Consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in EIA practice — Perspectives of actors in Austria and Germany

Current political discussions and developments indicate the importance and urgency of incorporating climate change considerations into EIA processes. The recent revision of the EU Directive 2014/52/EU on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requires changes in the EIA practice of the EU member states. This paper investigates the extent to which the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can contribute to an early consideration of climate change consequences in planning processes. In particular the roles of different actors in order to incorporate climate change impacts and adaptation into project planning subject to EIA at the appropriate levels are a core topic. Semi-structured expert interviews were carried out with representatives of the main infrastructure companies and institutions responsible in these sectors in Austria, which have to carry out EIA regularly. In a second step expert interviews were conducted with EIA assessors and EIA authorities in Austria and Germany, in order to examine the extent to which climate-based changes are already considered in EIA processes. This paper aims to discuss the different perspectives in the current EIA practice with regard to integrating climate change impacts as well as barriers and solutions identified by the groups of actors involved, namely project developers, environmental competent authorities and consultants (EIA assessors/practitioners). The interviews show that different groups of actors consider the topic to different degrees. Downscaling of climate change scenarios is in this context both, a critical issue with regards to availability of data and costs. Furthermore, assistance for the interpretation of relevant impacts, to be deducted from climate change scenarios, on the specific environmental issues in the area is needed. The main barriers identified by the EIA experts therefore include a lack of data as well as general uncertainty as to how far climate change should be considered in the process without reliable data but in the presence of knowledge about possible consequences at an abstract level. A joint strategy on how to cope with uncertain prognoses about main impacts on environmental issues for areas without reliable data requires a discussion and cooperation between EIA consultants and environmental authorities.     

A critique of the performance of EIA within the offshore oil and gas sector

The oil and gas sector is a key driver of the offshore economy. Yet, it is also associated with a number of unwanted environmental impacts which potentially threaten the long term economic and environmental viability of marine ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can potentially make a significant contribution to the identification and management of adverse impacts through the promotion of evidence based decision making. However, the extent to which EIA has been embraced by key stakeholders is poorly understood. On this basis, this paper provides an initial evaluation of EIA performance within the oil and gas sector. The methodology adopted for the paper consisted of the structured review of 35 Environmental Statements (ESs) along with interviews with regulators, operators, consultants and advisory bodies. The findings reveal a mixed picture of EIA performance with a significant number of ESs falling short of satisfactory quality and a tendency for the process to be driven by compliance rather than best practice.     

Guidelines for the analysis of the inclusion of biodiversity in Environmental Impact Statements

Article 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) calls for the inclusion of impacts on biodiversity in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which is a significant instrument for site-specific impact prediction. In view of the shortcomings reported for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), guidelines with indicators could improve the consideration of biological diversity in EISs. This study aims to establish guidelines for the analysis of the inclusion of biodiversity in EISs using a systematic approach based on scientific papers, CBD, and a survey with 43 EIA practitioners from universities, government agencies, environmental consulting companies, business segment, and the third sector. The guidelines comprise 60 indicators arranged into eight categories about the project's characteristics, methods, baseline, impact assessment, alternatives, as well as mitigation, compensation, and monitoring measures. The guidelines also include the levels of biological diversity (ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity), the three elements of biodiversity (composition, structure, and key processes), and the main anthropogenic threats. Thus, the guidelines represent a methodological contribution to EIA that could support decision making and future systematic reviews of EISs.     

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 multi-scale metrics approach to forest fragmentation for Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment

