Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’?

Abstract The evaluation and communication of the significance of environmental effects remains a critical yet poorly understood component of EIA theory and practice. Following a conceptual overview of the generic dimensions of impact significance in EIA, this paper reports upon the findings of an empirical study of recent environmental impact statements that considers the treatment of significance for impacts concerning landscape (‘see no evil’) and noise (‘hear no evil’), focussing specifically upon the evaluation and communication of impact significance (‘speak no evil’) in UK practice. Particular attention is given to the use of significance criteria and thresholds, including the development of a typology of approaches applied within the context of noise and landscape/visual impacts. Following a broader discussion of issues surrounding the formulation, application and interpretation of significance criteria, conclusions and recommendations relevant to wider EIA practice are suggested.

[1]  Riki Therivel,et al.  Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment , 2002 .

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

[3]  Hugh Wilkins,et al.  The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development , 2003 .

[4]  Peter N. Duinker,et al.  The significance of environmental impacts: an exploration of the concept , 1986 .

[5]  Joe Weston,et al.  EIA, Decision-making Theory and Screening and Scoping in UK Practice , 2000 .

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

[7]  John Elkington,et al.  Governance for Sustainability , 2006 .

[8]  G. Wood,et al.  Discretionary Judgement in Local Planning Authority Decision Making: Screening Development Proposals for Environmental Impact Assessment , 2005 .

[9]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[10]  Judith E. Innes,et al.  Information in Communicative Planning , 1998 .

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

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

[13]  Graham Wood,et al.  Fuzzy Sets and Simulated Environmental Change: Evaluating and Communicating Impact Significance in Environmental Impact Assessment , 2007 .

[14]  D. Bromley,et al.  Economic Interests and Institutions: The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy , 1989 .

[15]  Branko Kontic.  Why are some experts more credible than others , 2000 .

[16]  Jouni Paavola,et al.  Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decisionmaking , 2003 .

[17]  John Rennie Short,et al.  Environmental discourse and practice : a reader , 2000 .

[18]  David P. Lawrence,et al.  Quantitative versus qualitative evaluation: A false dichotomy? , 1993 .

[19]  Larry W. Canter,et al.  Impact significance determination--Basic considerations and a sequenced approach , 1993 .

[20]  R. Beattie,et al.  Everything you already know about EIA (but don't often admit) , 1995 .