarce resources (one of the megatrends).
Determining signi ﬁcanc
e is a critical and recurring element in any
form of EA, and is our third identi ﬁed challenge. Screening and scoping
both require judgements to be made on signi ﬁcance, and impact
evaluation focusses on signi ﬁcance in context (of the sensitivity
of the receiving environment). Thus it is a central concept in EA
( Lyhne and Kørnøv, 2013 ). Signiﬁcance methodology has been
examined over the years (e.g., Thompson, 1990; Wood et al., 2007;
Wood, 2008) but no consensus exists given the ambiguous nature
of the term. The various megatrends may challenge our views of
what the thresholds for signi ﬁcance judgement should be given the
changing context of the environment (e.g. through climate change,
diminishing resources, etc.). Finally and in relation to our fourth challenge of communication and
participation, the need to improve public participation in EA has been a
key concern for years (e.g., Petts, 1999; O'Faircheallaigh, 2010, Esteves
et al., 2012; Rega and Baldizzone, 2015 ) with some attempts at offering
remedies (e.g., Renn et al., 1993; Sinclair and Fitzpatrick, 2002 ). In the
context of power shifts and technological innovation in particular
(two of the megatrends), we can anticipate increasing emphasis on
the need for good public participation (e.g., Sinclair and Fitzpatrick,
2002; Partidario and Sheate, 2013 ).
We now move in the following sections to discussions on the impli-
cations of the megatrends for EA practice in relation to these four
challenges.
1.2.1. Challenge 1: dealing with complexity and uncertainty
With a rapid increase in population, urbanization, interconnected-
ness and technological innovation at a scale beyond previous experi-
ence and/or comprehension, decision making complexity and
55
F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

accompanying uncertainty is bound to increase. Therefore we sus-
pect that prediction of events will become more uncertain and the
events themselves will become more volatile and unpredictable, as
already being experienced in relation to climate change (IPCC,
2014). Hence highly improbable events or so-called ‘unknown un-
knowns ’will likely become more frequent ( Taleb, 2007). In short,
because the future represents un charted waters, using the past to
predict the future will become increasingly problematic and chal-
lenging, especially within a technical rational and/or linear thinking
paradigm typically re ﬂectedinEApracticetodate( Owens et al.,
2004; Bond et al., 2015 ).
When considering EA practice against a more complex and uncer-
tain future, various issues arise. For example, it is unclear what the ap-
propriate methodologies and techniques might be to ensure rigour,
and what level and type of information and outputs would be practical.
It has already been argued that current long term assessment tech-
niques to deal with inherent complexity and uncertainty are overly re-
source intensive and impractical ( Bond, 2015).Owens et al. (2004)
referred to the ‘trans-scienti ﬁc’ nature of complex issues in EA where
science is unable to provide answers. The recommendation by Bond et
al. (2015) that a post-normal understanding of science be followed
where a lack of knowledge is assumed and made explicit during the
EA process rather than disregarded is bound to be more appropriate
for the future of EA best practice. The extent to which normal science
will be able to provide conclusive answers amidst the uncertainty is
questionable, and this again is an argument against the technical ratio-
nal view of EA going into the future. There is also an argument that EA
practice probably needs to embrace more systems thinking, in contrast
with the linear thinking that dominates traditional EA practice
( Nooteboom, 2007 ). A systems approach highlights that action A does
not just cause impact B, but will have other effects on the system that
may not be apparent through a linear thinking lens (what is typically
termed ‘side effects ’), that can themselves have impacts on system be-
haviour ( Sterman, 2000 ). Furthermore, linear approaches to EA fail to
acknowledge that systems are dynamic, i.e. they exhibit behaviours
over time that arise from their structure ( Meadows, 2009). Concepts
such as thresholds (or tipping points) and resilience are systems con-
cepts that demand systems approaches, and increasingly are being
recognised as important for best practice EA (e.g. Gunn and Noble,
2011, Slootweg and Jones, 2011 ). Linear thinking can only ever offer
an approximation of a small part o f a socio-ecological system, and
whilethiscanbeadequateinsomecircumstances,wewouldargue
that increased complexity and uncertainty in a more inter-connected
and populous world demands a more rigorous systems-based ap-
proach to EA. This should include exploring system behaviour over
time under different scenarios, and ongoing monitoring of key pa-
rameters as part of a robust ada ptive management process (Grace
and Pope, 2015).
