Interview schedule used for the case study research
Theme and Questions Explanations and probing
Introduction
What was your involvement or role in the
407 East Project EA? Follow-Up: How were you involved either in the provincial EA
process or the federal EA process?
Theme 1: Uncertainty in the Assessment
1. Can you recall some of the main uncertainties related to the project
development? Probe: For example, in relation to the project’s design, baseline
studies, impact predictions, management of the impacts and alternatives, etc.?
2. In your view, what factors contributed most to the creation of uncertainties that
you’ve mentioned? Probe: For example, environmental, social, technological,
economic, political, scientific, or others?
3. Did the uncertainties in the assessment affect your confidence in the EA process that took place (i.e. approval/recommendations)?
Theme 2: Communication of Uncertainty
1. What were some of the things that were done during the EA process (from the Provincial through to the Federal CSR), if anything, to identify and or communicate uncertainty?
Follow-Up: How were uncertainties identified and communicated? By whom? To whom? Did you initiate any of these activities?
Probe: Do you recall uncertainty being brought up in the preliminary stages (i.e. collection of data) or during the evaluation of impacts?
2. Was enough information about uncertainty shared, and were the right people involved?
Follow-Up: If not, what would have been a better way?
3. During the EA process did you ever feel that you (or others involved) couldn’t communicate openly about uncertainty for fear of some consequence?
Probe: Is there a particular example that you can share?
4. Do you recall of any information about uncertainty being used in the EA process?
Explanation: In other words, did this information influence the way impacts were predicted, management measures, the projects decisions, etc.?
Probe: Can you think of an example?
5. What would you have done differently to communicate about uncertainty, and with whom, if you had the opportunity?
Probe: Why? Can you explain?
Theme 3: Perception of Uncertainty
1. What information about uncertainty is important to you? Explanation: In other words, are there certain instances or issues, in general, where knowing about any uncertainties is of particular importance?
2. Might you have responded differently or viewed the project or decision differently if you had more (or less) information about uncertainty?
Probe: Why? Can you explain?
3. Looking back on this project, what would you identify as the benefits to disclosing (or not disclosing) information about uncertainties to the affected interests (e.g. proponent, decision-maker, NGOs, public)
Follow-Up: Were there any negative outcomes or risks created because uncertainties were or were not reported?
Follow-Up: More generally speaking, beyond this particular project, what are the benefits of disclosing or not disclosing uncertainties? The risks?
4. As a stakeholder, you are involved in the communication about uncertainty during the EA process. How do you think other stakeholders view your approach to handling uncertainty?
Follow- Up: How do you think other stakeholders view uncertainty in EA, or would use the information about uncertainty?
Interview schedule used for the case study research
5. How did the decision-makers, or other stakeholders react to or address any uncertainties that may have been presented in the preliminary design, in the IEA, or in the CSR?
Follow-Up: Was the response appropriate in your view?
Theme 4: Gauging Uncertainty
1. Were you satisfied with the way uncertainties were dealt with (i.e.
communicated and considered throughout project management and decisions)?
Probe: Why or why not?
Follow-Up: Do you think other stakeholders were aware of and satisfied with how uncertainties were communicated?
2. Would you say that there is a gap between the potential range of the project’s effect that may occur in the long term, in combination with other projects, and the range of our knowledge or in the responsibility taken to
manage these effects?
Follow-Up: How important is uncertainty communication to closing or at least understanding this gap?
Theme 5: Suggestions for Improved Practice
1. What were/are the main challenges to communicating uncertainty in the 407 East Project?
Follow-Up: Are there any aspects of uncertainty communication you think are done well?
2. Who is (or should be) ethically responsible for disclosing uncertainty? Follow-Up: Are there or should there be legal obligations to do so?
3. What could, or should, decision-makers do with information about uncertainty in an EA when they receive it?
Probe: What approaches, concepts, or principle are being used?
4. Is there a need to improve uncertainty communication in EA? Why or why not? Probe: How is it best communicated (i.e. visually, graphically, verbally, etc.)?
5. What are your suggestions (if any) for how we can improve uncertainty communication and consideration in EA to improve decision-making?
Theme 6: Context Dynamics of Uncertainty Communication and Consideration 1. Were there any factors related to the project environment or stakeholder dynamics that contributed to uncertainty or influenced the way uncertainties were communicated and considered by individual actors? (e.g. situational,
environmental, sociopolitical context)
Follow-up: Did the location or extent of the undertaking have any influence on the evaluation of the impacts?
Follow-up: Did the socio-political or economic context have any influence on project decisions?
2. What uncertainties regarding ecological road effects were identified or communicated during the assessment that you are aware of? This includes indirect and cumulative effects.
Probe: Was anything done to reduce the uncertainties (e.g. collection of more baseline information, quantification of uncertainty, etc.)?
Probe: Were you satisfied with all that was done to address indirect and cumulative impacts?
Follow-up: Do you recall any discussion related to mitigation of the potential ecological effects of the road such as fencing or passages?
3. What uncertainties do you face during the preliminary assessment, the detailed assessment and post-EA stages?
Follow-up: How did the 407 East process react to address the uncertainties in the relevant stages?
Probe: How does the project compare with others you have worked on?
4. Do you recall any information on uncertainty being considered or communicated as part of the post-EA plans such as Follow-up or other impact management proposals?
Follow-Up: Do you think the presence of uncertainty in the VECs or any other issues influence the extent to which it will be covered in the post-EA management plans (i.e. CSR follow-up,
monitoring, auditing, etc.)? How? Do you have an example?
Probe: What is factored in when determining what goes into follow-up? (i.e. regulatory backing, bias, practicality, etc)
5. Do you feel that enough consideration to
the uncertainties about species at risk, groundwater, and wetland impacts were
Probe: Can you give me a particular example of a
mitigation measure or recommendation related to wildlife, species
Interview schedule used for the case study research
6. Do you feel the 407 East EA was explicit in recognizing potential uncertainties
related to the undertaking? Follow-Up: How important is transparency in impact
assessment processes?
Appendix B: Introductory e-mail
Introductory e-mail sent out to potential research participants
p.1 of 2
p. 2 of 2
Appendix C: Participant consent form Research participant consent form
p.1 of 3
p.2 of 3
p. 3 of 3
Appendix D: Code list (selection of the most important codes used)
Process.uncertainty Environmental.uncertainty Social.uncertainty Economic.uncertainty Species.at.risk Regulatory.process Follow.up
Federal Provincial
Stakeholder.engagement Transparency
Public.view Perception Timelines Wildlife MTO
Fish.Fishhabitat Adaptive.management Regulatory.agency Review.process
Uncertainty.terminology Communication.uncertainty Data.limitations
Location.context Agricultural.impacts Governance
Location.of.uncertainty