Self-Organizing Maps for Integrated Environmental Assessment of the Mid-Atlantic Region

A new method has been developed to perform environmental assessment at regional scale. This involves a combination of a self-organizing map (SOM) neural network and principal component analysis (PCA). The method is capable of clustering ecosystems in terms of environmental conditions and suggesting relative cumulative environmental impacts of multiple factors across a large region. Using data on land-cover, population, roads, streams, air pollution, and topography of the Mid-Atlantic region, the method was able to indicate areas that are in relatively poor environmental condition or vulnerable to future deterioration. Combining the strengths of SOM with those of PCA, the method offers an easy and useful way to perform a regional environmental assessment. Compared with traditional clustering and ranking approaches, the described method has considerable advantages, such as providing a valuable means for visualizing complex multidimensional environmental data at multiple scales and offering a single assessment or ranking needed for a regional environmental assessment while still facilitating the opportunity for more detailed analyses.     

The Impotence of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: Ailments and Ideas for Redeployment

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) in Canada is in dire straits. Despite a huge amount of talk and a flurry of developmental activity associated with CEA concepts, it has not lived up to its glowing promise of helping to achieve sustainability of diverse valued ecosystem components. This article aims to articulate that failure, to examine it in terms of six major problems with CEA, and to propose solutions. The six problem areas include (1) application of CEA in project-level environmental impact assessments (EIAs), (2) an EIA focus on project approval instead of environmental sustainability, (3) a general lack of understanding of ecologic impact thresholds, (4) separation of cumulative effects from project-specific impacts, (5) weak interpretations of cumulative effects by practitioners and analysts, and (6) inappropriate handling of potential future developments. We advocate improvements not only within the purview of project-specific EIAs, but also mainly in the domain of region-scale CEAs and regional environmental effects frameworks (or perhaps land use planning). Only then will the CEA begin to approach the promise of securing sustainability of valued ecosystem components.     

From concept to practice: Implementing cumulative impact assessment in New Zealand

In 1991, provisions for environmental impact assessment in New Zealand were changed significantly with the enactment of the Resource Management Act. Among other provisions, this act requires consideration of cumulative impacts in environmental assessment activities undertaken by planners in newly created regional authorities and district and city councils. The institutional context in which the act is being implemented offers both opportunities and constraints to cumulative impact assessment. A lack of methods for CIA is a recognized problem. However, methods that have been developed for environmental impact assessments can be modified to incorporate second-, third-, and fourth-order impacts as well as to identify the direction and magnitude of additive and synergistic impacts. Layered matrices and combined networks are examples of such methods. While they do not allow for scientific prediction, they do provide the practitioner with the ability to consider the cumulative impacts of decisions. This is crucial in New Zealand, where statutory requirements are ahead of established methodologies.     

Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions: A conceptual overview and generic framework

This article outlines conceptual and methodological issues that must be confronted in developing a sound scientific basis for investigating cumulative effects on freshwater wetlands. We are particularly concerned with: (1) effects expressed at temporal and spatial scales beyond those of the individual disturbance, specific project, or single wetland, that is, effects occurring at the watershed or regional landscape level; and (2) the scientific (technical) component of the overall assessment process. Our aim is to lay the foundation for a research program to develop methods to quantify cumulative effects of wetland loss or degradation on the functioning of interacting systems of wetlands. Toward that goal we: (1) define the concept of cumulative effects in terms that permit scientific investigation of effects; (2) distinguish the scientific component of cumulative impact analysis from other aspects of the assessment process; (3) define critical scientific issues in assessing cumulative effects on wetlands; and (4) set up a hypothetical and generic structure for measuring cumulative effects on the functioning of wetlands as landscape systems.We provide a generic framework for evaluating cumulative effects on three basic wetland landscape functions: flood storage, water quality, and life support. Critical scientific issues include appropriate delineations of scales, identification of threshold responses, and the influence on different functions of wetland size, shape, and position in the landscape.The contribution of a particular wetland to landscape function within watersheds or regions will be determined by its intrinsic characteristics, e.g., size, morphometry, type, percent organic matter in the sediments, and hydrologic regime, and by extrinsic factors, i.e., the wetland's context in the landscape mosaic. Any cumulative effects evaluation must take into account the relationship between these intrinsic and extrinsic attributes and overall landscape function. We use the magnitude of exchanges among component wetlands in a watershed or larger landscape as the basis for defining the geographic boundaries of the assessment. The time scales of recovery for processes controlling particular wetland functions determine temporal boundaries. Landscape-level measures are proposed for each function.     