Furthermore, being transparent by acknowledging limitations and
dif ﬁculties will become more challenging because, with growing volatil-
ity and more ‘unknown unknowns ’, EA practitioners might even be un-
aware which uncertainties exist. Therefore, work to date on dealing
with complexity and uncertainty in specialised forms of EA such as So-
cial Impact Assessment (SIA) ( Marx, 2002)
 and Ecological Assessments
( Geneletti et al., 2003 ), as well as quantitative mathematical methods to
deal with uncertainty in relation to air and water pollution assessments
( Spadaro and Rabl, 2008; Zhou et al., 2010 ), are likely in future to be-
come even more dif ﬁcult. Finally, because the future will become less
predictable and therefore accuracy of prediction and rigour will become
more elusive, it is also evident that adaptation will become more impor-
tant and that practical ways of achieving and designing opportunities
for adjustments, learning and iteration throughout the life cycle of the
proposal will have to be found. The apparent ﬁxation within the EA community on information pro-
vision and overly structured processes needs to be tempered towards
more ﬂexible ( ‘adaptive ’) value driven approaches to EA. In view of the megatrends and the challenge of dealing with complexity and un-
certainty we identify the following implications for EA practice:
•
Accuracy of prediction : because the future is increasingly less like the
past EA practitioners cannot use the past as accurately to predict the
future. For example, statistical analyses from the past such as mean
annual run-off in rivers or 1:100 year ﬂoodlines, become meaningless
under climate change extremes and shifting baselines. Also signi ﬁ-
cantly affecting our ability to predict will be having to deal with a
higher frequency of unexpected events or unknown unknowns,
thereby magnifying uncertainty. These include those events which
are not anticipated or even considered in the EA process, therefore
going beyond the application of the precautionary principle, which ac-
knowledges a possible event/impact but admits to insuf ﬁcient infor-
mation or understanding. One way of dealing with unknowns is to
avoid linear thinking in favour of more systems understandings as ex-
plained previously. A better understanding of tipping points, thresh-
olds and system resilience is also required to better understand the
implications of events. Prediction should rather consider various pos-
sible future scenarios instead of a single predicted future and there-
fore scenario planning could become a more commonly used
method in EA, as recommended by Duinker and Greig (2007).
• Facilitative adaptation: Tol (2005)writes about ‘facilitative adaptation ’
which he equates to ‘enhancing adaptive capacity ’. The argument here
is that adaptation should not be simply about responding to impacts
ex post , instead it is possible to recognise that unforeseen impacts
may occur and to plan for the capacity to adapt in those circum-
stances. We would argue that facilitative adaptation should become
a key part of EA processes as it preserves the value of EA, rather than
relegating it to an increasingly marginalised role where the ability to
predict accurately decreases alongside increasing reliance on adapta-
tion, which may not be economically viable if the capacity has not al-
ready been planned for. Consequently EA is not essentially about
accuracy of prediction per se, but rather about allowing for ﬂexibility
and adaptation (adaptive management), a point made very early on
in the development of EA by Holling (1978).
1.2.2. Challenge 2: dealing with ef ﬁciency
Due to the rate of change in terms of demographics, urbanization
and technological innovation EA will function in a context of increasing-
ly rapid change, notwithstanding that some of these changes have been
occurring, and thus challenging EA practice, for some time already. By
2050 the world population is expected to have stabilised with urbaniza-
tion at a level of 70% of the global population, while billions will have ac-
cess to the internet for the ﬁrst time. This means that in order for EA to
add value, practitioners will have to manage increasing amounts of in-
formation increasingly ef ﬁcien
tly in order to facilitate timely decision
making. In practice EA is still very much ﬁxated on legislative compli-
ance and straightjacketed into procedural regimes that are not always
designed to deal with increasing volumes of information in an ef ﬁcient
manner. The need for EA ef ﬁciency is frequently recognised, often driv-
en by a better (meaning bureaucratically lighter) regulation agenda.
Various governments are in the process of reconsidering their EA policy
and legislation precisely to speed up decision making, cut “green tape ”
and ‘streamline ’authorization processes ( Retief and Chabalala, 2009;
Bond et al., 2014 ).
