Environmental impact assessment (EIA) as collaborative learning process

A collaborative problem-solving approach was applied to environmental impact assessment of regional waste management strategy in Pirkanmaa, Finland. Various actors—interest groups, authorities, and experts—were invited to engage in joint fact finding and to exchange their views on the goals of alternative waste management strategies. The experiences of these encounters suggest that collaborative EIA can serve as a learning and civic discovery process where people can act together and find new solutions. During the process, the participants were able to reflect on their preferences and factual beliefs and to create a previously unconsidered waste management strategy that most parties found acceptable. The potential for learning and finding mutually acceptable solutions depended, however, on the legitimacy and institutional settings of the process: to what extent different perspectives were considered in the process, not only included, and how EIA was connected to a political decision-making process.     

Impact significance determination—Pushing the boundaries

Impact significance determination practice tends to be highly variable. Too often insufficient consideration is given to good practice insights. Also, impact significance determinations are frequently narrowly defined addressing, for example, only individual, negative impacts, focusing on bio-physical impacts, and not seeking to integrate either the Precautionary Principle or sustainability.This article seeks to extend the boundaries of impact significance determination practice by providing an overview of good general impact significance practices, together with stakeholder roles and potential methods for addressing significance determination challenges. Relevant thresholds, criteria, contextual considerations and support methods are also highlighted. The analysis is then extended to address how impact significance determination practices change for positive as compared with negative impacts, for cumulative as compared with individual impacts, for socio-economic as compared with bio-physical impacts, when the Precautionary Principle is integrated into the process, and when sustainability contributions drive the EIA process and related impact significance determinations. These refinements can assist EIA practitioners in ensuring that the scope and nature of impact significance determinations reflect the broadened scope of emerging EIA requirements and practices. Suggestions are included for further refining and testing of the proposed changes to impact significance determination practice.     

Appraising the role of relationships between regulators and consultants for effective EIA

The role of relationships between regulators and consultants engaged in environmental impact assessment (EIA) is explored. A Partnering Agreement between Western Australian regulators and consultants gave rise to a survey and interviews with representatives of these EIA practitioners to understand levels of cooperation between them and ways to improve EIA practice locally. A mixture of quantitative and qualitative responses are presented with an emphasis on practitioner comments reproduced in their own words and ‘voice’. The results suggest that while relationships are strained because of staff resources and levels of expertise brought about by a major resource boom in recent years, there is a great desire for cooperation and collaboration. Greater clarification and understanding of each stakeholder's purpose and role in the EIA process along with opportunities for EIA practitioners to interact, communicate and socialise are identified as positive ways forward. The value of establishing the relatively simple Partnering Agreement approach is demonstrated and is put forward as something that practitioners internationally might equally benefit from as a means of improving the effectiveness of EIA practice.     

The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine environmental impact significance

This paper presents a new methodology for impact assessment—SIAM (Spatial Impact Assessment Methodology)—which is based on the assumption that the importance of environmental impacts is dependent, among other things, on the spatial distribution of the effects and of the affected environment. The information generated by the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in impact identification and prediction stages of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used in the assessment of impact significance by the computation of a set of impact indices. For each environmental component (e.g., air pollution, water resources, biological resources), impact indices are calculated based on the spatial distribution of impacts. A case study of impact evaluation of a proposed highway in Central Portugal illustrates the application of the methodology and shows its capabilities to be adapted to the particular characteristics of a given EIA problem.     

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity, which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA.     

Planning theories and environmental impact assessment

The limited and sporadic interaction between EIA and planning theory has meant that EIA has largely failed to benefit from planning theory insights and lessons. Obstacles and dilemmas already encountered and addressed in planning theory are still hampering EIA theory building and practice. An overview of the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of five major planning theories—rationalism, pragmatism, socio-ecological idealism (SEI), political-economic mobilization (PEM), and communications and collaboration (CC) is presented in an effort to ameliorate this problem. EIA parallels to each planning theory and lessons for EIA are identified. Also addressed are the application of planning theories to different context types, overlaps, interconnections and middle ground concepts among theories, the integration of values, ethics, and postmodern perspectives and the potential to construct composite theories.     

Is EIA part of the wind power planning problem?

