EIA-Learning from Experience: Changes in the Quality of Environmental Impact Statements for UK Planning Projects

Abstract

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.

The contribution of capacities and context to EIA system performance and effectiveness in developing countries: towards a better understanding

“…Since the publication of the Brundtland report in 1987, a growing number of authors state that EIA is one of the tools that can contribute to sustainable development by implementing projects that are environmentally sound, socially acceptable and economically viable. The scope of study in EIA should therefore be broadened to include social and economic aspects (Smith, 1993;Wiesner, 1995;Mostert, 1995;Glasson et al, 1996;Sadler, 1996;Nooteboom, 2007). To achieve these long-term objectives, decision-makers use EIA as a tool for well-informed decision-making.…”

“…According to the first group, well-informed decision-making makes use of knowledge that is scientifically sound, and open and relevant to debate with the public (Caldwell, 1989;Erickson, 1994;Wood, 1995;Sadler, 1996;Glasson et al, 1996). Some authors from western democratic countries go one step further and state that EIA should have a role in encouraging solutions that are acceptable to politicians, stakeholders and the public in general: EIA as a 'design tool' (Mostert, 1995;Van de Riet, 2003).…”

Does enhanced regulation improve EIA report quality? Lessons from South Africa

“…At the outset of this research it was hypothesised that EIR quality would improve under the 2006 EIA regulations in South Africa relative to those of 1997, based in part on experience in the UK and Europe that found that the overall quality of EIRs generally improves with time (Badr et al, 2004;Barker and Wood, 1999;European Commission, 1996;Fuller, 1999;Canelas et al, 2005;Glasson et al, 1997;MorrisonSaunders et al, 1999).…”

The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory

“…It is widely acknowledged that EIA legislation and practices rarely conform to idealised (and largely positivist and rationalist) models of the process (Bond and Wathern, 1999;Glasson et al, 1997;Barker and Wood, 1999;Rosenberg et al, 1981). However, this does not E necessarily mean EIA is de facto ineffective.…”