Assessing the quality of the ecological component of English Environmental Statements.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a key tool to help ensure sustainable built development in more than 200 countries worldwide. Ecology is frequently a component of EIA and early reviews of Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) chapters identified scope for improvement at almost every stage of the EcIA process, regardless of country. However, there have been no reviews of UK EcIA chapters since 2000, despite important changes in biodiversity and planning legislation, policy and guidance. In addition, no UK EcIA chapter reviews have attempted to assign a grade or score to EcIA chapters (as has been done for reviews of US, Finnish and Indian EcIA chapters). Furthermore, no EcIA chapter reviews have attempted to use a scoring system to identify which variables determine EcIA chapter information content, beyond straightforward comparisons of EcIA chapters before and after the introduction of guidelines. A variant of the Biodiversity Assessment Index (BAI) was used to assign scores between zero and one to EcIA chapters based on a series of 47 questions drawn from EU legislation and professional guidance. 112 EcIA chapters for proposed developments that were subsequently granted planning permission in England were assessed. The mean BAI score was less than 0.5, indicating the presence of considerable information gaps in the majority of EcIA chapters. Of 13 predictor variables identified as having the potential to affect EcIA chapter quality, 10 were identified as significantly related to the BAI scores. A backward stepwise Generalized Linear Model identified the use of professional guidance, the ecological consultancy type and the length of the EcIA chapter as having the greatest combined explanatory power. As a result, several recommendations are made to help improve future EcIA chapter content, including formal EcIA chapter review, publicising the professional guidance to consultants, the provision of training and the introduction of an accreditation scheme for consultants involved in EcIA This approach could be replicated in other countries that conduct EIA. Context-dependent EcIA chapter review criteria (as in this paper) would help to identify targeted recommendations for improvement. Alternatively, a global set of review criteria could highlight areas of best practice that could then be exported to other countries.

[1]  Samuel Briggs,et al.  Determination of significance in ecological impact assessment: past change, current practice and future improvements , 2013 .

[2]  Luis A. Bojórquez-Tapia,et al.  An approach for evaluating eias— deficiencies of eia in mexico , 1998 .

[3]  T. Lukki,et al.  A critical review of checklist-based evaluation of environmental impact statements , 2011 .

[4]  Robert P. Freckleton,et al.  Dealing with collinearity in behavioural and ecological data: model averaging and the problems of measurement error , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[5]  Ajay Kumar,et al.  Inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessments (EIA): a case study of selected EIA reports in India , 2010 .

[6]  J. Treweek,et al.  A review of ecological mitigation measures in UK environmental statements with respect to sustainable development , 1997 .

[7]  A. Cropper.  Convention on Biological Diversity , 1993, Environmental Conservation.

[8]  Alan Bond,et al.  The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory , 2004 .

[9]  Norman Lee,et al.  Quality control in environmental assessment , 1992 .

[10]  El-Sayed A. Badr,et al.  The Consideration Of Impacts Upon The Aquatic Environment In Environmental Impact Statements In England And Wales , 2004 .

[11]  Samuel F. Atkinson,et al.  Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements , 2000 .

[12]  Tarja Söderman,et al.  Treatment of biodiversity issues in Finnish environmental impact assessment , 2005 .

[13]  Carys Jones,et al.  The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions , 1997 .

[14]  J. R. Treweek,et al.  Ecology and environmental impact assessment , 1996 .

[15]  A. Porter,et al.  Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the New Century , 1998 .

[16]  Adam Barker,et al.  Evaluation of the Performance of the EIA Process , 1996 .

[17]  J. R. Treweek,et al.  Ecological assessment of proposed road developments: a review of environmental statements , 1993 .

[18]  D. P. Lawrence.  Quality and effectiveness of environmental impact assessments: lessons and insights from ten assessments in Canada , 1997 .

[19]  Norman Lee,et al.  Reviewing the quality of environmental statements: review methods and findings , 1991 .

[20]  D. Tyldesley.  Wildlife impact: the treatment of nature conservation in environmental assessment , 1995 .

[21]  Richard G. FitzJohn,et al.  Predicting weed distribution at the landscape scale: using naturalized Brassica as a model system , 2008 .

[22]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Ecology Drives the Worldwide Distribution of Human Diseases , 2004, PLoS biology.

[23]  J. Glasson,et al.  Socio‐economic impacts: the poor relations in British environmental impact statements , 1993 .

[24]  Roger Mundry,et al.  Stepwise Model Fitting and Statistical Inference: Turning Noise into Signal Pollution , 2008, The American Naturalist.

[25]  W. Ross,et al.  Evaluating environmental impact statements , 1987 .

[26]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods , 2002 .

[27]  A. Onwuegbuzie,et al.  Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come , 2004 .

[28]  William R. Sheate,et al.  Road Developments in the UK: An Analysis of Ecological Assessment in Environmental Impact Statements Produced between 1993 and 1997 , 2000 .

[29]  Richard K. Morgan.  Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art , 2012 .

[30]  J. R. Treweek,et al.  The Ecological Component of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Critical Review of British Environmental Statements , 1997 .

[31]  Robert P Freckleton,et al.  Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? , 2006, The Journal of animal ecology.

[32]  Adam Barker,et al.  An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries , 1999 .

[33]  Elizabeth Wilson,et al.  EIA-Learning from Experience: Changes in the Quality of Environmental Impact Statements for UK Planning Projects , 1997 .