The Quality of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process for Public Road Projects: A Case Study in Spain

Abstract

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) apply criteria to minimize the negative effects of projects on the environment. However, the EIA process has been criticized by European environmental organizations and governments. One common criticism deals with the fact that the responsibility for creating the environmental impact statement (EIS) normally belongs to the project's promoter; another is the lack of rigor in the criteria for accepting or rejecting these studies. In 1994, the European Commission developed a procedure to evaluate the quality of such studies. In the present research, our objectives were to assess the quality of a sample of EIS documents created from 1990 to 2002 by the Spanish Autonomous Administration of Valencia and to assess the efficiency of the European Review Checklist method. We statistically evaluated 40 EISs, then undertook a qualitative appraisal of the documents. Next, we applied the European Review Checklist to the sample documents to appraise their quality. Based on the results of this analysis, we proposed and applied a new evaluation methodology. We assessed the overall quality by consecutive application of the three methodologies. We report important advantages of using the improved appraisal methodology and discuss the results. We found that combining qualitative analysis with a checklist that supports a more rigorous appraisal methodology improved the reliability of assessments of EIS quality, and that the technical level of the EISs should be improved, along with the accuracy and objectivity of the review tools. Based on these results, we recommend that formal measures be implemented to control and monitor the quality of EISs. Aim of the ResearchWe analyzed a large, representative sample of environmental impact assessment (EIA) dossiers for existing public road projects in the context of ongoing research by the Valencia Polytechnic University. Our main objective was to evaluate the degree of quality control during the different stages of the EIA process. The research described in this paper dealt with the task of accurately determining EIS quality based on a case study of specific public roads projects in the Valencia region of Spain that evaluated the methodology. We studied EIS quality both qualitatively and using standard quality-assessment tools so as to compare the results and evaluate the effectiveness of the quality control tools recommended by the European Union (EU). The first step in our research was to choose a representative sample of EIA dossiers, which included each road project, EIS, public participation document, and public environmental committee assessment. The Valencian Government provided us with 40 EIA dossiers out of the 100 dossiers that had been created since the relevant Spanish environmental legislation was enacted (in 1990) and ending in 2002. This sample was chosen based on specific parameters such as the year of creation, type of road construction projects, ecological importance of the affected area, and project importance, with the goa...

Evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Ethiopia

“…(2018) Denmark 1991–2014 67 Not defined Descriptive and inferential Infrastructure 12 Loomis and Dziedzic (2018) World 1996–2016 64 Procedural effectiveness Descriptive and inferential Various/Mixed 13 Otienoc et al. (2017) Kenya Not given 13 Smith Scheme of Public participation Descriptive and inferential Various/Mixed 14 Peris-Mora and Velasco (2015) Spain 1990–2002 40 European Review Checklist Quality scale Road 15 Sandham et al. (2020) South Africa 1997–2017 24 International EIA report quality review package Descriptive and inferential National Parks 16 Ulibarri et al.…”

“…oil and gas) of even significant environmental and social impacts from submitting EIS ( Eilperin, 2010 ; The National Commission, 2011 ) and thus compromise the net benefits of a project ( Rathoure, 2021 ). Even when EIS is produced for a project, it either is of poor quality or is missing parts that must be included ( Peris-Mora and Velasco, 2015 ) due to poor participation or only selected stakeholders in the EIS process. In Ethiopia, stakeholders participation in a project is enshrined in the Constitution of the 1995 and proclamation no.…”