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.

As an aid to decision making Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is seen as a rational and systematic process which is often held to be holistic and proactive in its approach to environmental protection (Glasson et al., 1999). The roots of EIA are firmly located within the 1960s' demand for a more systematic and objective approach to environmental decision making and hence within the rationalist model of decision making theory. This paper examines the key stages of the EIA process to assess how far EIA conforms to the rationalist model today. Most research in EIA decision making has focused on the project authorization process and not the crucial decisions made at the earlier stages of screening and scoping. This study examines those early stages within the context of UK EIA practice. From this examination the paper attempts to locate EIA within decision-making theory.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was developed and introduced in the 1960s during a time that was dominated by three key societal influences. These were the growth of modern environmental concern, the drive for more rational, scientific and objective environmental decision making and a desire for more public involvement in environmental decision making. The legitimacy of EIA, as a tool to aid decision making, lies in its ability to meet the requirements of all three demands, the chief among these being its ability to be a systematic scientific and rational approach to decision making. Yet today we live in a society that no longer accepts the rationalist model as either possible or desirable. The deference to 'the expert' and our trust in science and technology has steadily declined during the period of EIAs development and widespread use. Today, EIA still depends for its legitimacy on its claim to provide a systematic and scientific approach to assessments, while society has moved on. This paper examines this growing divergence and argues that it is time for a major re-evaluation of the role of EIA in environmental decision making.

No abstract

This paper examines the role of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in project authorization decision making and the way in which the courts have interpreted its role. The purpose of the paper is to establish whether or not that role has changed over the period between the introduction of EIA in 1988 and 2001. From the evidence reported here, it is argued that while the procedural stages of EIA have been very much strengthened over that period, the importance of EIA as a tool to aid planning authorization decision making remains largely peripheral.