Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers

Peterson, Kaja

doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.08.009

Cited by 51 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Having become familiar with the use of the adapted review method in the first two reports, the remainder of the EIRs were then reviewed by one reviewer. Reliance on a single reviewer can be seen as a limitation of the methodology, especially in light of Peterson's (2010) finding that group assessment was more critical than individual assessment when reviewing EIR quality. However, in the context of exploring changes from ECA to NEMA, any potential biased caused by this approach is unlikely to obscure any report quality trends.…”

Section: Review Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The weaknesses typically encountered include those relating to capacity of authorities involved, public participation, description of the methods used, impact prediction, EIA follow-up monitoring, and consideration of alternatives and cumulative impacts (Barker and Wood, 1999;Gray and Edwards-Jones, 1999;Canelas et al, 2005;Tzoumis, 2007;Kruopienė et al, 2009;Peterson, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Sandham

Heerden

Jones

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, various EIA systems have been subjected to system review processes with a view to improve performance. Many of these reviews resulted in some form of legislative reform. The South African Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations were modified in 2006 with the express intent to improve EIA effectiveness. In order to evaluate to what extent the desired outcome was achieved, the quality of EIA reports produced under the 2006 regulations was investigated for comparative analysis with the preceding regime. A sample of EIA reports from the two legislative regimes was reviewed using an adapted version of a well established method known colloquially as the "Lee and Colley" review package. Despite some improvements in certain aspects, overall report quality has decreased slightly from the 1997 EIA regime. It therefore appears that the modifications to the regulations, often heralded as the solution to improvements in performance have not resulted in improved quality of EIA reports.

show abstract

Section: Review Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sandham

Heerden

Jones

et al. 2013

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Canelas et al (2005) reviewed 23 environmental impact statements produced in Spain and concluded that 28% did not describe the significant environmental effects of the project in a satisfactory way. Peterson (2010) also demonstrated major deficiencies in this area. A quality assessment of 50 environmental impact studies in Estonia concluded that 55.2% of them poorly described the likely significant effects of the project (Peterson, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Projects to which the terms 'urban' and 'infrastructure' can be applied, such as the construction of sewerage and water supply networks, should also be included in this category (European Commission, 2008). Although the identification and evaluation of environmental impacts is considered integral to the EIA process, several researchers consider that this task is particularly problematic (Badr et al 2011;Canelas et al (2005); Peterson (2010); Androulidakis and Karakassis (2006); Kruopienė et al, 2009;Nadeem and Hameed, 2008;Toro et al 2012;Tennøy et al, 2006). Badr et al (2011) reviewed 45 environmental impact statements produced in Egypt and concluded that the identification and evaluation of key impacts was the area with the worst performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting on-site environmental impacts of municipal engineering works

Gangolells¹,

Casals²,

Forcada³

et al. 2014

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research findings fill a gap in the body of knowledge by presenting an effective way to evaluate the significance of on-site environmental impacts of municipal engineering works prior to the construction stage. First, 42 on-site environmental impacts of municipal engineering works were identified by means of a process-oriented approach. Then, 46 indicators and their corresponding significance limits were determined on the basis of a statistical analysis of 25 new-build and remodelling municipal engineering projects. In order to ensure the objectivity of the assessment process, direct and indirect indicators were always based on quantitative data from the municipal engineering project documents. Finally, two case studies were analysed and found to illustrate the practical use of the proposed model. The model highlights the significant environmental impacts of a particular municipal engineering project prior to the construction stage. Consequently, preventive actions can be planned and implemented during on-site activities. The results of the model also allow a comparison of proposed municipal engineering projects and alternatives with respect to the overall on-site environmental impact and the absolute importance of a particular environmental aspect. These findings are useful within the framework of the environmental impact assessment process, as they help to improve the identification and evaluation of on-site environmental aspects of municipal engineering works. The findings may also be of use to construction companies that are willing to implement an environmental management 2 system or simply wish to improve on-site environmental performance in municipal engineering projects.

show abstract

“…Observando-se a porcentagem de países que instalaram a AIA há mais tempo, verifica-se que são poucos os países que possuem sistemas maduros, muitos dos quais estão, ainda, consolidando suas regulamentações, diretrizes e práticas, melhorando a qualidade dos estudos e o nível de participação popular; já outros se encontram em processos prematuros, atuando de modo pouco efetivo com relação à AIA (GLASSON et al, 2005), fato que pode ser constatado em diversos estudos acerca das análises de efetividade da AIA em diversas partes do mundo (EGLER, 1998;BARKER e WOOD, 1999;AHMAD e WOOD, 2002;RAMJEAWON e BEEDASSY, 2004;SANDHAM e PRETORIUS, 2008;PETERSON, 2009;PÖLÖNEM et al, 2010).…”

Section: Lista De Ilustraçõesunclassified

A efetividade da informação na etapa pós-aprovação de empreendimentos hidrelétricos

Kakinami¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers

Cited by 51 publications

References 6 publications

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

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

Predicting on-site environmental impacts of municipal engineering works

A efetividade da informação na etapa pós-aprovação de empreendimentos hidrelétricos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About