This research evaluates the importance and effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) within wind farm planning debates, drawing on insights from case studies in Scotland. Despite general public support for renewable energy on the grounds that it is needed to tackle climate change and implement sustainable development, many proposed wind farms encounter significant resistance. The importance of planning issues and (EIA) processes has arguably been overlooked within recent wind farm social acceptability discourse. Through semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and textual analysis of EIA documents, the characteristics of EIA are assessed in terms of its perceived purpose and performance. The data show that whilst respondents perceive EIA to be important, they express concerns about bias and about the inability of EIA to address climate change and wind farm decommissioning issues adequately. Furthermore, the research identifies key issues which impede the effectiveness of EIA, and reveals differences between theoretical and practical framings of EIA. The paper questions the assumption that EIA is a universally applicable tool, and argues that its effectiveness should be analysed in the context of specific development sectors. The article concludes by reviewing whether the recently amended EIA Directive (2014/52/EU) could resolve identified problems within national EIA practice.     

Assessment of transboundary environmental effects in the Pearl River Delta Region: Is there a role for strategic environmental assessment?

China's EIA Law does not require transboundary proposals to be assessed, despite recognition of this globally, for example in the Espoo Convention and Kiev Protocol, and in the European EIA and SEA Directives. In a transboundary context assessment within a state is unusual, as regulating these effects is primarily about the relationship between states. However where a state has more than one legal system such as in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) Region of southern China, transboundary effects should also be addressed. Yet despite the geographical connections between Guangdong Province in mainland China (where the EIA Law applies) and the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions (which have their own provisions, neither of which requires transboundary assessments), EIA and SEA are carried out separately. Coordinated or joint approaches to transboundary assessment are generally absent, with the legal autonomy of Hong Kong and Macau a major constraint. As a result institutional responses at the policy level have developed. The article considers global experiences with regulating transboundary EIA and SEA, and analyses potential application to land use, transport and air and water planning in the PRD Region. If applied, benefits may include prevention or mitigation of cumulative effects, broader public participation, and improvements to environmental governance. The PRD Region experience may encourage China to conduct and coordinate EIA and SEA processes with neighbouring states, which has been non-existent or extremely limited to date.     

Going beyond environmental impact assessment: Environmental input to planning and design

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been, and remains for the time being, a very important tool of environmental management — though not always for the reasons one would expect. Major achievements of EIA have been through indirect benefits that have had little recognition to date, particularly the achievements of its stimulative and educative roles. However, EIA is evolving as a planning tool and will continue to do so, and we argue that, in time, we will be able to go beyond EIA as a separate stand alone process. We indicate the requirements for its eventual absorption into project planning and design, and the concomitant need to fully incorporate environmental issues in land use planning to address those matters that cannot be addressed on a project-by-project basis.     

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.     

Taking an environmental ethics perspective to understand what we should expect from EIA in terms of biodiversity protection

As a globally mandated decision-support tool, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has the potential to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, which is increasingly under threat because of human activities. Concern over its ability to do this, however, has led to the addition of trade-off rules, Ecosystem Services Assessment (ESA), and biodiversity offsets. But given that EIA is set in a political decision-making context, what is reasonable to expect of EIA? In this paper we seek to explore what level of biodiversity protection we can expect EIA to support (and therefore whether these additions are worthwhile). Our point of departure is that EIA supports its political context and associated societal goals, and those goals typically (explicitly or implicitly) reflect some form of sustainable development. Given that the appropriate level of biodiversity protection is a moral consideration, we take an environmental ethics perspective to explain how different levels of protection are associated with different ethical positions on a spectrum from anthropocentrism (where only humans have intrinsic rights) through to ecocentrism (where all individuals of all species have intrinsic rights). We then investigate how different sustainable development discourses, one economic (on a spectrum from weak to strong sustainability) and one ecological (on a spectrum from shallow to deep ecology) map against the environmental ethics spectrum. We find that the economic discourse on sustainable development, which tends to prevail in political decision-making, is heavily anthropocentric, whereas an ecological discourse has some potential to deliver ecocentrism, but only where a deep ecology interpretation is adopted. We then show that the practise of EIA (with or without the addition of other approaches) maps against, and is bounded by, an economic discourse on sustainable development. The reality is, therefore, that EIA can do no more than contribute to delaying incremental biodiversity loss. If EIA were legislated to protect biodiversity using a deep ecology discourse, then only brownfield development would be possible.     

Application of data envelopment analysis in environmental impact assessment of a coal washing plant: A new sustainable approach

The main problem of traditional methods of environmental impact assessment (EIA) is that in most of the existing algorithms and methods, such as Leopold, Folchi and RIAM, the main attention is to the destructive effects of the proposed plan, and the advantages of the industrial project are less noticeable. This has led to a permanent challenge between environmental organizations and industrial stakeholders. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a new approach of assessing the industrial units. Besides, it considers the positive economic and social impacts of the project and provides a comprehensive assessment of the industrial unit. With this approach, the environmental impacts of an industrial unit have been considered as “inputs” and its positive economic and social impacts considered as the “outputs” of the DEA models. Therefore, the problem of impact assessment changes into a DEA model. In the present study, the Alborz Sharghi Coal washing plant in northern Iran has been considered as a case study for implementing the DEA-EIA approach, and 19 plant activities and 11 environmental components have been used to evaluate the environmental effects of the plant. To solve the EIA problem, two commonly used DEA approaches, called CRS (constant returns to scale) and VRS (variable returns to scale), have been used. The DEA results identified the critical environmental components of the plant that should be considered seriously. Also, drawing the “potential improvement” diagram in the DEA method is an effective tool for determining the high risk activities of the factory and applying them in development plans. Besides, using the VRS model with maximize-output approach showed that some of the plant activities had the most differences with optimal mode and these components should be considered in future development plans. Finally, it can be concluded that, assessing the environmental impacts of the mineral industries with VRS maximize-output approach, is closer to the concept of sustainable development and cost-benefit analysis.     

Ecosystem services in environmental assessment — Help or hindrance?

This paper presents a critical analysis of the potential role of ecosystem services within environmental assessment, including both strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA). It identifies some of the common problems with current environmental assessment practice and then explores whether integrating ecosystem services may be able to help address some of these problems. Case studies are included to illustrate different approaches to using ecosystem services within environmental assessment and to highlight how context (e.g. sector, scale, environmental situation) will influence the most appropriate way of integrating ecosystem services into environmental assessment practice. The analysis also reflects on how ecosystem services' potential role may, or may not, differ from previous integrated approaches to environmental assessment and what lessons can be learnt from their development.Two main approaches are recognised from the literature and the case studies to integrating ecosystem services within environmental assessment: firstly a comprehensive approach, where the assessment framework is entirely guided by ecosystem services; and secondly a philosophical approach that applies more of a light-touch ecosystems-thinking mind-set, helping to frame the assessment methodology rather than fundamentally defining it. Inevitably, there are variations between these two extremes, and benefits and criticisms of both.The authors conclude that ecosystem services provides a potentially valuable framing for environmental assessment, but that it requires a pragmatic, context specific consideration of how ecosystem services can be used to help address some of the common problems with current environmental assessment practice. There is also a need to recognise that at times it may just not be appropriate if it does not provide added value.     

Impact significance determination—Back to basics

Impact significance determination is widely recognized as a vital and critical EIA activity. But impact significance related concepts are poorly understood. And the quality of approaches for impact significance determination in EIA practice remains highly variable. This article seeks to help establish a sound and practical conceptual foundation for formulating and evaluating impact significance determination approaches.It addresses the nature (what is impact significance?), the core characteristics (what are the major properties of significance determination?), the rationale (why are impact significance determinations necessary?), the procedural and substantive objectives (what do impact significance determinations seek to achieve?), and the process for making impact significance judgments (how is impact significance determination conducted?). By identifying fundamental attributes and key distinctions associated with impact significance determinations, a basis is provided for designing and evaluating impact significance determination procedures at both the regulatory and applied levels.     

Reflecting on,and revising,international best practice principles for EIA follow-up

Follow-up is a vital component of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), being essential for understanding assessment outcomes. Long-standing international best practice principles for EIA follow-up are reviewed, and revisions proposed, based on workshops with academics and practitioners, literature review and self-reflection. The proposed revision of EIA follow-up principles will feature an introduction with a simple definition and explanation of objectives for follow-up, and 15 principles. The revised principles address: objective; context; early establishment; project life-cycle; transparency; accessibility; accountability; performance criteria provision; enforcement; learning; adaptive environmental management; flexible or adaptive approach; tiering; cumulative effects and overall performance evaluation. Through publishing this proposal, it is hoped to simultaneously inform or inspire EIA practitioners to enhance their own follow-up knowledge and practices, and to seek input for further refinements that might lead to a revised set of international best practice principles for EIA follow-up.     

Progressing quality control in environmental impact assessment beyond legislative compliance: An evaluation of the IEMA EIA Quality Mark certification scheme

The effectiveness of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) systems is contingent on a number of control mechanisms: procedural; judicial; evaluative; public and government agency; professional; and development aid agency. If we assume that procedural and judicial controls are guaranteed in developed EIA systems, then progressing effectiveness towards an acceptable level depends on improving the performance of other control mechanisms over time. These other control mechanisms are either absent, or are typically centrally controlled, requiring public finances; this we argue is an unpopular model in times of greater Government austerity. Here we evaluate a market-based mechanism for improving the performance of evaluative and professional control mechanisms, the UK Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments' EIA Quality Mark. We do this by defining dimensions of effectiveness for the purposes of our evaluation, and by identifying international examples of the approaches taken to delivering the other control measures to validate the approach taken in the EIA Quality Mark. We then evaluate the EIA Quality Mark, when used in combination with legal procedures and an active judiciary, against the effectiveness dimensions and use time-series analysis of registrant data to examine its ability to progress practice. We conclude that the EIA Quality Mark has merit as a model for a market-based mechanism, and may prove a more financially palatable approach for delivering effective EIA in mature systems in countries that lack centralised agency oversight. It may, therefore, be of particular interest to some Member States of the European Union for ensuring forthcoming certification requirements stemming from recent amendments to the EIA Directive.     

Adapting social impact assessment to address a project's human rights impacts and risks

We address the weaknesses inherent in the social risk assessments undertaken for business, especially in the extractive industries. In contrast to the conventional approach that considers consequence to the company rather than to impacted communities, conformance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights requires that consequence to affected communities has precedence. In order for social risks to be properly assessed, we consider that: companies need to know and understand the human rights impacts of their activities; contemporary approaches to project impact and risk assessment need to be adapted to consider human rights; and environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) methods need to be adapted to give greater attention to impacts on human rights. Using an example from the mining, oil and gas sector, we provide a method that differentiates social risks from business risks, and we position impact assessment as an instrument that actively facilitates the improved identification, analysis and management of social risks. Practical adaptations to SIA activities and risk assessment processes are provided. Taking human rights impacts into account and using the dimensions of gravity, extent, vulnerability and remediability, we nominate criteria to assess the significance of negative social impacts.     

Comparison of a Subjective and a Physical Approach for Identification of Priority Areas for Soil and Water Management in a Watershed – A Case Study of Nagwan Watershed in Hazaribagh District of Jharkhand, India

The present investigation was an attempt to compare the within-watershed prioritization capabilities of a physical model based SDSS with the SYI and RPI model based subjective-SDSS, conventionally devised for between-watershed prioritizations, by All India Soil Survey and Land Use Planning Division of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Application of these two approaches on a test watershed situated in Damodar-Barakar catchment in India, the second most seriously eroded area in the world, demonstrated that the proposed physical model based SDSS was capable of realistically and logically mimicking the sub-watershed-scaled water and soil losses thereby suggesting its immense application potential for priority area identification within the test watershed. In contrast to the proposed physical method, the subjective approaches, which assigned totally reverse priorities to about 67–93% of the test-sub-watersheds, were observed to be incapable of realistically assessing the impact of topography and varied land use and soil types in the test watershed on their sub-watershed scaled run-off and soil loss generating potential. Besides, the physical approach could be used for assessing the annual dynamics of the total water and sediment yields, under prevailing resource management systems in the test watershed with good to moderately good correlation coefficients of 0.83 and 0.65; model efficiency coefficients of 0.54 and 0.70; mean relative errors of –4.28% and –17.97% and root mean square prediction errors of 71.8 mm and 9.63 t/ha, respectively.     

Resolving resource conflict: The role of survey research in public involvement programs

There is increasing awareness of the costs of controversy in natural resources planning and management, and growing interest in ways of resolving conflict out of court. Traditional approaches to public involvement—public hearings and analysis of correspondence—do little to resolve conflict. Survey research is a technique that has potential in promoting consensus solutions. Comparisons of written input and two surveys associated with a controversial plan are offered in partial support of this position.     

Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating the environmental impact assessment and mine closure planning processes

Integration of environmental assessment tools has long been promoted as best practice with the potential to bring environmental benefits. In this research, we set out to evaluate the effectiveness of integration of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and mine closure planning using a simple effectiveness criteria framework, applied to current regulatory provisions and practices in Western Australia. The effectiveness criteria for the integration of EIA and mine closure planning, compiled from existing reviews of integration and effectiveness concepts in the impact assessment literature, considers procedural, transactive, substantive effectiveness and overall process legitimacy. Data analysis consisted of a literature review, examination of regulatory and guidance material and interviews with 12 experienced EIA and/or mine closure practitioners with an industry or regulatory focus. The results provide strong, positive examples of procedural, transactive and substantive effectiveness due to the integrated framework. These include behavioural changes, improved knowledge and learning and better provision for closure at an early stage of mine planning. A trajectory of improvement was noted by everybody interviewed. However, a key driver for effectiveness is the enthusiasm of key facilitations, and tension exists due to the different motivations of the two lead regulatory agencies which poses a challenge for the integrated framework. While it can reasonably be argued that the effectiveness of early mine closure planning cannot yet be realised, due to a paucity of completely closed mines in Australia this study nevertheless demonstrates clear benefits and opportunities result from early stage integration of EIA with mine closure planning.