Substantial evidence, crucial in various contexts like environmental review processes, refers to factual, reliable information that supports a conclusion. Conversely, what is not considered substantial evidence includes categories of information that lack factual basis, are demonstrably false, or are irrelevant to the specific type of impact being assessed.
Specifically, information that does not qualify as substantial evidence typically falls into the following categories:
- Argument: This refers to advocacy or a position presented without supporting facts or data.
- Speculation: Guesses, theories, or assumptions that lack concrete proof or a logical foundation.
- Unsubstantiated Opinion or Narrative: Personal beliefs, anecdotal accounts, or stories that are not backed by verifiable facts, expert analysis, or objective data.
- Clearly Erroneous or Inaccurate Evidence: Information that is demonstrably false, incorrect, or based on flawed methodologies, obvious errors, or misrepresentations.
- Social or Economic Impacts Unrelated to Physical Environmental Impacts: Evidence concerning social or economic effects that are not directly caused by, or do not contribute to, physical changes or impacts on the environment itself.
Categories of Non-Substantial Evidence
Understanding what does not constitute substantial evidence is as important as knowing what does. Below is a detailed breakdown of these categories with practical insights.
| Category | Description | Practical Examples (Not Substantial Evidence) |
|---|---|---|
| Argument | A stance or assertion made without a foundation of facts, data, or expert analysis. It often represents a partisan viewpoint rather than objective information. | A developer's claim that a new project will definitively lead to no negative environmental effects, without presenting any supporting scientific studies or data to back up this assertion. |
| Speculation | Unfounded theories, predictions, or hypotheses about future events or potential outcomes that are not supported by existing evidence, scientific principles, or reasonable probability. | Asserting that a proposed industrial facility might cause a specific, rare health condition in the community, without presenting any scientific studies, epidemiological data, or expert reports linking such a facility's emissions to that particular health risk. |
| Unsubstantiated Opinion or Narrative | Personal beliefs, anecdotal evidence, or stories that lack verifiable facts, objective data, or professional assessment. This includes generalized concerns or sentiments that cannot be quantified or proven. | An individual's personal belief that a new public park will "destroy the natural feel of the area" without providing objective evidence of specific environmental impacts like habitat loss or increased noise pollution beyond their subjective feeling. Or, a narrative about perceived past issues without corroborating documentation. |
| Clearly Erroneous or Inaccurate Evidence | Information that contains obvious errors, miscalculations, outdated data, or has been falsified. Its unreliability is apparent upon review. | Submitting a report on local air quality that uses data from a different geographic region, or a traffic impact study that contains evident mathematical errors in its projections, or laboratory results for water samples that are later proven to be falsified or based on incorrect testing methodologies. |
| Social or Economic Impacts Not Linked to Physical Environmental Impacts | Evidence pertaining to social or economic consequences that are not directly caused by, or do not contribute to, physical changes or impacts on the environment. Environmental assessments primarily focus on physical impacts. | Arguing that a new business will lead to increased local competition for existing shops (an economic impact) without demonstrating how this competition is caused by a physical environmental change, such as increased pollution making the area undesirable for other businesses. Or, concern about potential changes in community demographics without a link to physical environmental degradation. |
Importance of Substantial Evidence
In legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in environmental review processes such as those governed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States, decisions must be based on substantial evidence. This ensures that conclusions are supported by credible, factual, and relevant information, preventing arbitrary or unsupported judgments. For instance, when evaluating environmental impacts, an "argument" is distinct from legal evidence because the former expresses a viewpoint while the latter provides factual backing.
For a claim to be considered substantial evidence, it must be robust enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate to support a conclusion. This often requires data, scientific studies, expert testimony, and factual observations, differentiating it from mere "speculation" or "unsubstantiated opinion."
