Impact significance determination—Designing an approach

The question of how best to go about determining the significance of impacts has, to date, only been addressed in a partial and preliminary way. The assumption tends to be made that it is either only necessary to provide explicit, justified reasons for a judgment about significance and/or to explicitly apply a prescribed procedure—a procedure usually involving the staged application of thresholds and/or criteria. The detailed attributes, strengths and limitations of such approaches and possible alternative approaches have yet to be explored systematically.This article addresses these deficiencies by analyzing the characteristics, specific methods and positive and negative tendencies of three general impact significance determination approaches—the technical approach, the collaborative approach and the reasoned argumentation approach. A range of potential composite approaches are also described. With an enhanced understanding of these approaches, together with potential combinations, EIA practitioners and other EIA participants can be in a better position to select an approach appropriate to their needs, to reinforce the positive tendencies and offset the negative tendencies of the selected approach and to combine the best qualities of more than one approach.     

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.     

Elements of an SEA framework— improving the added-value of SEA

Debate across the impact assessment community has been significantly influenced by the emergence of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in the past few years. Although there are still difficulties regarding the understanding of its nature and technicalities, the need for it was acknowledged, and practice is taking place in diverse forms. Such diversity of approaches to SEA, while enriching debate, are critically confusing the relationship of SEA with other planning and impact assessment tools. In this paper it is argued that the value of SEA is a function of the extent it influences, and adds value, to decision making. Following that rationale, the paper suggests that SEA should be conceptualized as a framework, defined by core elements, that are incrementally integrated into policy and planning procedures and practices, whatever decision-making system in place. It is believed that in this way SEA may better satisfy one of its acknowledged aims and benefits, which is to help achieve sustainable development by changing the way decisions are made.     

Developing a framework to assess costs and benefits of Health Impact Assessment

This paper presents some early thinking as to how the costs and benefits of HIA might be assessed. After considering previous work it uses a comprehensive HIA in Dulwich, SE London as a case study to highlight the possibilities and difficulties of collecting necessary data on costs and benefits. It then sets a context for developing a cost–benefit framework for analysis. The framework is viewed alongside the major types of economic evaluation. The paper concludes with a review of outstanding issues and considers how evidence on cost and benefit might make a difference in the application of HIA.     

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.     

One common way — The strategic and methodological influence on environmental planning across Europe

In the last decades the European Union exerted influence on precautionary environmental planning by the establishment of several Directives. The most relevant were the Habitat-Directive, the EIA-Directive, the SEA-Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Comparing these EU policies in the area of environmental precaution it becomes obvious that there is a lot of common ground. Thus, the conclusion seems likely that the European Union, in doing so, has intended to establish general planning concepts through introducing several methodological steps indicated by the regulations. The goal of this article is firstly to point out, which are the common planning principles, converted by methodological elements and secondly examine the consideration of these planning concepts by the implementation and application in the member states. In this context it is analysed whether the connections and divergences between the directives lead to significant differences in the implementation process. To this aim the directives are shortly introduced and significant steps of the processes regulated by them are outlined. In the second steps the national legal implementation in the Alpine states and its consequences for the practical application are discussed. The results show a heterogeneous application of the EU principles. Within the comparative view on the four directives influence and causalities between the national implementation and the practical application were identified, which can be simplified as four types. Since a coherent strategic and methodological concept for improving environmental precaution planning from part of the EU is noticeable, more unity and comparability within the implementation is desirable, particularly in areas with comparable habitats such as the alpine space. Beyond this the trade-off between the directives poses an important task for the future.     

Tropical cyclone losses in the USA and the impact of climate change — A trend analysis based on data from a new approach to adjusting storm losses

Economic losses caused by tropical cyclones have increased dramatically. Historical changes in losses are a result of meteorological factors (changes in the incidence of severe cyclones, whether due to natural climate variability or as a result of human activity) and socio-economic factors (increased prosperity and a greater tendency for people to settle in exposed areas). This paper aims to isolate the socio-economic effects and ascertain the potential impact of climate change on this trend. Storm losses for the period 1950–2005 have been adjusted to the value of capital stock in 2005 so that any remaining trend cannot be ascribed to socio-economic developments. For this, we introduce a new approach to adjusting losses based on the change in capital stock at risk. Storm losses are mainly determined by the intensity of the storm and the material assets, such as property and infrastructure, located in the region affected. We therefore adjust the losses to exclude increases in the capital stock of the affected region. No trend is found for the period 1950–2005 as a whole. In the period 1971–2005, since the beginning of a trend towards increased intense cyclone activity, losses excluding socio-economic effects show an annual increase of 4% per annum. This increase must therefore be at least due to the impact of natural climate variability but, more likely than not, also due to anthropogenic forcings.