An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis

Cumulative impact analysis is examined from a conceptual decision-making perspective, focusing on its implicit and explicit purposes as suggested within the policy and procedures for environmental impact analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. In this article it is also linked to different evaluation and decision-making conventions, contrasting a regulatory context with a comprehensive planning framework. The specific problems that make the application of cumulative impact analysis a virtually intractable evaluation requirement are discussed in connection with the federal regulation of wetlands uses. The relatively familiar US Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps) permit program, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) responsibilities in managing its share of the Section 404 regulatory program requirements, is used throughout as the realistic context for highlighting certain pragmatic evaluation aspects of cumulative impact assessment.To understand the purposes of cumulative impact analysis (CIA), a key distinction must be made between the implied comprehensive and multiobjective evaluation purposes of CIA, promoted through the principles and policies contained in NEPA, and the more commonly conducted and limited assessment of cumulative effects (ACE), which focuses largely on the ecological effects of human actions. Based on current evaluation practices within the Corps' and EPA's permit programs, it is shown that the commonly used screening approach to regulating wetlands uses is not compatible with the purposes of CIA, nor is the environmental impact statement (EIS) an appropriate vehicle for evaluating the variety of objectives and trade-offs needed as part of CIA. A heuristic model that incorporates the basic elements of CIA is developed, including the idea of trade-offs among social, economic, and environmental protection goals carried out within the context of environmental carrying capacity.     

The use of aggregate complaints data as an indicator of cumulative social impacts of mining: A case study from the Hunter valley,NSW, Australia

Generally speaking, there is a greater amount of quantitative data available to measure and model the cumulative environmental or economic impacts of mining than the social impacts. In part, this is because social impacts are often inherently more difficult to quantify, but historically there have also been fewer regulatory drivers for companies or state agencies to invest in collecting such data. Regulators in some jurisdictions are now starting to require resource companies to report on aspects of their social performance, but companies and regulators are still struggling to identify appropriate metrics, particularly in regards to cumulative impacts. This paper describes an innovative quantitative approach to tracking how communities experience and respond to increased mining activity, using data from the complaints registers maintained by mines located in the Upper Hunter Valley in New South Wales, Australia. In this study, complaints lodged with five separate mines adjacent to the township of Muswellbrook over several years were aggregated and trends analysed. The aggregated set showed that complaint frequency increased with the increase in mining activity but then decreased as individual complaints were addressed. However, when complaints from near-neighbours were removed, it emerged that the proportion of complaints that came from the town itself steadily increased over time. Further analysis indicated that this increase was closely associated with the amount of mine-disturbed land that could be seen from the town over time, as measured using a combination of remotely sensed data and a digital elevation model. This is persuasive evidence of a cumulative social impact that is more than just the sum of the local impacts of individual mines.     

PROFILE: Integrating Sustainability and Environmental Impact Assessment

/ Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been identified as an important instrument for facilitating sustainability. However, to do so requires the integration of sustainability into EIA theory and practice. The sustainability concept is a valid and important environmental management perspective. However, many issues and obstacles need to be addressed further if the concept is to be translated into practical strategies. Sustainability can potentially infuse EIA with a clearer sense of direction, an ethical foundation, a mechanism for establishing priorities and assessing choices, and a means of linking EIA to other environmental management instruments. Conceptually, EIA and sustainability can be integrated, but frameworks should be refined, adpated to context, and linked to related initiatives. Sustainability should be explicitly incorporated into EIA legislation, guidelines, and institutional arrangements. An experimental approach to testing, assessing, and sharing experiences is suggested.A framework is first presented that defines and characterizes the sustainability concept. A further framework is then described for integrating sustainability into EIA at the conceptual level. The integration of sustainability and EIA at the regulatory level is next addressed through an overview of sustainability initiatives in EIA requirements in Canada. The Canadian examples include many promising initiatives but these and other experiences will need to be monitored, shared, and integrated into comprehensive environmental management strategies. Finally, means of incorporating sustainability into each activity in the EIA planning process are identified.KEY WORDS: Sustainability; Environmental impact assessment     

Cumulative impacts on water quality functions of wetlands

The total effect of cumulative impacts on the water quality functions of wetlands cannot be predicted from the sum of the effects each individual impact would have by itself. The wetland is not a simple filter; it embodies chemical, physical, and biotic processes that can detain, transform, release, or produce a wide variety of substances. Because wetland water quality functions result from the operation of many individual, distinct, and quite dissimilar mechanisms, it is necessary to consider the nature of each individual process.Sound knowledge of the various wetland processes is needed to make guided judgements about the probable effects of a given suite of impacts. Consideration of these processes suggests that many common wetland alterations probably do entail cumulative impact. In addition to traditional assessment methods, the wetland manager may need to obtain appropriate field measurements of water quality-related parameters at specific sites; such data can aid in predicting the effects of cumulative impact or assessing the results of past wetland management.     