It is notable that the megatrends identi ﬁed in the Sadler (1996) in-
ternational EA effectiveness study included as a near-term trend, the in-
creased pressure for process ef ﬁciency and fast-track approaches and
methodologies. At that stage though it was seen primarily in relation
to cost-recovery rather than a time saving issue as it is currently. The in-
ternational EA best practice principles ( IAIA and IEA, 1999) explicitly in-
clude the principle of ‘ef ﬁciency’ as well as four more supportive
principles namely the requirement to be ‘relevant ’, ‘cost effective ’, ‘fo-
cussed ’and ‘credible ’. To be relevant and cost effective require that ‘…
56 F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

sufﬁcient, reliable and usable information …’be provided and that EA
objectives be achieved within ‘…limits of available time, resources
and methodology ’(IAIA and IEA, 1999 ). In a rapidly changing world, es-
pecially in relation to advances in information technology, what will
constitute sufﬁ cient, reliable and usable information in future as well
as the notion of available time, resources and methodologies might
change in ways that are currently dif ﬁcult to predict or comprehend.
The megatrends therefore present the following implications for EA
practice related to dealing with ef ﬁciency.
• Ensuring procedural ef ﬁciency : the implication of a fast changing world
is that processes to inform decision making need to keep up with the
rate of change. This means that EA practitioners need to ﬁnd ways to
deal with the two main reasons for having set process timeframes
namely, to provide legal certainty to all role players and provide
time for the information/scienti ﬁc inputs to the decision making pro-
cess, which will themselves need to be increasingly adaptive as ar-
gued previously. Where there are con ﬂicting values, high levels of
uncertainty and a general lack of trust in the system, decision making
is slow and legal certainty (and limited allowance for ﬂexibility) as
well as the scienti ﬁc justi ﬁcation are typically over emphasized
( Retief et al., 2013 ). However, in order to deal with ef ﬁciency, ways
will have to be found to simultaneously inject more trust and ﬂexibil-
ity into the decision making process. Clearly, trust is not something
that can be designed into a system. However, decision making ﬂexibil-
ity can be provided through legal provisions which could signi ﬁcantly
improve ef ﬁciency. Mechanisms enabling ﬂexibility in EA will need to
be supported and balanced in relation to human capacity as well as
being appropriately transparent and accountable.
• Information generation and management : the ability to generate and
disseminate information will improve signi ﬁcantly in the future.
This presents opportunities to improve ef ﬁciency but also brings
with it the threat of potentially reducing effectiveness through incor-
poration of unmanageable information loads. The challenge will
therefore be to distil the most signi ﬁcant information for decision-
making while at the same time moving towards more iterative deci-
sion-making, whereby EA practitioners constantly update the infor-
mation and are able to rapidly change decisions if needed. Clearly,
information generation and management is bound to become a par-
ticularly important consideration for EA ef ﬁciency in the future,
while innovative information use will determine EA effectiveness in
a rapidly changing world.
1.2.3. Challenge 3: dealing with signi ﬁcance
The analysis of the megatrends clearly shows that the future will be a
world of growing demand for resources amidst increasing scarcity. Fur-
th

ermore, the most recent update on the planetary
boundaries(scienti ﬁcally-based limits of human perturbation of the
earth systems beyond which earth system functioning may be irrevers-
ibly altered), shows that humanity has already exceeded four of the
seven primary earth system boundaries which include the two so-called
core systems, namely the climate system and biosphere integrity
( Steffen et al., 2015 ). EA best practice typically requires EA to concen-
trate decision making on the most signi ﬁcant environmental effects
and key issues and deliver appropriate levels of environmental protec-
tion and community well-being ( IAIA and IEA, 1999). The question
therefore is, what would appropriate levels of environmental protection
and community well-being be in the future, and how should EA practi-
tioners de ﬁne and determine signi ﬁcance and key issues in a world of
acute scarcity and critical pressures on earth systems? Various authors
have raised the issue that dealing with signi ﬁcance is one of the weakest
aspects of typical EA practice ( Wood, 2008; Ehrlich and Ross, 2015 ).
These views have also been backed up by empirical studies on EA qual-
ity (e.g., Wang et al., 2003; Sandham et al., 2010, 2013 ). The main rea-
sons put forward for the dif ﬁculties in dealing with signi ﬁcance is that it involves a value driven normative process of subjective judgements
of what is important within any given society at a given point in time.
As
Haug et al. (1984) point out, there is a difference between predicting
the fact of an impact (in terms of magnitude, duration, frequency, likeli-
hood and reversibility) and the meaningof an impact. The meaning of
impacts is about signi ﬁcance judgements.
