On the individual and organizational capacities supporting impact assessment: the case of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board

• Published in: FACETS
• Main Authors: Samantha Darling, Blane Harvey, Gordon M. Hickey
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Canadian Science Publishing 2022
• Subjects: natural resources; participation; boundary spanning actors; knowledge management; environmental impact assessment (EIA); Arctic; hisphilso; socio; Canada; Eia; Yukon
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0118; https://doaj.org/article/edb6b14998ab4f168e3de0406ad3fd40

Impact assessment (IA) processes rely on the ability of assessment boards and their assessors to gather, synthesize, and interpret knowledge from a variety of sources, making IA a knowledge-based activity. IA boards in northern Canada operate in a context that prioritizes pluralism, where Indigenous knowledge is a key element of decision-making and the ability of practitioners to interact with knowledge—research capacity—affects process effectiveness, credibility, and legitimacy. Drawing on common principles from existing research capacity frameworks, we identify the dimensions of capacity most relevant to more fully realizing inclusive impact assessment processes. We then examine the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB) as a specialized environmental governance organization with assessors whose research capacity directly impacts process outcomes. Results show that while common dimensions across knowledge-based disciplines, such as sufficient resources (e.g., financial support), are often addressed in the YESAB context, others unique to IA, like contextual understanding, require further examination. The interaction between individual and organizational research capacity is a complex balance between investing in individuals and investing in organizational supports. The proposed framework facilitates multi-scalar supports for individual assessors and assessment bodies alike to navigate balancing technical and value-driven knowledge in assessments.