Evaluating impacts of development and conservation projects using sustainability indicators: Opportunities and challenges

There has been an increased interest in using sustainability indicators for evaluating the impacts of development and conservation projects. Past and recent experiences have shown that sustainability indicators can be powerful tools for measuring the outcomes of various interventions, when used appropriately and adequately. Currently, there is a range of methods for applying sustainability indicators for project impact evaluation at the environment–development interface. At the same time, a number of challenges persist which have implication for impact evaluation processes especially in developing countries. We highlight some key and recurrent challenges, using three cases from Kenya, Indonesia and Brazil.In this study, we have conducted a comparative analysis across multiple projects from the three countries, which aimed to conserve biodiversity and improve livelihoods. The assessments of these projects were designed to evaluate their positive, negative, short-term, long term, direct and indirect impacts. We have identified a set of commonly used sustainability indicators to evaluate the projects and have discussed opportunities and challenges associated with their application. Our analysis shows that impact evaluation processes present good opportunities for applying sustainability indicators. On the other hand, we find that project proponents (e.g. managers, evaluators, donors/funders) face challenges with establishing full impacts of interventions and that these are rooted in monitoring and evaluation processes, lack of evidence-based impacts, difficulties of measuring certain outcomes and concerns over scale of a range of impacts.We outline key lessons learnt from the multiple cases and propose ways to overcome common problems. Results from our analysis demonstrate practical experiences of applying sustainability indicators in developing countries context where there are different prevailing socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions. The knowledge derived from this study may therefore be useful to a wider range of audience who are concerned with sustainable integration of development and environmental conservation.     

Environmental Impact Assessment in the Visegrad Group countries

The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) has created a reference framework for the implementation of the system of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) into the legal systems of the Member States of the European Union, including the countries belonging to the Visegrad Group (V4): Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. The Directive was the basis for the introduction of compulsory stages of the EIA process in the V4. The stages were then adapted to national requirements, including thresholds of the qualifying criteria of projects at the screening and scoping stages. The EIA system in the analysed countries has been growing, changing and being modified together with the political and economic changes of the last 30 years. Although all Visegrad Group countries are members of the EU and should harmonize the provisions of the EIA Directive and its amendments, there still exist singularities in each country's national EIA legislation, in terms of complementarities among the V4 countries, access to information resources, protection of natural resources, mitigation of socio-environmental impacts, or transboundary impact assessment. The article compares and evaluates the EIA systems in the four countries, specifies similarities and differences in the implementation of administrative proceedings and points out opportunities to strengthen the system. It presents selected results of a study conducted in 2013 within the framework of the international project “Assessment of the quality of the environment in the V4 Countries” (AQE V4). This paper indicates examples of good practice in the EIA systems and the obtained results are compared regarding the amendments to the current European Union EIA Directive.     

Environmental impact assessment system in Thailand and its comparison with those in China and Japan

This paper aims to find ways to streamline the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in Thailand to increase its effectiveness by comparative analysis with China and Japan. This study is mainly focused on review, update and comparison of EIA systems between these three countries. It is intended to clarify fundamental information of the EIA systems and characteristics of the key elements of EIA processes (screening, consideration of alternatives, prediction or evaluation of impact, and public participation). Moreover, the number of the EIA projects that have been implemented in all the provinces in Thailand are presented. The results identified the similarities and differences of the EIA processes among the three aforementioned countries. The type of EIA report used in Thailand, unlike those in China and Japan, is an Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA), which is concerned with the health and environmental impacts that could occur from the project. In addition, EIA reports in Thailand are made available to the public online and the shortcomings of the process have details of barriers resulting from the projects to help future projects with reconsideration and improvements. In this study, it is pointed out that Thai's EIA system still lacks local EIA authority which needs to be empowered by implementing a set of laws or ordinance.     

A Strategic Project Appraisal framework for ecologically sustainable urban infrastructure

Actors in the built environment are progressively considering environmental and social issues alongside functional and economic aspects of development projects. Infrastructure projects represent major investment and construction initiatives with attendant environmental, economic and societal impacts across multiple scales. To date, while sustainability strategies and frameworks have focused on wider national aspirations and strategic objectives, they are noticeably weak in addressing micro-level integrated decision making in the built environment, particularly for infrastructure projects. The proposed approach of this paper is based on the principal that early intervention is the most cost-effective and efficient means of mitigating the environmental effects of development projects, particularly macro infrastructure developments. A strategic overview of the various project alternatives, taking account for stakeholder and expert input, could effectively reduce project impacts/risks at low cost to the project developers but provide significant benefit to wider communities, including communities of future stakeholders. This paper is the first exploratory step in developing a more systematic framework for evaluating strategic alternatives for major metropolitan infrastructure projects, based on key sustainability principles. The developed Strategic Project Appraisal (SPA) framework, grounded in the theory of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), provides a means of practically appraising project impacts and alternatives in terms of quantified ecological limits; addresses the neglected topic of metropolitan infrastructure as a means of delivering sustainability outcomes in the urban context and more broadly, seeks to open a debate on the potential for SEA methodology to be more extensively applied to address sustainability challenges in the built environment. Practically applied and timed appropriately, the SPA framework can enable better decision-making and more efficient resource allocation ensuring low impact infrastructure development.     