In our view the implications of megatrends for dealing with signi ﬁ-
cance in EA are the following:
• Dealing with thresholds that support signi ﬁcance judgements : generally
speaking thresholds determine when impacts are signi ﬁcant i.e. with-
in the realm of acceptable or unacceptable ( Ehrlich and Ross, 2015). In
a world of increasing scarcity, development options that continue to
erode critical natural capital, and thereby reduce resilience, should
therefore by de ﬁnition be viewed as unacceptable. While this might
suggest a return to more of a restoration and conservation focus for
EA ( Morrison-Saunders and Therivel, 2006 ), the ecosystem services
concept ( Geneletti, 2013 ) makes it clear that increasing scarcity has
anthropogenic impacts which will increasingly come to the fore and
threaten to exacerbate trade-offs between social and environmental
impacts ( Martín-López et al., 2014 ). Best practice EA will increasingly
have to deal with signi ﬁcance judgements in relation to new pro-
posals where existing thresholds, even without the proposal, have al-
ready been exceeded for various valued components.
• Applying the mitigation hierarchy in tandem with facilitative adaptation :
when impacts have been identi ﬁed as unacceptable then the next step
in generic EA is to consider possible mitigation options to make the re-
sidual impact acceptable ( Glasson et al., 2012; Ehrlich and Ross,
2015 )
. However, in a world of increasing scarcity, applying and mov-
ing down the mitigation hierarchy from avoidance to minimization
becomes problematic because by merely minimizing impacts, re-
sources and natural capital are still being eroded further, a trend EA
practitioners should be actively seeking to reverse. Therefore, the op-
tion of minimizing impacts needs to be substituted with thinking
about enhancing bene ﬁts and no net loss or win-win outcomes, as al-
ready incorporated in sustainability assessment thinking ( Gibson,
2006; Bond et al., 2013 ). Facilitative adaptation as already discussed
should then be put in place to address the potentially signi ﬁcant im-
pacts for which mitigation may prove to be ineffective when faced
with the implications of the megatrends ( Tol, 2005).
1.2.4. Challenge 4: dealing with communication and participation The identi ﬁed megatrends show that in future further development
in communication technology, increased interconnectedness and rapid
urbanization can be expected and collectively these have important im-
plications for communication and participation in EA. The megatrends
imply that people in general will become more connected and individ-
ually empowered through technology and have better access to services
and education as they become more urbanized. EA best practice princi-
ples are explicit in the requirement to provide for participation in that
EA should inform and involve interested and affected parties and that
their inputs and concerns should be explicitly addressed in the docu-
mentation and related decision making ( IAIA and IEA, 1999). The best
practice principles also have extensive reference to information require-
ments. For example, IAIA and IEA (1999)specify that EA should:
i) Result in information and outputs which assist with problem solv-
ing and are acceptable to and able to be implemented by proponents (in
relation to ‘practical ’principle),
ii) Provide sufﬁ cient, reliable and usable information for develop-
ment planning and decision making (in relation to ‘relevant ’principle),
iii) Ensure public access to information (in relation to transparent
principle) and iv) Result in full consideration of all relevant information on the af-
fected environment, of proposed alternatives and their impacts, and of
57
F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

the measures necessary to monitor and investigate residual effects (in
relation to systematic principle).In view of the latter information requirements the implications of
the megatrends for communication and participation in EA are the
following:
• The empowerment of individuals :O'Faircheallaigh (2010) argues that
dealing with power relations is one of the main purposes of public
participation in EA. Morgan (2012)agrees with this view and high-
lights that through public participation EA provides the opportunity
to shape and in ﬂuence power relations in existing policy and decision
making. Admittedly, the extent of public participation differs between
different EA systems, but in future the empowerment of individuals
through access to information, increased connectivity and proximity
in cities could unavoidably lead to a more prominent and in ﬂuential
role being played by individuals. Assuming a more equal access to
technology across all parts of society the disadvantage during partici-
pation processes typically experienced, for example, by rural commu-
nities as highlighted by Lastarnau et al. (2011)should become less
common (although probably never totally eradicated). Both scenarios
imply increased pressure on practitioners and decision makers to ‘do
the right thing ’in the eyes of the affected individuals and communi-
ties. In short, people power will increasingly shape EA practice (at
least in the context of nations where public participation in EA is al-
ready well established).
• Communication management : as noted previously, EA best practice
places a particular emphasis on the role and importance of informa-
tion in EA. The global availability of information in what is essentially
an unregulated global space, presents various opportunities but also
challenges. The opportunities clearly lie in providing improved access
to information through various information technology options, while
the challenges relate to the management of information to ensure that
it is suf ﬁcient, reliable, and usable to decision makers. We therefore
foresee a bigger role for information management in EA process de-
sign and communication strategies, which will have to be tailor
made for particular contexts and EA systems. This realisation and re-
sultant recommendations does not seem to have received much at-
tention in the EA literature to date.
