| Abstract: | This paper draws on a research report recently produced (1996) by the authors for the UK Department of the Environment. The principal aim of the research was to establish clearly what changes, if any, there have been in the quality of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) since the inception of mandatory EIA in 1988, and to explain reasons for the changes. The paper provides a critique of the meaning of 'quality' in an area such as this. Quality relates both to the EIS and to the EIA process. EIS quality can be assessed against various review frameworks in a structured and systematic way; quality can also be assessed according to the perspective of the individual participant in the EIA process. The findings of both macro and micro studies of quality are discussed. The macro study uses a range of review frameworks (minimum regulatory requirements, an EU framework, and comprehensive frameworks developed by EIA academics at UK universities, including Oxford Brookes University) for a large sample of EISs. The micro study uses a structured questionnaire of the participants (local planning officers, developers, consultants and others) involved in a smaller set of detailed case studies. The findings reveal that there has been a learning from experience and an improvementin quality, but they also highlight a number of problems in the EIA process. The paper outlines some of the determinants of the changes in quality, and concludes with recommendations for developments in EIA in response to particular issues raised. These recommendations are set in the context of European Commission amendments to the EC EIA Directive. |