Assessing corporate project impacts in changeable contexts: A human rights perspective

Project-level impact assessment was originally conceived as a snapshot taken in advance of project implementation, contrasting current conditions with a likely future scenario involving a variety of predicted impacts. Current best practice guidance has encouraged a shift towards longitudinal assessments from the pre-project stage through the implementation and operating phases. Experience and study show, however, that assessment of infrastructure-intensive projects rarely endures past the project's construction phase. Negative consequences for environmental, social and health outcomes have been documented. Such consequences clarify the pressing need for longitudinal assessment in each of these domains, with human rights impact assessment (HRIA) as an umbrella over, and critical augmentation of, environmental, social and health assessments. Project impacts on human rights are more closely linked to political, economic and other factors beyond immediate effects of a company's policy and action throughout the project lifecycle. Delineating these processes requires an adequate framework, with strategies for collecting longitudinal data, protocols that provide core information for impact assessment and guidance for adaptive mitigation strategies as project-related effects change over time. This article presents general principles for the design and implementation of sustained, longitudinal HRIA, based on experience assessing and responding to human rights impact in a uranium mining project in Malawi. The case study demonstrates the value of longitudinal assessment both for limiting corporate risk and improving human welfare.     

The institutional dynamics behind limited human health considerations in environmental assessments of coal mining projects in New South Wales,Australia

Coal extraction remains supported in many countries despite a global context challenging the industry. A large evidence base links coal with negative consequences for human health. Environmental assessments (EAs) are regulated in nearly every country to assess and set conditions for large industry projects, including coal mines, but tend to exclude health impacts. This study investigated the institutional dynamics surrounding the inclusion of health in coal mining EAs in New South Wales, Australia. Semi-structured interviews with varied stakeholders were supported by a review of legislation, relevant case law and media analysis. Using insights from theories on power and institutions the findings show how EA practice is influenced by the politicization of coal mining that excludes potentially negative narratives surrounding the known human health impacts of coal. Poor EA practice is compounded by legislative ambiguity and lack of conceptual understanding about assessing health. EA's legislative purpose of approving projects undermines confidence that a balanced assessment of impacts has been made. EA is seen as a pro-industry process that disempowers those with dissenting voices. The research explains how the institutional dynamics of a policy process like EA challenge its potential to meaningfully engage with the impact of coal mining on human health.     

Social cost in construction projects

Despite the fact that completion of construction projects has a direct positive impact on the growth of national and local economies as well as humans' wellbeing, construction projects, especially in the urban areas, generate serious environmental nuisances for the adjacent residents and have unintentional adverse impacts on their surrounding environment. Construction causative adverse impacts on the neighbouring communities are known as the social costs. This study aims to present a state-of-the-art overview of social costs in construction industry in terms of definition, consideration, classification and quantification. Furthermore, it is aimed to bring the construction social cost phenomenon for the agenda of Environmental Impact Assessors.     

A prospective health impact review of the redevelopment of Central Manchester Hospitals

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is increasingly being acknowledged as an important tool for considering the health implications of projects and programmes of activity at local, national and international levels. However, standard HIA tools can be difficult to apply when the policy of programme under consideration is particularly complex and intertwined or where significant time, resource and skill constraints are involved. This paper describes a Health Impact Review (HIR) of the plans for a major redevelopment of Central Manchester Hospitals (England). This approach to HIA drew not only from HIR but also from Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) in order to produce a summary of the most significant health impacts of a policy, programme or project in a more timely and cost-effective way. This example highlights the potential for involving Local Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committees in the HIA process as a way of ensuring that the recommendations of HIA are mainstreamed as part of the ongoing development of projects.     

