Brief analyses are made of both the Portuguese planning system and the project environmental impact assessment (EIA) system. Major trends in planning practice are characterised and the scope for bargaining processes is critically addressed. The procedural and institutional separation between these systems is emphasised. A contrast is made between the localised nature of planning practice and the independent centralised approach to environmental assessment in Portugal. In this context, a case study of the planning application for a large tourism development condominium, involving the preparation of an environmental assessment, is presented. A contradictory framework for bargaining emerges out of this case. The search for scientific evidence to support the decision-making process is impaired by changing environmental arguments throughout a long administrative process. Diverging local development interests versus national conservation interests are explored and a strong case for a collaborative approach is justified. Finally, evidence is gathered to support the view that the separation between the planning system and the EIA system create a disjointed framework for bargaining, in which the developer is bound to perform a difficult and somehow secondary mitigated role.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailey, J. (1997) Environmental impact assessment and management: an underexplored relationship, EnvironmentalManagement, 21, pp. 317-327.
2.
Crance, C. and Draper, D. (1996) Socially cooperative choices: an approach to achieving resource sustainability in the coastal zone, EnvironmentalManagement, 20, pp. 175-184.
3.
Gardner, J.E. (1989) Decision-making for sustainable development: selected approaches to environmental assessment and management, EIA Review, 9, pp. 337-366.
4.
Harwell, M.A., Long, J.E., Bartuska, A.M. ET AL. (1996) Ecosystem management to achieve ecological sustainability: the case of South Florida, Environmental Management , 20, pp.497-521.
5.
Holling, C. W. (Ed.) (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester : Wiley.
6.
McHarg, I. (1970) Design with Nature. New York : Natural History Press.
7.
McLain, R. and Lee, R. (1996) Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls, Environmental Management, 20, pp. 437-448.
8.
Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M. (1990) Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (Eds) (1994) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Cameron and May .
10.
Pinho, P. (1994) A problematica do ambiente: da demarcação a convergencia no planeamento do territorio, in: Proceedings of the 4° Conferência Nacional sobre a Qualidade do Ambiente, vol. 1, pp. C88-92. Lisbon: CCB-UNL/ FCT.
11.
Pinho, P. and Pires, A.R. (1994) The Portuguese planning system: tradition, change and challenges. Paper presented at the conference Are Local Strategies Possible?, EDUTECH, Tampere, Finland.
12.
Reckhow, K. (1994) Importance of scientific uncertainty in decision making, EnvironmentalManagement, 18, pp. 161-166.
13.
Roe, E. ( 1996) Why ecosystem management can't work without social science: an example from the California northern spotted owl controversy, Environmental Management, 20, pp. 667-674.
14.
Selin, S. and Chavez, D. (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management, EnvironmentalManagement, 19, pp. 189-195.
15.
Slocombe, D.S. (1993) Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development, EnvironmentalManagement, 17, pp. 289-303.