Forests are becoming severely fragmented as a result of land development. South Korea has responded to changing community concerns about environmental issues. The nation has developed and is extending a broad range of tools for use in environmental management. Although legally mandated environmental compliance requirements in South Korea have been implemented to predict and evaluate the impacts of land-development projects, these legal instruments are often insufficient to assess the subsequent impact of development on the surrounding forests. It is especially difficult to examine impacts on multiple (e.g., regional and local) scales in detail. Forest configuration and size, including forest fragmentation by land development, are considered on a regional scale. Moreover, forest structure and composition, including biodiversity, are considered on a local scale in the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Recently, the government amended the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, including the SEA, EIA, and small-scale EIA, to require an integrated approach. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to establish an impact assessment system that minimizes the impacts of land development using an approach that is integrated across multiple scales.This study focused on forest fragmentation due to residential development and road construction sites in selected Congestion Restraint Zones (CRZs) in the Greater Seoul Area of South Korea. Based on a review of multiple-scale impacts, this paper integrates models that assess the impacts of land development on forest ecosystems. The applicability of the integrated model for assessing impacts on forest ecosystems through the SEIA process is considered.On a regional scale, it is possible to evaluate the location and size of a land-development project by considering aspects of forest fragmentation, such as the stability of the forest structure and the degree of fragmentation. On a local scale, land-development projects should consider the distances at which impacts occur in the vicinity of the forest ecosystem, and these considerations should include the impacts on forest vegetation and bird species. Impacts can be mitigated by considering the distances at which these influences occur. In particular, this paper presents an integrated environmental impact assessment system to be applied in the SEIA process. The integrated assessment system permits the assessment of the cumulative impacts of land development on multiple scales.     

The assessment of aesthetic and perceptual aspects within environmental impact assessment of renewable energy projects in Italy

The main aim of this paper is to explore how perceptual and aesthetic impact analyses are considered in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), with specific reference to Italian renewable energy projects. To investigate this topic, the paper starts by establishing which factors are linked with perceptual and aesthetic impacts and why it is important to analyze these aspects, which are also related to legislative provisions and procedures in Europe and in Italy. In particular the paper refers to renewable energy projects because environmental policies are encouraging more and more investment in this kind of primary resource. The growing interest in this type of energy is leading to the realization of projects which change the governance of territories, with inevitable effects on the landscape from the aesthetic and perceptual points of view. Legislative references to EIA, including the latest directive regarding this topic show the importance of integrating the assessment of environmental and perceptual impacts, thus there is a need to improve EIA methodological approaches to this purpose. This paper proposes a profile of aesthetic and perceptual impact analysis in EIA for renewable energy projects in Italy, and concludes with recommendations as to how this kind of analysis could be improved.     

Four conceptual issues to consider in integrating social and environmental factors in risk and impact assessments

In the last twenty years, both the increase in academic production and the expansion of professional involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) have evidenced growing scientific and business interest in risk and impact analysis. However, this growth has not brought with it parallel progress in addressing the main shortcomings of EIA/SIA, i.e. insufficient integration of environmental and social factors into development project analyses and, in cases where the social aspects are considered, technical-methodological failings in their analysis and assessment. It is clear that these weaknesses carry with them substantial threats to the sustainability (social, environmental and economic) of projects which impact on the environment, and consequently to the local contexts where they are carried out and to the delicate balance of the global ecosystem. This paper argues that, in a sociological context of complexity and dynamism, four conceptual elements should underpin approaches to socio-environmental risk and impact assessment in development projects: a theoretical base in actor–network theory; an ethical grounding in values which are internationally recognized (though not always fulfilled in practice); a (new) epistemological-scientific base; and a methodological foundation in social participation.     

How does stakeholder involvement affect environmental impact assessment?

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes are grounded on the assumption that producing information about environmental impacts will yield better environmental decisions. Despite the ubiquity of EIA as a policy tool, there is scant evidence of its environmental, social, or economic impacts. Focusing on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared for water and energy-related projects under the US National Environmental Policy Act, this analysis addresses two questions: (1) What is the balance of environmental impacts associated with infrastructure decisions?; and (2) How does the content of stakeholder feedback received during the review phase differ from draft EIS content, and does this correspond to any changes in the final EIS? We demonstrate the use of automated text mining approaches to identify the distribution of impacts, measure the content of public comments, and observe whether values reflected in comments are associated with a shift in emphases between the draft and final EIS. EISs are shown to convey evenly distributed focus across multiple impact areas. However, we observe no substantive change in focal emphasis between draft and final issuances. This calls into question assumptions about the role that public participation plays in bringing new information to light or changing the course of action.     

Project justification and EIA: Anything goes?

