دانلود ترجمه مقاله بالاترین سطح تخمین اثر در سال ۲۰۱۲ – مجله Taylor & Francis

taylorfrancis2

 

دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی

 

عنوان فارسی مقاله: بالاترین سطح تخمین اثر در سال ۲۰۱۲
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی روی عنوان انگلیسی مقاله کلیک نمایید.برای خرید ترجمه آماده ورد، روی عنوان فارسی مقاله کلیک کنید.

 

مشخصات مقاله انگلیسی (PDF)
سال انتشار مقاله ۲۰۱۲
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۵  صفحه با فرمت pdf
رشته های مرتبط مدیریت
مجله مربوطه مجله ارزیابی اثرات و ارزیابی پروژه (Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal)
دانشگاه تهیه کننده دانشکده علوم محیط زیست، نورویچ، انگلستان
کلمات کلیدی این مقاله بالاترین سطح، ارزیابی اثر، کارایی، تئوری، فرصت ها . تهدید ها، نقاط ضعف و قوت
شناسه شاپا یا ISSN ISSN ۱۴۶۱-۵۵۱۷
لینک مقاله در سایت مرجع لینک این مقاله در سایت Taylor & Francis
نشریه تیلور و فرانسیس  taylor and francis

 

مشخصات و وضعیت ترجمه مقاله (Word)
تعداد صفحات ترجمه مقاله  ۱۰ صفحه با فرمت ورد، به صورت تایپ شده و با فونت ۱۴ – B Nazanin

 


فهرست مطالب:

 

تئوری، فرصت ها . تهدید ها، نقاط ضعف و قوت
مسائل موضوعی
مسائل خارجی(تهدید ها و فرصت ها)
مسائل عملیاتی مداوم

 


بخشی از ترجمه:

 

هدف ارزیابی اثر و ارزیابی پروژه بررسی وضعیت پیشرفت یک سری از ابزار های ارزیابی اثر می باشد. در حال حاضر ارزیابی اثر زیست محیطی ۲۴ ساله شده است( از ابتدای ژانویه ۱۹۷۰ زمانی که رییس جمهور ریچارد نیکسون قانون سیاست زیست محیطی ملی را در ایالات متحده امضا کرد). این قانون آخرین اتحادیه ملی را برای مر.ر ارزیابی اثر در زمینه هایی که در ۱۹۹۵ منتشر شده(وانکلی و برانشتین) را آپدیت می کند که به مطالعه کارایی بین المللی ۱۹۹۶ بر می گردد( سادلر ۱۹۹۶). این مطالعه کارایی به خودی خود به روز شده است با این حال در زمان انتشار یا زیر چاپ هر گونه نتیجه گیری معوق خواهد بود.
مسئله ی اول برای نوسندگان تصمیم گیری در خصوص موضوع مناسب مقاله بود زیرا تنها ۶ موضوع می توانست انخاب شود که حاکی از ان است که با قضاوت هایی در خصوص اهمیت نسبی انواع مختلف ارزیابی اثر کرده ایم. ما در رابطه با مقاله هایی که به موضاعات کلی ارزیابی اثر می پردازند و یا اجزای ارزیابی اثر که می توانند قابل تعمیم به فرایند دیگر باند تصمیم گیری نکردیم بنابراین ارزیابی اثرات تجمعی در نظر گرفته نشد و همچنین مشارکت عمومی نیز مد نظر قرار نگرفت علی رغم این که ما اهمیت ان ها را تایید کردیم چندین مقاله در این جلد به بررسی این مسائل در رابطه با موضوعات خاص منحصر به فرد می پردازد.

