HOW CLEARLY IS CAUSALITY COMMUNICATED IN EIA?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 1250020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANASTASSIOS PERDICOÚLIS ◽  
JOHN GLASSON
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessment ◽  
Fundamental Notion ◽  
Study Material ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
Environmental Impact Statements ◽  
The Uk

Causality, or the relation of cause and effect, is a fundamental notion in impact assessment, indicating how impacts arise from development actions. In the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), recent research in the UK has indicated that impact statements typically do not contain graphic expressions of causality. This article explores the extent to which causality about environmental impacts is described in the text of the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The analysis methodology employs two techniques, semantics analysis and transcription of the text into causal digraphs, while the case study material is sampled from ten recent UK and US impact statements. The research indicates in many cases that the communication of causality has faults such as uncertainty or absence of important information, and we highlight the implications for the practice of EIA.

The need for more stringent requirements in Environmental Impact Assessment: Shell Cove Marina case study

1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 214 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Benkendorff
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessment ◽  
Biological Data ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Environmental Impact Statements ◽  
Mitigation Methods ◽  
Ecologically Sustainable ◽  
Ecologically Sustainable Development

An examination of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) points to a clear need for change in the current process of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Australia. The recent approval of a Boatharbour/Marina at Shellharbour, New South Wales, Australia, serves as an example that underscores some of the problems common to most EISs. Budgetary constraints imposed on the ecological consultants can lead to the use of inappropriate methodology and the collection of inaccurate biological data. The limitations in methodology must be taken into consideration in EISs and all conclusions should be substantiated with data or reference to the literature. There is a need for stricter guidelines for ecological studies and monitoring programmes. A comprehensive list of potential impacts requiring consideration in an EIS should be provided for all designated developments. Novel mitigation methods should always be subject to monitoring. The consequences of not proceeding with the development should be considered in conjunction with alternatives to the proposed development and it should be essential to consider ecotourism as an alternative to all purely tourist oriented proposals. There is a need for peer review in the EIA process. Many of the flaws in the Shell Cove EIS might have been negated by more input from independent scientists. The future of ecologically sustainable development in Australia depends on our ability to learn from, and improve on, mistakes from the past.

Environmental impact assessment of ceramic tile manufacturing: a case study in Turkey

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 1295-1310
Author(s):  
Burçin Atılgan Türkmen ◽  
Tuba Budak Duhbacı ◽  
Şeyma Karahan Özbilen
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessment ◽  
Ceramic Tile

EIA SCREENING FOR CHANGES AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING PROJECTS: APPLYING AN EU PERSPECTIVE

2004 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 177-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOE WESTON
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Environmental Impact Assessment ◽  
Wide Scope ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Local Planning ◽  
Growth Area ◽  
The Uk

Directive 97/11/EC, amending the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC), introduced a number of key changes to the procedures of EIA in the European Union (EU). One significant amendment was the introduction of a requirement for EIAs to be completed for "changes or extensions to Annex I or II projects that have already been authorised executed or are in the process of being executed and which are likely to have significant adverse effects on the environment (CEC, 1997). That requirement imposes a duty on competent authorities to screen all changes and extensions of Annex I and Annex II projects for the need for EIA. Applying legal and policy principles established in the European Union, the scope of what constitute relevant changes and extensions is very wide. Given this wide scope, it would be reasonable to assume that screening changes or extensions would have been a major growth area of EIA activity in the UK. However, evidence presented here indicates just the opposite and suggests that many local planning authorities are not fully aware of the full implications of this clause in the EIA Directive. Furthermore, for the full implications of the "changes and extensions" clause to be implemented in the UK may require further amendments to the EIA legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document