Assessing health impacts in complex eco-epidemiological settings in the humid tropics: Modular baseline health surveys

The quantitative assessment of health impacts has been identified as a crucial feature for realising the full potential of health impact assessment (HIA). In settings where demographic and health data are notoriously scarce, but there is a broad range of ascertainable ecological, environmental, epidemiological and socioeconomic information, a diverse toolkit of data collection strategies becomes relevant for the mainly small-area impacts of interest. We present a modular, cross-sectional baseline health survey study design, which has been developed for HIA of industrial development projects in the humid tropics. The modular nature of our toolkit allows our methodology to be readily adapted to the prevailing eco-epidemiological characteristics of a given project setting. Central to our design is a broad set of key performance indicators, covering a multiplicity of health outcomes and determinants at different levels and scales. We present experience and key findings from our modular baseline health survey methodology employed in 14 selected sentinel sites within an iron ore mining project in the Republic of Guinea. We argue that our methodology is a generic example of rapid evidence assembly in difficult-to-reach localities, where improvement of the predictive validity of the assessment and establishment of a benchmark for longitudinal monitoring of project impacts and mitigation efforts is needed.     

Assessment of external costs for transport project evaluation: Guidelines in some European countries

Many studies about the external costs generated by the transport system have been developed in the last twenty years. To standardize methodologies and assessment procedures to be used in the evaluation of the projects, some European countries recently have adopted specific guidelines that differ from each other in some aspects even sensibly.This paper presents a critical analysis of the British, Italian and German guidelines and is aimed at cataloguing the external cost types regarded and the assessment methods indicated as well as to highlight the differences of the results, in terms of applicability and reliability. The goal is to contribute to a European standardization process that would lead to the drafting of guidelines suited for all EU countries.     

Can environmental impact assessments alone conserve freshwater fish biota? Review of the Chilean experience

Chile was one of many countries that initiated environmental impact assessments in the 1990s, and has relied on their use for species conservation and territorial planning without the use of larger-scale environmental and ecological planning. The capacity of Chile's environmental impact assessment system (SEIA) to evaluate resident freshwater fishes and the potential impacts of water projects and aquaculture activities – two categories of projects that create direct threats to freshwater fishes – are assessed. Of the 3997 such submissions to the SEIA, only 0.6% conducted any freshwater fish assessment, and only 0.1% conducted any quantitative assessment of expected impacts from the associated project. The small number of assessments was characterized by poor study design, inconsistent sampling methodology, and species misidentification. Traditional assessments failed to include freshwater fish ecology in the general assessment framework. The new strategic environmental evaluation system only underscores the need for vastly improved field sampling protocols and assessment methodologies.     

Liveability as determinant of health: Testing a new approach for health impact assessment of major infrastructure

Major urban infrastructure projects are intended to alter the built, human ecology for the better. Even when they are not labelled as health projects, arguably they should produce public health benefits that are commensurate with their scale, particularly when they are publicly funded. Health impact assessment (HIA) is an established method of evaluating major infrastructure projects using a determinants of health equity lens. HIA explicitly puts health front and centre to ask, ‘How should the proposed infrastructure project be altered to improve the determinants of health equity?’ There are well-established HIA protocols, but few provide a framework for scoping possible impacts. Given interest in the concept of liveability we introduce an exhaustive, evidence-based framework of 11 liveability domains for HIA. We then test the framework by scoping the impacts of the Upfield Level Crossing Removal (LXR) project in Melbourne, Australia to hypothesise its impacts on health. Scoping this case study suggests that many domains will be affected in complex ways, some positively and some negatively, exemplifying the potential for the framework to detect major infrastructures' pervasive impacts on determinants of health. The paper includes a plan to validate the liveability framework with empirical research in the HIA assessment stage. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contribution and usefulness of the liveability domains as a framework for structuring HIA and for building its profile, thus advancing the discipline, and helping to ensure that all major infrastructures constitute a prudent investment in public health.     

What matters in the distributions of clean development mechanism projects? A panel data approach

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) suggests that both developed and developing countries can take actions to mitigate global climate change. Carbon reduction and sustainable development are the goals of the CDM. However, the uneven distribution of the CDM projects in developing countries may jeopardize the fulfilment of these goals. This paper uses panel data from 107 host countries to explore the influencing factors of the CDM using a negative binomial regression. The club convergence model is used to divide the host countries into different sub-groups according to their numbers of operating CDM projects in a year. The results show that affluence, the sophisticated international trading experience, and the growing demands for energy of the host countries have a positive impact on the successful registrations of the CDM projects, while the cost of carbon emission abatement hinders the registration. But for countries with fewer CDM projects, the industrial level and national carbon emission have no significant impacts on the distribution of CDM projects. In the end, target policy implications were made based on the results.     