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) incorporates environmental aspects into decision-making, but sometimes it is not effective in rejecting projects with dubious justification, significant impacts and little social utility, especially when they have political support. EIA is expected to achieve sustainable development, but without calling development into question; however, it should be able to ask the question of whether development is really necessary. Although EIA is political, as a part of the decision-making process, politicization must be limited to prevent it from becoming a mere instrument for giving an “environmental veneer” to development. Some measures thar can help avoid unjustified projects are: adopting administrative justice approach to EIA; minimising politicization of EIA agencies; improving transparency in decision-making and proportionality of EIA procedures; carrying out pre-feasibility studies; increasing the scope of SEA; allowing more than one SEA or EIA procedure for the same development throughout the planning process; strengthening the justification of the project in EIA documents; or making the scoping phase mandatory at least for major projects.     

Determining Vulnerability Importance in Environmental Impact Assessment: The case of Colombia

The concept of vulnerability has been used to describe the susceptibility of physical, biotic, and social systems to harm or hazard. In this sense, it is a tool that reduces the uncertainties of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) since it does not depend exclusively on the value assessments of the evaluator, but rather is based on the environmental state indicators of the site where the projects or activities are being carried out. The concept of vulnerability thus reduces the possibility that evaluators will subjectively interpret results, and be influenced by outside interests and pressures during projects. However, up until now, EIA has been hindered by a lack of effective methods. This research study analyzes the concept of vulnerability, defines Vulnerability Importance and proposes its inclusion in qualitative EIA methodology. The method used to quantify Vulnerability Importance is based on a set of environmental factors and indicators that provide a comprehensive overview of the environmental state. The results obtained in Colombia highlight the usefulness and objectivity of this method since there is a direct relation between this value and the environmental state of the departments analyzed.     

Analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the EIA decision in Turkey

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive first entered into force in the United States in 1969, and began to be implemented in many other countries by 1990. The first Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive in Turkey was published on February 7, 1993, under the Environmental Law No. 2872. The EIA Directive was revised seven times on June 23, 1997, June 6, 2002, December 16, 2003, July 17, 2008, October 3, 2013, and November 25, 2014. Several amendments were made during this process. The first EIA Directive dated 1993 was narrow in scope and its procedure was long, while the amendments in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2014 widened the scope of the EIA, and shortened the EIA assessment procedures. In this study, the amendments to the Turkish EIA Directive were analysed, and their effect on the number of EIA decisions made was addressed. It was concluded that the uncertainties in EIA procedures were removed, procedures were shortened, and as a result, the number of EIA decisions increased thanks to the revisions made in line with harmonisation with European Union (EU) acquis.     

A transdisciplinary framework for environmental impact assessment: Opportunities and resistances among practitioners in Spain

Environmental issues, bringing together the natural and the social spheres, are probably one of the most appropriate fields of development for transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinarity, in addition to other contemporary epistemological paradigms, stresses the need to approach complex problems by blending new forms of non-expert knowledge with combined epistemologies. However, practical application of the transdisciplinary approach is still almost non-existent in everyday socio-environmental management. This paper has a two-fold aim: firstly, to establish the suitability of the transdisciplinary approach in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a means of rectifying a common incapacity to address the social dimension in the assessment process; and secondly, to evaluate this idea from the perspective of technicians and professionals in the EIA sector in Spain. To this end, a qualitative methodology was used, based on semi-structured interviews, which enabled in-depth investigation of the willingness of specialists to effectively integrate new forms of knowledge into the EIA procedure. Further, interviewees evaluated the real possibilities of widening public participation in the process of identifying and assessing impacts and discussed the difficulties facing the treatment and analysis of the social dimension within the EIA process.     