2. Concluding thoughts and future directions for EA research In this paper, we have identi ﬁed and discussed implications of six
megatrends in relation to four challenges for EA practice. By way of con-
clusion, we return to the founding assumption of EA practice described
in the ﬁrst section which is that future development can be accurately
anticipated and formally planned for. Amidst a more complex and un-
certain future this assumption must be questioned. Moreover, the ex-
tent to which EA practitioners can accurately predict adverse future
impacts and then mitigate these to a point where overall residual im-
pacts are deemed acceptable is also becoming more doubtful, and less
desirable in a world of scarcity where the expectation should increas-
ingly be for net gain (or no net loss) EA outcomes. So the question
that arises is: how should practitioners adapt EA, as an anticipatory
mechanism, to remain effective in a world where the future is becoming
less and less predictable? Further to the suggestions for EA practice
made in the previous sections, we are of the view that the most promis-
ing approach is a shift in practitioners thinking towards the possibility
of multiple possible futures of any one proposal because thinking of a
predictable single future or outcome is unlikely to succeed. Methods
like scenario planning and systems approaches referred to previously
are well suited to this, along with the thinking and approaches under-
pinning resilience and sustainability assessment which we believe
could further lead the way ( Holling, 1978; Gibson, 2006; Bond et al.,
2013 ). Facilitative adaptation should also become a core part of EA activity, on par with mitigation, to ensure there is resilience to unfore-
seen impacts in terms of the capacity to respond and adapt as needed.
Based on the limitations of the research methodology described in
previous sections we recognise that neither the megatrends nor the
challenges/implications for EA highlighted in this paper are exhaustive,
and that there is much room to in future, with different methodological
approaches and designs, change or expand the scope of research. For ex-
ample, although this paper dealt with four speci ﬁc challenges, we also
recognise that there are other challenges that could form part of further
future research, such as the implications of megatrends for cumulative
effects assessment, effective implementation of EA mitigation measures
as well as the consequences of the increasing global reach of certain im-
pacts such as climate change for project level EA. Another important
next step in progressing EA practice would be to explore speci ﬁcs
 trate-
gies to deal with the implications of the megatrends. We have made var-
ious recommendation on different responses to the implications, but
these need to be considered in more detail and translated into speci ﬁc
strategies. Identifying and formulating strategies would probably re-
quire a more context speci ﬁc research approach, taking cognisance of
local policy and understandings of EA. Finally, the basic premise of EA of thinking about consequences be-
fore action is taken ( Caldwell, 1989; Wood, 2003 ) will likely always be
valid and even more so in future. We agree with Morgan (2012, p12)
who states that “The pro ﬁle of EIA can only increase as concerns over issues
such as climate change grow and communities and governments recognize
the importance of true anticipatory mechanisms. ”Therefore we are con ﬁ-
dent that EA will continue to serve a valuable role despite the global
megatrends identi ﬁed. However, we have reasoned that existing chal-
lenges posed for EA practice will be magni ﬁed and therefore methods
employed by EA practitioners and expected outcomes must appropri-
ately evolve to deal with the shifting demands of a rapidly changing
world.
References
Adlard, R.D., Miller, T.L., Smit, N.J., 2015. The butterﬂy effect: parasite diversity, environ-
ment, and emerging disease in aquatic wildlife. Trends Parasitol. 31 (4), 160 –166.
Arnell, N.W., Lowe, J.A., Brown, S., Gosling, S.N., Gottschalk, P., Hinkel, J., Lloyd-Hughes, B., Nicholls, R.J., Osborn, T.J., Osborne, T.M., Rose, G.A., Smith, P., Warren, R.F., 2013. A
global assessment of the effects of climate policy on the impacts of climate change.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (5), 512 –519.
Barber, B.R., 2013. If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities. Yale
University Press, New Haven.
Bennett, D.H., Scheringer, M., McKone, T.E., Hungerbühler, K., 2001. Predicting long-range
transport: a systematic evaluation of two multimedia transport models. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 35 (6), 1181 –1189.
Benson, M.H., Garmestani, A.S., 2001. Embracing panarchy, building resilience and inte-
grating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy
Act. Environ. Manag. 92 (5), 1420 –1427.
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., 2012. Sustainability assessment: the state of the
art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 53 –62.