Open-source methods for estimating health risks of fine particulate matter from coal-fired power plants: A demonstration from Karachi,Pakistan

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) effectiveness and accessibility by the public is determined by local environmental enforcement and regulation. Massive energy infrastructure projects like China's Belt and Road initiative (BRI) could accentuate social and economic costs, as regulation is deferred to host countries with varying levels of domestic enforcement. To fill major gaps in the public evaluation of EIA practices and results, our objective here is to present an open-source approach for evaluating localized air pollution health impacts for BRI-financed coal-fired power plants. This analysis focuses on one specific problem, additional attributable mortality from stroke, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for adults ages 25–84 from fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), known to be major risk factor for premature deaths globally. As a concrete example, we examine the case of the Port Qasim power plant located near Karachi, Sindh Province, Pakistan. We present results for two main scenarios: a base case, assuming fully operational pollution control technologies, in particular electrostatic precipitators (ESP); and an alternative case without ESPs. All material and methods for replicating this analysis for the case study and for other projects are available in our institutional open repository. Our approach can be applied immediately to virtually any source location in the world, due to the public and global availability of input data.SynopsisWe present an open-source approach for evaluating localized health impacts due to fine particulate matter emitted from coal-fired power plants.     

Monitoring: The missing piece: A critique of NEPA monitoring

The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 heralded in an era of more robust attention to environmental impacts resulting from larger scale federal projects. The number of other countries that have adopted NEPA's framework is evidence of the appeal of this type of environmental legislation. Mandates to review environmental impacts, identify alternatives, and provide mitigation plans before commencement of the project are at the heart of NEPA. Such project reviews have resulted in the development of a vast number of reports and large volumes of project-specific data that potentially can be used to better understand the components and processes of the natural environment and provide guidance for improved and efficient environmental protection. However, the environmental assessment (EA) or the more robust and intensive environmental impact statement (EIS) that are required for most major projects more frequently than not are developed to satisfy the procedural aspects of the NEPA legislation while they fail to provide the needed guidance for improved decision-making. While NEPA legislation recommends monitoring of project activities, this activity is not mandated, and in those situations where it has been incorporated, the monitoring showed that the EIS was inaccurate in direction and/or magnitude of the impact. Many reviews of NEPA have suggested that monitoring all project phases, from the design through the decommissioning, should be incorporated. Information gathered though a well-developed monitoring program can be managed in databases and benefit not only the specific project but would provide guidance how to better design and implement future activities designed to protect and enhance the natural environment.     

Advancing the practice of health impact assessment in Canada: Obstacles and opportunities

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is recognized as a useful tool that can identify potential health impacts resulting from projects or policy initiatives. Although HIA has become an established practice in some countries, it is not yet an established practice in Canada. In order to enable broader support for HIA, this study provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the peer-reviewed and gray literature on the state of HIA practice. The results of this review revealed that, although there is an abundance of publications relating to HIA, there remains a lack of transparent, consistent and reproducible approaches and methods throughout the process. Findings indicate a need for further research and development on a number of fronts, including: 1) the nature of HIA triggers; 2) consistent scoping and stakeholder engagement approaches; 3) use of evidence and transparency of decision-making; 4) reproducibility of assessment methods; 5) monitoring and evaluation protocols; and, 6) integration within existing regulatory frameworks. Addressing these issues will aid in advancing the more widespread use of HIA in Canada.     

Assessment of online public opinions on large infrastructure projects: A case study of the Three Gorges Project in China

Public opinion becomes increasingly salient in the ex post evaluation stage of large infrastructure projects which have significant impacts to the environment and the society. However, traditional survey methods are inefficient in collection and assessment of the public opinion due to its large quantity and diversity. Recently, Social media platforms provide a rich data source for monitoring and assessing the public opinion on controversial infrastructure projects. This paper proposes an assessment framework to transform unstructured online public opinions on large infrastructure projects into sentimental and topical indicators for enhancing practices of ex post evaluation and public participation. The framework uses web crawlers to collect online comments related to a large infrastructure project and employs two natural language processing technologies, including sentiment analysis and topic modeling, with spatio-temporal analysis, to transform these comments into indicators for assessing online public opinion on the project. Based on the framework, we investigate the online public opinion of the Three Gorges Project on China's largest microblogging site, namely, Weibo. Assessment results present spatial-temporal distributions of post intensity and sentiment polarity, reveals major topics with different sentiments and summarizes managerial implications, for ex post evaluation of the world's largest hydropower project. The proposed assessment framework is expected to be widely applied as a methodological strategy to assess public opinion in the ex post evaluation stage of large infrastructure projects.