| dc.contributor.author | Fischer, Thomas B. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-12T13:58:18Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-08-12T13:58:18Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Fischer, T.B. 2019. Editorial – evolution, revolution, climate change and current EIA. Impact assessment and project appraisal, 37(5):369-370. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1641778] | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1461-5517 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1471-5465 (Online) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/33212 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14615517.2019.1641778 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1641778 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Do we need impact assessment (IA) evolution or revolution? This was the question discussed at this year’s IAIA conference in Brisbane, Australia. And whilst the answer to this simple question is – inevitably – rather complex, what most participants probably did agree on is that change is needed in order to be able to effectively meet the substantial challenges we are facing at the end of the second decade of the 21st century. Considering the extent of those challenges (including biodiversity loss, climate change, rising inequality, human health issues and others), there can be no ‘business as usual’. Whilst – by and large – there appears to be nothing wrong with the way IA is approached conceptually, commitment to implementation of IA results needs to be strengthened, and conditions that enable IA effectiveness need to improve | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Taylor & Francis | en_US |
| dc.title | Editorial – evolution, revolution, climate change and current EIA | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.contributor.researchID | 34488693 - Fischer, Thomas B. | |
