[ad_1]
Instruction:
You are to respond to one of these questions. Your answer(s) must be 2 double-spaced pages. You will have ample room to answer the question and provide evidence, but you still need to boil your answer down to the essentials, so avoid colloquialisms, filler sentences, and unnecessary detail.
Your answers should include some external research, as well as references to course material. However, certain questions may require more external research than others, so it is difficult to declare exactly how many external sources are required per answer. Therefore, I posit that at least 1 external source is required per answer. The external source could be a peer-reviewed journal article; a blog post; a Youtube video; a book; government documents; etc – so long as you are demonstrating that you have carefully reviewed and considered your external source(s), the nature of the source itself is not a major issue.
When it comes to answering the questions, your answers must demonstrate “critical engagement,” which basically means that you are not just summarising the readings of the week, but are actively developing an original perspective based on what you have read, and what you think needs to be added or reconsidered. In a sense, your answers should be in the form of either argument or synthesis. Many of the questions are going to be written in ways in which critical engagement naturally arises in the answers, but some may require a bit more consideration to ensure that they do not just merely summarise the week’s readings.
Review Questions:
- What does it say about the Canadian EIA process that 99% of EIAs, before 2012, were screening EIAs?
- What can one say about the ability to trust proponents, in a project, when the textbook indicates that proponents may design their projects to fall just under certain thresholds? What dynamics might be at play in such a system?
- Look through the list of examples of projects that may or may not get approved for an EIA. Do you agree with the designations and their rationales, or are there (non)designations you believe warrant consideration?
- Should the project proponent determine the need for, and purpose of, a project?
- What is your stance on the elimination of EIA for small projects?
- What might you add, or remove, from the Winnipeg Heliport proposal were you writing it?
- Is the Winnipeg Heliport proposal comprehensive?
- What are the implications of the Geneletti et al. piece, and are they alarming? Have similar results been reported elsewhere?
- What might the implications of Callahan’s critique of Elster’s conceptualization of rationality and reason be for IA? What about project-screening specifically
- Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a threshold-based, case-by-base, and list-based approach to screening. What are the implications of these advantages and disadvantages on the IA process?
Important note:
You have to read the required readings before answering the question.
Required Readings : (Recommended Order: Noble, Geneletti, Minister of Justice*, KGS Group*, Callahan). [Note: the * denotes that these readings do not need comprehensive review of each individual component — just go through and get a sense of what they are/how they relate to the other readings.]
Callahan, G. (2010). Reason and Rationality. Review of Political Economy, 22(3), pp. 470-473. (Course Reserves)
Geneletti, D., Biasiolli, A., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Land Take and the Effectiveness of Project Screening in Environmental Impact Assessment: Findings from an Empirical Study. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 67, pp. 117-123. (Course Reserves)
KGS Group. (2018, April). Project Description Executive Summary: Insect Control Branch Heliport Relocation. pp. 1-41. (Course Reserves)
Minister of Justice. (2014, December 31). Regulations Designating Physical Activities. Government of Canada. pp. 1-14. (Course Reserves)
[link: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-147/page-1.html ]
Noble, Bram. F. (2015). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice. Third Edition. Oxford University Press. Chapter 4, Screening Procedures. pp. 72-94.
Order with us today for a quality custom paper on the above topic or any other topic!
What Awaits you:
• High Quality custom-written papers
• Automatic plagiarism check
• On-time delivery guarantee
• Masters and PhD-level writers
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
[ad_2]
Source link
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