بالاترین سطح، ارزیابی اثر، کارایی، تئوری، فرصت ها . تهدید ها، نقاط ضعف و قوت

 


بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

 

This special issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal aims to present the state of the art of a number of impact assessment tools. It is timely given that environmental impact assessment is now 42 years old (beginning on 1 January 1970 when President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act in the USA). It updates the last International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) overview of the field that was published in 1995 (Vanclay and Bronstein), which preceded the 1996 International Effectiveness Study (Sadler 1996). The Effectiveness Study itself has been updated, but, at the time of press, any conclusions are still pending. The initial problem for the editors was to decide the appropriate focus for papers, as only six could be selected, which suggests we have made judgements about the relative importance of various types of impact assessment. We decided not to include papers that dealt with generic types of impact assessment, or components of impact assessment, that could be applicable to any process, so cumulative effects assessment was not included, nor was public participation, despite our acknowledgement oftheir importance. Several of the papers in this special edition do address these concerns in relation to their specific topics, however. Determining which forms of impact assessment should then be the focus was no easy choice; we considered ecological impact assessment, climate impact assessment and technology assessment among others. We acknowledge that our choices could have been very different, and some readers may not agree with them, but we chose to consider some forms of assessment originally covered by Vanclay and Bronstein for which we were aware there was extensive practice globally, as well as two newcomers that we believe have now achieved this status. So this issue covers the state of the art of environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessment (SEA), policy assessment, social impact assessment (SIA), health impact assessment (HIA) and sustainability assessment, where SEA and sustainability assessment have emerged as significant bodies of theory and practice since the publication of Vanclay and Bronstein (1995). We have left open the possibility of producing a further issue dealing with some of the impact assessment processes we could not consider on this occasion. Having identified the topics, our next challenge was to identify appropriate authors to be invited to write each paper. We extended invitations to the Chair(s) of IAIA Sections where possible, and to others who have demonstrated leadership in their fields, for example by the publication of recent articles or books. In many cases the invited authors also drew upon the expertise of others; the HIA paper, with its 10 authors from that IAIA Section, represents a particularly collaborative effort. We are extremely grateful to all the authors for their tremendous hard work and responsiveness throughout the 12-month process that is behind this special edition. In the interests of academic rigour and continuing the spirit of collaboration among a broad range of contributors, we relied on three anonymous peer reviewers for each paper rather than the standard two. All of the reviewers engaged deeply with the material and made significant contributions to the final forms of each paper. We set a word limit of 7,000 words per article, which every paper failed to meet (they are all closer to 8,000 words in length). This is partly because the remit for each paper is very large as we are asking authors to sum up everything there is to know about the state of the art, a topic for which there has been 17 years of practice since the Vanclay and Bronstein (1995) book. We also considered what the focus of each paper should be. To allow some overview to be taken of the state of the art of impact assessment in general, we tried to standardize the content, asking for: . Brief history/evolution of practice/explanation of basis for practice (e.g. why is there practice in this area?). . International perspectives (where practised, legislative arrangements etc.). . Current strengths and weaknesses of the assessment processes (drawn from practice globally). . Current opportunities and threats in relation to external influences on the practice of the assessment process. . Although the authors have not necessarily addressed our request by rigidly following a prescribed format, the broad standardization of approach has allowed us to identify common threads through the papers. Reaching this point was not the end of the debate about content, however, because the author of the EIA paper (Morgan 2012) raised an excellent question about how EIA should be defined – with a purely biophysical focus or as an allencompassing practice embracing a broad range of considerations including social, health and other sustainability concerns, reflecting typical international EIA practice? In light of our common view that it should be the latter, this raised questions about the boundaries between the EIA paper and the others in this special edition. We determined that the EIA paper should have something of a special status, befitting EIA’s position as the original form of impact assessment, and that this paper should consider the state of the art of EIA to a large extent as the state of the art of impact assessment itself. Readers should also be clear that some level of knowledge of the impact assessment processes is assumed – it is not the case that these articles explain the impact assessment processes in detail. Instead, the assumption is made that the reader understands the basic steps involved in the process they are reading about, thereby allowing the authors to build on that basic understanding to update the reader on the extent of practice and on its evaluation. If this basic understanding is missing, the extensive references associated with each of the papers provide a rich source of additional learning, which we would encourage readers to delve into. We have divided the following consideration of the articles