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Howitt, R., 2013. Sustainability Assessment: Pluralism,
Practice and Progress. Routledge, London.
Bond, A., Pope, J., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., Gunn, J., 2014. Impact assessment:
eroding bene ﬁts through streamlining? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 45, 46 –53.
Bond, A., 2015. What is the role of impact assessment in the long term? J. Environ. Assess.
Pol. Manag. 17 (1550006-1-1550006-6).
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Gunn, J., Pope, J., Retief, F., 2015. Managing uncertainty,
ambiguity and ignorance in impact assessment by embedding evolutionary resil-
ience, participatory modelling and adaptive management. Environ. Manag. 151,
97 –104.
Caldwell, L., 1989. Understanding impact analysis: technical process, administrative re-
form, policy principle. In: Bartlet, R. (Ed.), Policy Through Impact Assessment. Green-
wood Press, New York.
de Jesus-Hitzachky, K.R.E., da Silveira, J.M.F.J., 2009. A proposed impact assessment meth-
od for genetically modi ﬁed plants (AS-GMP Method). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29,
348 –358.
Diamandis, P., 2012. Abundance is Our Future available at http://www.ted.com/talks/
peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future last accessed 14 September 2015.
Dipper, B., Jones, C., Wood, C., 1998. Monitoring and post-auditing in environmental im-
pact assessment: a review. J. Environ. Plan Manag. 41 (6), 731 –747.
Duinker, P.N., Greig, L.A., 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment:
improving explorations of the future. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 27 (3), 206 –219.
EEA - European Environment Agency, 2015. Assessment of Global Megatrends —an Up-
date available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/scenarios/global-megatends
(last accessed 12 September 2015).
58
F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

Ehrlich, A., Ross, W., 2015.The signiﬁcance spectrum and EIA signi ﬁcance determinations.
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 33 (2), 87 –97.
Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., Vanclay, F., 2012. Social impact assessment: the state of the art.
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 34 –42.
EY, 2015. Ernest and Young. Megatrends. Making sense of a world in motion, Ernest and
Young Global, London, p. 2015.
FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2014. The state of food insecurities in the world 2014. Strengthening
the Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition. Food and Agricultural Or-
ganization, Rome.
Fundingsland Tetlow, M., Hanusch, M., 2012. Strategic environmental assessment: the
state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1), 15 –24.
Lyhne, I., Kørnøv, L., 2013. How do we make sense of signi ﬁcance? Indications and re ﬂec-
tions on an experiment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 31 (3), 180 –189.
Geneletti, D., Beinat, E., Chung, C.F., Fabbri, A.J., Scholten, H.J., 2003. Accounting for uncer-
tainty factors in biodiversity impact assessment: lessons from a case study. Environ.
Assess. Rev. 23, 471 –487.
Geneletti, D., 2013. Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic
environmental assessment. Environ. Assess. Rev. 40, 1 –2.
Gibson, R., 2006. Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Im-
pact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 24 (3), 170 –182.
Gibson, L., Lee, T.M., Koh, L.P., Brook, B.W., Gardner, T.A., Barlow, J., Peres, C.A., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Laurance, W.F., Lovejoy, T.E., Sodhi, N.S., 2011. Primary forests are irreplaceable
for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478 (7369), 378 –381.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., 2012. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assess-
ment. Routledge, London.
Grace, W., Pope, J., 2015. A systems approach to sustainability assessment. In: Morrison-
Saunders, A., Pope, J., Bond, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability Assessment. Edward
Elgar.
Gunn, J., Noble, B.F., 2011. Conceptual and methodological challenges to integrating SEA
and cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Assess. Rev. 31, 154 –160.
Hajkowicz, S.A., Cook, H., Littleboy, A., 2012. Our Future World: Global Megatrends That
Will Change the Way We Live. The 2012 Revision. Commonwealth Scienti ﬁc and In-
dustrial Research Organization CSIRO, Australia.
Haug, P.T., Burwell, R.W., Stein, A., Bandurski, B.L., 1984. Determining the signiﬁcance of
environmental issues under the National Environmental Policy Act. Environ. Manag.
18, 15 –24.
Holling, C.S., 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Blackburn
Press, New Jersey.
Howard, S., 2013. Let's Go All-In on Selling Sustainability available at http://www.ted.
com/talks/steve_howard_let_s_go_all_in_on_selling_sustainability (last accessed 14
September 2015).