A qualitative method proposal to improve environmental impact assessment

In environmental impact assessment, qualitative methods are used because they are versatile and easy to apply. This methodology is based on the evaluation of the strength of the impact by grading a series of qualitative attributes that can be manipulated by the evaluator. The results thus obtained are not objective, and all too often impacts are eliminated that should be mitigated with corrective measures. However, qualitative methodology can be improved if the calculation of Impact Importance is based on the characteristics of environmental factors and project activities instead on indicators assessed by evaluators. In this sense, this paper proposes the inclusion of the vulnerability of environmental factors and the potential environmental impact of project activities. For this purpose, the study described in this paper defined Total Impact Importance and specified a quantification procedure. The results obtained in the case study of oil drilling in Colombia reflect greater objectivity in the evaluation of impacts as well as a positive correlation between impact values, the environmental characteristics at and near the project location, and the technical characteristics of project activities.     

The ecological impact assessment of a proposed road development (the Slovak approach)

The construction of roads is one of the most widespread forms of natural landscape modification. Over the last 20 years, dozens of road constructions have been assessed in Slovakia, which makes it possible to talk about methodological positives and negatives. A special feature of Slovakia is that many planned or renovated roads are located in protected areas or are in contact with them (including Natura 2000 sites). Therefore, it is important to understand the scope of the roads' ecological impacts and find ways for their appropriate evaluation and incorporation into the Environmental Impact Assessment process. For this reason, the Ecological Impact Assessment methodology can be used as a basis for our research, which consists of three stages. In the first stage (scoping), a buffer circumventing the proposed road is created to determine the area for impact prediction and evaluation. Subsequently, the landscape structure and baseline landscape conditions are discussed, a map of current landscape structure is created and the current ecological status of the affected area is calculated. In the second stage (the evaluation of ecological resources), important ecological parts of the landscape are delineated. This step is based on the importance of previous information and its vulnerability, and leads to the mapping of the road ecological impact zone. In the third stage (impact assessment), important ecological parts are spatially correlated with the proposed road construction. Finally, the significance of ecological impacts of the activity is evaluated by applying specific criteria (duration, reversibility, magnitude, size and road ecological impact zone significance). A scale is proposed for each criterion to evaluate the total significance of impacts. In this way, detailed significant ecological impacts can be found which will help lead to proposed correct mitigation measures and a post-project analysis.     

Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems are under pressure in many countries, driven by a call for efficiency and streamlining. Such a phenomenon is particularly clear in Brazil, where, in the past few years, a number of influential associations put forward documents proposing significant changes to environmental licensing and impact assessment regulations. So far, there is no publicly available information about any initiative towards scrutinizing those proposals. The objective of this study was to critically review the merits and drawbacks of the changes proposed in those documents. The analysis triangulated content analysis, focus group and online survey data. The focus group included ten seasoned Brazilian EIA specialists; the survey, based on Likert-scale and open-ended questions, resulted in 322 valid responses from EIA professionals. Results show that the proposals generally agree that the current EIA system, while playing a key role in mitigating impacts and enhancing project design, needs many changes. Nonetheless, the proposals neither offered solutions to overcome political, technical and budget barriers, nor established a sense of priority of the most urgent issues. Findings from the focus group and the survey signaled that a number of proposed actions might face public outcry, and that those changes that do not depend on legislative action are more likely to be implementable. Previous studies about EIA reform focused mostly on the context of developed countries after changes had taken place. This study, while addressing the perspective of a large developing country in a “before-reform” stage, shows that capacity-building is a key requirement in EIA reform.     

Health impact assessment in spatial planning in England –types of application and quality of documentation

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a decision support approach which is applied in various shapes and forms throughout the world. In England, amongst a range of areas of application, HIA is applied in local (spatial) plan making and project development planning. Whilst various authors have reflected on HIA practice in England, the extent of application and its quality has remained unclear. This paper aims at addressing this gap by reporting on the results of a systematic review of HIA in planning. It is found that between 100 and 200 HIAs are likely being produced each year in England. Whilst most assessments are rapid (desk based), there are also examples of comprehensive and intermediate HIAs, where a participatory procedural approach is followed. An important finding is that those HIAs applied within the context of other assessments (integrated impact assessment -IIA, strategic environmental assessment - SEA/ sustainability appraisal -SA and environmental impact assessment – EIA) tend to be of a higher quality than standalone HIAs, mainly because of the existing comprehensive statutory procedural requirements for these other assessments into which HIA can be integrated.