in this editorial into three broad categories: the first deals with topical issues which recur from one paper to another, and are therefore issues which cross over impact assessment areas; the second relates to external issues, including threats and opportunities to further practice of forms of impact assessment; the third relates to ongoing practice areas of concern. Before presenting the results against each of these categories, it is worth highlighting the influence of the paper authors on their own findings. We noted in particular that our requirement for authors to consider strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats caused some difficulty for some authors. Deciding what is a strength or a weakness, for example, is normative in that it depends what the authors think is a good or a poor aspect of practice. Here we would refer readers to the policy assessment paper (Adelle and Weiland 2012) where the authors have referred to the research which has been conducted on the process, and divided this into four types, the first two of which follow a positivist research philosophy, and the latter two post-positivist. The authors are critical in terms of the framing of normative concepts like ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’, as the findings would be different depending on the framing. In the policy assessment paper, the authors have taken care not to provide strengths and weaknesses based on an implicit framing. The relevant discussion in each of the other papers tends to focus on the process of assessment, and framing is not explicit – but it will be clear that the authors are also well aware of the theoretical debates about effectiveness. Topical issues Many of the papers touch on the debates raging in the academic literature over the effectiveness of impact assessment. What comes through clearly, however effectiveness might be framed, is that the country context is critical, and that pluralism, where different stakeholders clearly have different views about what works and how assessment processes should be conducted, is at the core of debates about effectiveness. The papers on EIA, SEA and SIA all deal with relatively mature impact assessment processes for which there has now been a long history of research into effectiveness. What is clear is that evolving considerations of effectiveness matter for the practice of impact assessment, as legislation and guidance evolve based on research which is framed based on considerations of effectiveness. Many of the developments that have taken place up to the present day have been grounded in process performance considerations that focus on the information provision model for impact assessment (which argues that better information leads to better decisions). However, there is recognition that this is a poor representation of how decision-making actually works and therefore there is a need to better understand decision processes and their interaction with the impact assessment process. The paper on sustainability assessment (Bond et al. 2012) develops a framework for effectiveness, based on practice in other areas of impact assessment, and the paper on policy assessment examines how research is focusing on different elements of effectiveness. Thus, a second topical issue, closely linked to effectiveness issues, is the theoretical basis on which the influence of impact assessment processes on decisionmaking is understood. There is consensus among the special issue papers that consider these theoretical issues (which include those on EIA, SEA, sustainability assessment and policy assessment) that there has been a move over time from positivism to post-positivism, such that the original basis upon which impact assessment was legislated through NEPA 1969 (the positivist information provision model) was overly simplistic and there is a need to understand much better how impact assessment and decision-making inter-relate. The theoretical debates are important in the evolution of impact assessment, because they set the research agenda which has the potential to influence future practice. Assuming that post-positivism allows a more realistic view of the influence and role of impact assessment processes, this is a step in the right direction, but theory evolves too, and it is unlikely that any degree of consensus will be achieved on the appropriate theoretical lens with which to view impact assessment. The final topical issue that has been consistently raised is the importance of knowledge and learning to the successful practice of impact assessment. In the policy assessment paper, we see that the authors categorize one 2 A. Bond and J. Pope Downloaded by [University of Tehran] at 03:10 08 November 2013 type of research based on the need for informed debate and critical reflection, which revolves around issues of knowledge and learning. The SEA paper refers to learning outcomes being a specific determinant of the effectiveness of the process, while the sustainability assessment paper highlights strategies for embedding learning in the process. These papers conceptualize types of learning as a basis for understanding how best to encourage critical reflection. What is clear here is that impact assessment is beginning to be seen not just as a tool for informing and influencing decision-makers, but as a process which changes the views and attitudes of stakeholders who engage with the process such that their own attitudes and practices change outside of the immediate decisionmaking context. That is, the influence of impact assessment processes may extend well beyond the narrow decision window in which they operate. There is also recognition that such learning operates on an institutional and social level as well as on an individual level.

 


 

 

دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی + خرید ترجمه فارسی

 

عنوان فارسی مقاله: بالاترین سطح تخمین اثر در سال ۲۰۱۲
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: The state of the art of impact assessment in 2012
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی روی عنوان انگلیسی مقاله کلیک نمایید.برای خرید ترجمه آماده ورد، روی عنوان فارسی مقاله کلیک کنید.

 

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد.