Stakeholder perceptions of Environmental Management Plans as an environmental protection tool for major developments in the UK |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom;2. Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom;1. School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, # 235, University W. Road, Saihan District, Huhhot, Inner Mongolia 010021, China;2. College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, #38, Tongyan Road, Haihe Education Park, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300071, China;3. Yunnan Provincial Appraisal Center for Environmental Engineering, #1002, Guangfu Road, Xishan District, Kunming, Yunnan 650032, China;1. Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, 2000 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;2. Water Center, Graham Sustainability Institute, University of Michigan, 625 E. Liberty Street, Suite 300, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Insufficient implementation and the lack of legislative requirements for follow-up measures following the approval of projects are consistently highlighted as major shortcomings of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Although adopted over 15 years ago by the World Bank, Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) were only semi-formalised in the UK in 2008 and arguably provide a continuous link or ‘bridge’ between the EIA process pre-consent and an Environmental Management System (EMS) post-consent. Drawing on twenty-one semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and thematic analysis of their responses, and a broad-scale practitioner survey, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of EMPs as an environmental protection tool across the project lifecycle for major developments. The findings revealed a mixed picture of EMP effectiveness in practice, with EMPs only partially fulfilling a bridging role between EIA and EMS. There is no ‘gold standard’ terminology for EMPs, all having slightly different uses, thus presenting different focuses to different stakeholders and further enhancing variation in practice. For many stakeholders, the effectiveness was simply not known, due to the lack of communication and follow-up that still exists. EMP–EMS linkages were shown to be effective from the developer's perspective when a single organisation has involvement across all project phases, though weaknesses occur when multiple parties are involved. Among other stakeholders, knowledge varied significantly; whilst some were in agreement that the linkages worked, many were unaware of the connections and thought of them as two quite separate tools. Stakeholders advocated for the need to make EMPs a legal requirement; for improved communication between stakeholders during EMP implementation and increased documentation of project outcomes; and for EMPs to be consistently written by environmental professionals. Furthermore, weak links in the current process may be improved by providing detailed guidance for organisations on the potential for EMP–EMS linkages, with the additional aim of encouraging stakeholders to broaden their current specialist knowledge on environmental protection tools. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