IAIA and IEA - International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute for Environmental Assessment UK, 1999m. Principles of Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Best Practice available at http://www.iaia.org/publications-resources/
downloadable-publications.aspx (last accessed 12 September 2015).
IEA –International Energy Agency, 2014. World Energy Outlook 2014. International Ener-
gy Agency, Paris.
Ilbury, C., Sunter, C., 2004. T
 he Mind of a Fox–Scenario Planning in Action. Human and
Rousseau Tafelberg Publishers, Cape Town.
IPCC, 2014. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change
2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth As-
sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Joshi,M.,Hawkins,E.,Sutton,R.,Lowe,J.,Frame,D.,2011. Projections of when temperature
change will exceed 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Nat. Clim. Chang. 1 (8), 407 –412.
Kalnay, E., Cai, M., 2003. Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature
423 (6939), 528 –531.
KPMG International, 2012. Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing
World. KPMG Global Centre of Excellence for Climate Change and Sustainability,
Melbourne.
Lastarnau, C., Oyarzún, J., Maturana, H., Soto, G., Señoret, M., Soto, M., Rötting, T.S.,
Amezaga, J.M., Oyarzún, R., 2011. Stakeholder participation within the public envi-
ronmental system in Chile: major gaps between theory and practice. Environ.
Manag. 92 (10), 2470 –2478.
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., Montes, C., 2014. Trade-offs
across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Indic. 37 (PART A),
220 –228.
Marx, A., 2002. Uncertainty and social impacts: a case study of a Belgian village. Environ.
Assess. Rev. 22, 79 –96.
Matthews, E.C., Sattler, M., Friedland, C.J., 2014. A critical analysis of hazard resilience
measures within sustainability assessment frameworks. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 48, 59 –69.
McLeman, R., Smit, B., 2006. Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim. Chang. 76
(1 –2), 31 –53.
Meadows, D., 2009. Thinking in systems: A primer London: Earthscan.
Moore, G.E., 2006. Moore's law at 40. In: Brock, D.C. (Ed.), Understanding Moore's Law:
Four Decades of Innovation. Chemical Heritage Press, Philadelphia, pp. 67 –84 (ISBN
0-941901-41-6).
Morgan, R.K., 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess.
Proj.Apprais.30(1),5 –14.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Therivel, R., 2006. Sustainability integration and assessment.
J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 8, 281 –298.
Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J., Gunn, J., Bond, A., Retief, F., 2014. Strengthening impact
assessment: a call for integration and focus. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 32 (1), 2 –8.
Nooteboom, S., 2007. Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: a com-
plexity theory perspective. Environ. Assess. Rev. 27, 645 –665. O'Faircheallaigh, C., 2010.
Public participation and environmental impact assessment:
purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 30 (1), 19 –27.
Owens, S., Rayner, T., Bina, O., 2004. New agendas for appraisal: reﬂections on theory,
practice, and research. Environ. Plan. 36, 1943 –1959.
Partidario, M.R., Sheate, W.R., 2013. Knowledge brokerage - potential for increased
capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 39, 26 –36.
Petts, J., 1999. Public participation and environmental impact assessment. In: Petts, J.
(Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Impac tA
 ssessment-Vol.1EnvironmentalIm-
pact Assessment: Process, Methods and Po tential. Blackwell Science, Oxford,
pp. 145 –177.
Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., Retief, F., 2013. Advancing the theory and prac-
tice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
41, 1 –9.
Porter, A., 1995. Technology assessment. In: Vanclay, F., Bronstein, D. (Eds.), Environmen-
tal and Social Impact Assessment. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 67 –81.
PWC, 2014. Global Annual Review 2014 - Five global Megatrends continue to advance.
PWC Global, New York.
PWC, 2015. 18th Annual Global CEO Survey. PWC Global, New York.
Rega, C., Baldizzone, G., 2015. Public participation in strategic environmental assessment:
a practitioners' perspective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50, 105 –115.
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., Johnson, B., 1993. Public participation in decision
making: a three step procedure. Policy. Sci. 26 (3), 189 –214.
Retief, F., Chabalala, B., 2009. The cost of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in South
Africa. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 11, 51 –68.
Retief, F., Morrison-Saunders, A., Geneletti, D., Pope, J., 2013. Exploring the psychology of
trade-off decision making in EIA. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 31 (1), 13 –23.
RF and GBN - Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network, 2010t. Scenarios for
the Future of Technology and International Development. Rockefeller Foundation,
New York.
