Environmental impact assessment: An international evaluation

Experiences with environmental impact assessment (EIA) in a number of countries are discussed in the light of both explicit and implicit goals and objectives. Adequate environmental information is not always available to decision makers because of failure to apply EIA to all relevant decisions, the continuing inadequacies of prediction and evaluation techniques, the failure to consider alternatives adequately, and the bias of some EISs. EIA frequently results in changes to proposals and may result in stricter environmental management conditions in some cases, but some people regard it as a failure because it has not stopped development. Generally, EIA leads to better integration of environmental factors into project planning. Open procedures and freedom of information encourage responsiveness to EIA procedures, which can be weakened by discretionary powers and lack of access to the courts by public interest groups. However, legal standing may have side effects that offset its advantages. EIA can encourage cooperation and coordination between agencies but does not ensure them. Similarly, it can have a limited role in coordinating interstate and international policies. In the long term, the success of EIA depends on adequate monitoring, reassessment, and enforcement over the life of the project. EIA has generally opened up new opportunities for public participation, and may help to reduce conflict. EIA procedures need to be integrated with other environmental protection and development control programs, and various means exist for reducing its cost to developers and the public.

[1]  A. Armenakis.  Evaluation in Environmental Planning , 1982 .

[2]  M. Hollick.  Environmental Impact Assessment as a planning tool , 1981 .

[3]  Hans A. Linde,et al.  The United States Experience , 1972 .

[4]  M. Hollick.  Enforcement of mitigation measures resulting from environmental impact assessment , 1981 .

[5]  THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HANDBOOK. , 1975 .

[6]  Toru Yamamoto,et al.  The Japanese Experience , 1976 .

[7]  I. Mcharg.  Design With Nature , 1969 .

[8]  Rangesan Narayanan,et al.  Multiobjective Planning: Concepts and Methods , 1976 .

[9]  L. B. Leopold,et al.  A procedure for evaluating environmental impact , 1971 .

[10]  Thomas M. Bonnicksen,et al.  Environmental impact studies: An interdisciplinary approach for assigning priorities , 1983 .

[11]  Joseph L. Schofer,et al.  Strategies for the Evaluation of Alternative Transportation Plans: National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Report 96 , 1970 .

[12]  M. Hollick.  Role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental-impact assessment , 1981 .

[13]  C. Thirlwall,et al.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS , 1976 .

[14]  A. Beer.  Assessment of major industrial applications: a manual: Aberdeen University Department of Geography. Department of the Environment Research Report 13 Department of the Environment, London, 1976, 170 pp., £2.00. , 1977 .

[15]  M. Hollick.  EIA and environmental management in Western Australia , 1981 .

[16]  Norbert Dee,et al.  An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning , 1973 .

[17]  C. Wood,et al.  The Assessment Of Environmental Impacts In Project Appraisal In The European Communities , 1977 .

[18]  R. Drtina,et al.  Structuring cooperative behavior under the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States , 1982 .