Analyzing the effectiveness of environmental impact assessment in Paraná, Brazil and California, United States with fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis and the analytical hierarchy process.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become one of the most widespread environmental management instruments. Despite this, EIA is routinely criticized for being ineffective at impacting decision-making. This study compared the EIA systems of Paraná, Brazil and California, United States using the effectiveness dimensions from the EIA literature. This study formats the cases into contextual conditions using the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify the necessary or sufficient conditions that cause effective outcomes. These effectiveness outcomes are then ranked by EIA stakeholders via the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to identify stakeholder priorities and to improve stakeholder management. The results show that in Paraná stakeholders identified normative effectiveness as the most important dimension, while stakeholders in California identified this dimension as the second-most important following substantive effectiveness. Public participation was found to be a necessary condition for both substantive and normative effectiveness to occur. Early project definition was found to be sufficient for substantive effectiveness and necessary for normative effectiveness, for which stakeholder coordination was a sufficient condition. This suggests that in order for EIA to influence decision-making and foster sustainable development, greater care needs to be taken to actively engage stakeholders in public participation, with clear roles and project design communicated early on, and a clear role for regulatory authority to promote stakeholder coordination for acceptable outcomes. These findings suggest that some effectiveness dimensions are caused by similar conditions, which could help focus stakeholder management efforts and point to new avenues for future EIA effectiveness research.