Regulatory context for cumulative impact research

Wetlands protection has become a topic of increased public attention and support, and regulation of wetlands loss under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has received high priority within the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Despite this, the nation is continuing to experience serious wetlands losses. This situation reflects the contentious nature of wetlands protection; it involves fundamental conflicts between environmental and development interests. Better information is needed to support regulatory decision making, including information on cumulative impacts. Currently, consideration of cumulative impacts, although required by various federal regulations, is limited. One reason is that most regulatory decisions are made on a permit-specific, site-specific basis, whereas cumulative impacts must be assessed on a broader, regional scale. In addition, scientific information and methods necessary to support cumulative impact assessment have been lacking. An anticipatory, planning-oriented framework to complement the existing site-specific permit review program is needed to support more effective consideration of cumulative impacts; such an effort is beginning to emerge. In addition, EPA is supporting research to provide better information on cumulative effects. It is recommended that the EPA program place initial emphasis on synthesis and analysis of existing information, on maximizing its use in decision making, and on information transfer. Recommended approaches include correlation of historic wetlands losses with loss of wetlands function and values, regional case studies, and development of indices of cumulative impact for use in permit review.Formerly Director, Office of Federal Activities, US Environmental Protection Agency     

Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments

Environmental concerns such as loss of biological diversity and stratospheric ozone depletion have heightened awareness of the need to assess cumulative impacts in environmental documents. More than 20 years of experience with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have provided analysts in the United States with opportunities for developing successful techniques to assess site-specific impacts of proposed actions. Methods for analyzing a proposed action's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts are generally less advanced than those for project-specific impacts.The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impact to include the impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes the action. Court decisions have helped clarify the distinction between reasonably foreseeable future actions and other possible future actions. This paper seeks to clarify how past and present impacts should be included in cumulative impact analyses.The definition of cumulative impacts implies that cumulative impact analyses should include the effects of all past and present actions on a particular resource. Including past and present impacts in cumulative impact assessments increases the likelihood of identifying significant impacts. NEPA requires agencies to give more consideration to alternatives and mitigation and to provide more opportunities for public involvement for actions that would have significant impacts than for actions that would not cause or contribute to significant impacts. For an action that would contribute to significant cumulative impacts, the additional cost and effort involved in increased consideration of alternatives and mitigation and in additional public involvement may be avoided if the action can be modified so that its contributions to significant cumulative impacts are eliminated.Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400 with the US Department of Energy.     

Treatment of risk in environmental impact assessment

Risk assessment and environmental impact assessment have developed as separate traditions. While environmental impact assessment is a broad field that includes all activities that attempt to analyze and evaluate the effects of human and related actions on the environment, risk assessment has been concerned with the relatively well-defined regulatory problems and employs formal quantitative analysis of the probability of specific undesired events, such as cancer. Risk analytic approaches, particularly the explicit treatment of uncertainty, can significantly contribute to environmental assessments. This article discusses the type and sources of uncertainty in environmental assessments, techniques for their quantification, and ways to use uncertainty estimates to calculate probabilities of effects or probabilities of exceeding environmental standards and to determine the need for mitigation or additional research.This article was presented at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Task Force Meeting on Risk and Policy Analysis under Conditions of Uncertainty, Laxenburg, Austria, November 1985.     

湿地生态系统累积影响评价研究

定量分析湿地生态系统的累积环境影响,确定所要评价的功能,然后定量分析影响该功能的各种累积方式,将湿地生态系统的累积方式分为四种方式进行描述,对各种干扰活动的相互关系予以定性并进行量化,探讨湿地生态系统累积影响评价的步骤,有助于湿地生态系统CEA方法体系的建立与完善.     