Russell, A.W., Vanclay, F.M., Aslin, H.J., 2010. Technology assessment in social context: the
case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments. Im-
pact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 28 (2), 109 –116.
Sadler, B., 1996. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment -
Final Report: Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice
to Improve Performance. Minister of Supply and Services, Ottawa.
Sandham, L., Carrol, T., Retief, F., 2010. The contribution of environmental impact assess-
ment (EIA) to decision making for biological pest control in South Africa –the case of
Lantana camara . Biol. Control 55, 141 –149.
Sandham, L., Van Heerden, A., Jones, C., Retief, F., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2013. Does en-
hanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 38, 155 –162.
Sheate, W.R., 2010. Tools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collective Writ-
ings in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. World Scienti ﬁc,
Singapore.
Shrader-Frechette, K.S., 1985. Science Policy, Ethics, and Economic Methodology: Some
Problems of Technology Assessment and Environmental-Impact Analysis. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
Sinclair, A.J., Fitzpatrick, P., 2002. Provisions for more meaningful public participation still
elusive in proposed Canadian EA Bill. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 20 (3), 161 –176.
Slootweg, R., Jones, M., 2011. Resilience thinking improves SEA: a discussion paper. Im-
pact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 29, 263 –276.
Spadaro, J.V., Rabl, A., 2008. Estimating the uncertainty of damage costs of pollution: a
simple transparent method and typical results. Environ. Assess. Rev. 28, 166 –183.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R.,
Carpenter, S.R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace,
G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S., 2015. Planetary boundaries:
guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223), 736 –
753.
Ster

man, J., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex
World. Irwin Professional/McGraw –Hill, New York.
Sunter, C., 2013. 21st Century Megatrends –Perspectives from a Fox. Human and Rous-
seau Tafelberg Publishers, Cape Town.
Taleb, N.N., 2007. The Black Swan. Random House, New York.
Thompson, M.A., 1990. Determining impact signi ﬁcance in EIA: a review of 24 methodol-
ogies. Environ. Manag. 30, 235 –250.
Tol, R.S.J., 2005. Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ.
Sci. Pol. 8 (6), 572 –578.
UNFPA, 2014. State of World Population 2014: The Power of 1,8 Billion Adolescents,
Youth and the Transformation of the Future. United Nations, New York.
Habitat, U.N., 2012. State of World's Cities 2012/13: Prosperity of Cities. United Nations,
New York.
Habitat, U.N., 2014. State of Africa's Cities 2014: Re-Imagining Sustainable Urban Transi-
tions. United Nations, New York.
Vielmetter, G., Sell, Y., 2014. Leadership 2030: The Six Megatrends you Need to
Understand to Lead Your Company into the Future. Amacon Books, Saranac
Lake New York.
Wang, Y., Morgan, R.K., Cashmore, M., 2003. Environmental impact assessment of projects
in the People's Republic of China: new law, old problems. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 23 (5), 543 –579.
WB –World Bank, 2015. International Debt Statistics 2015. World Bank, Washington.
Wood, C., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Harlow,
Prentice Hall.
Wood, G., 2008. Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact signif-
icance in environmental statements: ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil ’?Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (1), 22 –38. 59
F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60

Wood, G., Rodriguez-Bachiller, A., Becker, J., 2007.Fuzzy sets and simulated environmen-
tal change: evaluating and communicating signi ﬁcance in environmental impact as-
sessment. Environ. Plan. 39, 810 –829.
WRG –Water Resources Group. Charting Our Water Futures: Economic Frameworks to
Inform Decision Making. http://www.google.co.za/url?sa = t&rct = j&q =&esrc = -
s&source = web&cd = 2&ved = 0-
CCIQFjABahUKEwjdkKqf8vXHAhXRCNsKHeQwDoQ&url = -
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mckinsey.com%2F ~%2-
Fmedia%2Fmckinsey%2Fdotcom%2Fclient_ service%2Fsustainability%2Fpdfs%2Fcharting%2520our%2520water%2520future%2Fc-
harting_our_water_future_full_report_.ashx&usg = AFQjCNG0-
CWY1sfYzmHfNHbOyZrT0Hq32A&sig2 = UBb47f6jvT3GzEjgg6m_uA, 2009. (last
accessed 14 September 2015).
Zhou, J., Liu, Y., Chen, J., 2010. Accounting for uncertainty in evaluating water quality im-
pacts of urban development plan. Environ. Assess. Rev. 30, 219 –228.
60
F. Retief et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 61 (2016) 52 –60