当前位置: X-MOL 学术Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. › 论文详情
Toward ‘good process’ in regulatory reviews: Is Canada’s new system any better than the old?
Environmental Impact Assessment Review ( IF 3.749 ) Pub Date : 2020-03-12 , DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106379
Carol Hunsberger; Sarah Froese; George Hoberg

What are the features of a good regulatory review process? In this paper we identify criteria for ‘good process’ drawn from a combined reading of the environmental justice and process literature. We then apply these criteria to a case study, assessing four versions of Canadian regulatory review: CEAA 1992, CEAA 2012, the 2017 Expert Panel report, and IAA 2019. We aim to make two contributions. First, we propose a set of ‘good process’ criteria that we hope can be widely applied, reflecting on complementarities and tensions that arise from combining two bodies of scholarship. Second, we identify areas where Canadian review processes have improved over time and those where significant work remains to be done. This work seeks to make a constructive intervention at a time when energy and industrial projects around the world face strong challenges in the legal, political and public domains.
更新日期:2020-03-12

 

全部期刊列表>>
如何通过Nature平台传播科研成果
跟Nature、Science文章学绘图
隐藏1h前已浏览文章
课题组网站
新版X-MOL期刊搜索和高级搜索功能介绍
中洪博元
ACS材料视界
x-mol收录
南开大学
朱守非
廖良生
郭东升
汪铭
伊利诺伊大学香槟分校
徐明华
中山大学化学工程与技术学院
试剂库存
天合科研
down
wechat
bug