累积影响评价研究进展

本文详细介绍了国内外累积影响评价理论、实践研究情况，指出当前取得的成果及存在的问题，并针对这些问题，提出今后我国累积影响评价研究的一些建议。     

Little by little,inch by inch: Project expansion assessments in the Papua New Guinea mining industry

Social impact assessment (SIA) has traditionally been practiced as an ex-ante predictive tool in the context of regulatory approval by government agencies. This model of SIA developed by Burdge and others is based on ‘greenfields’ development, of a new project going in to areas where there are no, or relatively few, similar types of development. The International Principles of SIA signalled a conceptual shift in the practice of SIA where greater emphasis is placed on the assessment and management of social issues across the life-cycle of developments. In addition forms of cumulative impact assessment have been developed for contexts where more than one project is likely to impact on populations or communities. With these changes to the traditional models of impact assessment there is a need to clarify how and when dedicated phases of ‘assessment’ might be undertaken over the life-cycle of a development. In the context of the mining industry, SIAs are increasingly required by governments for incremental increases in the size or impact of these operations. This paper reviews the development and application of Project Expansion Assessments (PEAs) for two large-scale mining operations in Papua New Guinea. It argues that a different set of assumptions need to underlie the model of IA for such assessments, with more emphasis on trajectories rather than baselines, a critical evaluation and attribution of effects, and the incorporation of adaptive management tools into the process.     

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING: A Synoptic Approach for Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands

/ The US Environmental Protection Agency's Wetlands ResearchProgram has developed the synoptic approach as a proposed method forassessing cumulative impacts to wetlands by providing both a general and acomprehensive view of the environment. It can also be applied more broadly toregional prioritization of environmental issues. The synoptic approach is aframework for making comparisons between landscape subunits, such aswatersheds, ecoregions, or counties, thereby allowing cumulative impacts tobe considered in management decisions. Because there is a lack of tools thatcan be used to address cumulative impacts within regulatory constraints, thesynoptic approach was designed as a method that could make use of availableinformation and best professional judgement. Thus, the approach is acompromise between the need for rigorous results and the need for timelyinformation. It is appropriate for decision making when quantitative,accurate information is not available; the cost of improving existinginformation or obtaining better information is high; the cost of a wronganswer is low; there is a high demand for the information; and the situationcalls for setting priorities between multiple decisions versus optimizing fora single decision. The synoptic approach should be useful for resourcemanagers because an assessment is timely; it can be completed within one totwo years at relatively low cost, tested, and improved over time. Anassessment can also be customized to specific needs, and the results arepresented in mapped format. However, the utility of a synoptic assessmentdepends on how well knowledge of the environment is incorporated into theassessment, relevant to particular management questions.KEY WORDS: Cumulative impact assessment; Landscape ecology; Regionalprioritization     

General concepts for measuring cumulative impacts on wetland ecosystems

Because environmental impacts accumulate over space and time, analysis is difficult, and we must incorporate the most recent scientifically defensible information and methods into the process. Methods designed to deal specifically with cumulative impacts include checklists of characteristics or processes, matrices of interactions (rated according to their level of importance) between disturbance activities and environmental conditions, nodal networks or pathways that depict probable effects of disturbances, and dynamic system models. These methods have been tested over the past decade and have proven generally successful.Landscape perspectives have emerged as especially helpful in analyzing cumulative effects, and have focused specific attention on questions of spatial and temporal scale, while leading to recognition of the complexity of ecosystem processes in general. An evaluation of several cases studies by the Commission on Life Sciences of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences emphasizes the importance of interactions and cumulative effects, but recognizes that current knowledge of the processes involved is insufficient to make specific recommendations for conceptual frameworks.The conceptual approach suggested by Preston and Bedford (1988) addresses many critical issues, such as the need to define dimensions of scale, and the importance of wetland size, shape, and location in the landscape. This approach and similar ones must be tested and evaluated so that a consensus may eventually emerge.A cumulative impact matrix is proposed that sets up additive, synergistic, and indirect categories, each capable of variation in space and time. Every interaction would be carefully examined to determine the likelihood of cumulative impact in any of the six categories. Because of its magnifying glass approach, such a matrix could be a very useful analytical tool, using existing methods to uncover all the information presently available about the behavior of the ecosystem of concern.     

Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’

Institutional work focuses on the role of actors in creating, maintaining, or disrupting institutional structures. The concept has its origin in organisational studies. In this paper, we rethink and redefine institutional work to make it fit for use in the multi-actor and multi-level context of environmental governance. We survey key approaches to institutional change in the literature, and argue that institutional work should have a central place within this theorising. Drawing on the insights from this literature, we argue that studying institutional work should involve a look at both the actions taken by actors, as well as the resulting effects. We identify a critical need for attention to the fundamentally political character of institutional work, the cumulative effects of action taken by multiple actors, and communicative and discursive dimensions. Overall, the concept of institutional work opens up new possibilities for unpacking the longstanding challenge of understanding institutional change in environmental governance.     

The cumulative dimensions of impact in resource regions

The development of mineral and energy resources worldwide has placed pressure on regional environments, economies and communities. The cumulative impacts, or cumulative effects, arising from overlapping development have stretched political systems that have traditionally been geared toward the regulation and management of individual resource developments, presenting challenges for policy makers, resource developers and civil society actors. An equally challenging task has been realisation of the potential development dividends of mineral and energy resources in the areas of business development, infrastructure, human development or the management of resource revenues. This paper introduces a special issue on ‘Understanding and Managing Cumulative Impacts in Resource Regions’. The special issue interrogates the effectiveness of new and traditional policy responses, explores methods and strategies to better respond to cumulative impacts, and details practical examples of collaborative and coordinated approaches. Papers cover a range of environmental, economic and social issues, geographical regions, commodities, and conceptual approaches. This introductory paper introduces the cumulative impact issues that have manifest in resource regions, critically appraises current conceptions of cumulative impacts, and details management and policy responses to address the cumulative dimensions of impact.     

Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions: Status,perspectives, and prospects

The incongruity between the regional and national scales at which wetland losses are occurring, and the project-specific scale at which wetlands are regulated and studied, has become obvious. This article presents a synthesis of recent efforts by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Ecosystems Research Center at Cornell University to bring wetland science and regulation into alignment with the reality of the cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on entire landscapes and regions. The synthesis is drawn from the other articles in this volume, the workshop that initiated them, and the scientific literature. It summarizes the status of our present scientific understanding, discusses means by which to actualize the existing potential for matching the scales of research and regulation with the scales at which effects are observed, and provides guidelines for building a stronger scientific base for landscape-level assessments of cumulative effects. It also provides the outlines for a synoptic and qualitative approach to cumulative effects assessment based on a reexamination of the generic assessment framework we proposed elsewhere in this volume.The primary conclusion to be drawn from the articles and the workshop is that a sound scientific basis for regulation will not come merely from acquiring more information on more variables. It will come from recognizing that a perceptual shift to larger temporal, spatial, and organizational scales is overdue. The shift in scale will dictate different—not necessarily more—variables to be measured in future wetland research and considered in wetland regulation.     

Using the multiple capitals framework to connect indicators of regional cumulative impacts of mining and pastoralism in the Murray Darling Basin,Australia

It is commonly recognized that there are constraints to successful regional-scale assessment and monitoring of cumulative impacts because of challenges in the selection of coherent and measurable indicators of the effects. It has also been sensibly declared that the connections between components in a region are as important as the state of the elements themselves. These have previously been termed “linked” cumulative impacts/effects. These connections can be difficult to discern because of a complicated set of interactions and unexpected linkages. In this paper we diagnose that a significant cause of these constraints is the selection of indicators without due regard for their inter-relationships in the formulation of the indicator set. The paper examines whether the common “forms of capital”, i.e., natural (renewable and non-renewable), manufactured, social, human and financial capitals, framework is a potential organizing structure. We examine a large region in western NSW Australia where the predominant production systems are mining and grazing for production of wool, beef and lamb. Production in both is driven by consumption of a non-renewable resource, i.e., ore for mining and topsoil for grazing, the latter on the basis that loss rate estimates far exceed soil formation rates. We propose that the challenge of identifying connections of components within and between capital stores can be approached by explicitly separating stores of capital and the flows of capital between stores and between elements within stores, so-called capital fluxes. We attempt to acquire data from public sources for both capital stores and fluxes. The question of whether these data are a sufficient base for regional assessment, with particular reference to connections, is discussed. The well-described challenge of a comparative common currency for stores and fluxes is also discussed. We conclude that the data acquisition is relatively successful for stores and fluxes. A number of linked impacts are identified and discussed. The potential use of money as the common currency for stores and fluxes of capital is considered. The basic proposition is that replacement or preservation costs be used for this. We conclude that the study is sufficiently positive to consider further research in fully-coupled models of capital stores and fluxes.