Dear readers, Welcome to the first issue of 2020. It is now 50 years since environmental impact assessment (EIA) first became legally required in the US, based on NEPA. Since then impact assessment has developed continuously, spreading around the world and taking various shapes and forms, including, next to EIA and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) also e.g. social impact assessment (SIA), health impact assessment (HIA), sustainability appraisal (SA) and others. But even after 50 years of EIA, there are still challenges with regards to its effectiveness. However, considering this is a support tool in often politically charged situations, this is not surprising. Furthermore, comparing the performance of IA with that of other decision support tools, such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), it is clear that it isn’t performing that badly. Analysing EIA practices in a range of European countries, Fischer (2009) found that 10% of assessments exerted a major impact on project decisions, 30% a more moderate impact, 30% a small impact and 20% no impact. Regarding the overall correctness of predictions made in SEA, it appears that over the years we have also seen improvement. Thus, whilst in 1988, Bisset and Tomlinson identified 95% of all EIS predictions as either incorrect, unsure, unverifiable or non-quantifiable, Dipper et al. (1998) found that ‘only’ 55% fell into this category. Also, of those predictions that were auditable, nearly three quarters were accurate. Whilst this trend appears to have continued (Phylip-Jones and Fischer 2013), there is currently still a lack of empirical evidence. CBA, on the other hand, tends to systematically underestimate costs (Flyvbjerg et al. 2010) and overestimate benefits, thus making it notoriously faulty. It therefore doesn’t really come as a surprise that a majority of the participants of the final plenary at IAIA19 in Brisbane thought that further evolution of IA was needed, rather than a revolution. IA instruments themselves have evolved substantially and EIA and SEA are increasingly covering other than biophysical aspects, including in particular social and health issues. In this context, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) SEA protocol to the Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context is explicitly mentioning health whenever reference is made to the environment. Here, the UNECE in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) are currently developing guidelines on health in SEA. These will apply to the signatory parties of the Protocol. Furthermore, many development banks and organisations now routinely apply environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA). However, when integrating different aspects that may pull in different directions, experience has shown that caution is required in order for bio-physical aspects not being systematically traded off for e.g. economic related social or health issues (Morrison-Saunders and Fischer 2006). This issue of IAPA brings to you 7 full papers, a letter and a book review. In the first paper, Gardenio Diogo Pimentel Da Silva, Alessandra Magrini and David Alves Castelo Branco from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, introduce a multicriteria proposal for large-scale solar photovoltaic impact assessment. Next, Ariane Dilay, Alan P. Diduck and Kirit Patel from the University of Winnipeg, Canada, are looking at environmental justice in India: a case study of EIA, community engagement and public interest litigation. In the third paper, Delmarie Fischer, Paul Lochner and Harold Annegarn from University of Johannesburg and North West University, South Africa, provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in South Africa to facilitate renewable energy planning and improved decision-making Next, Bayarmaa Byambaa and Walter T. de Vries from the Technical University of Munich, Germany, evaluate the effectiveness of the EIA process in Mongolia for nomadic-pastoral land users. In the fifth paper, Steve Bonnell of Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada, looks at Project EA scoping in an SEA context with a focus on offshore oil and gas exploration in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is followed by Mehreen Khan, Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry, Sajid Rashid Ahmad and Samia Saif of the University of Punjab and Lahore School of Economics. They look at the role of and the challenges faced by non-governmental organizations in the EIA process in Punjab, Pakistan. Finally, Leandri Kruger, Luke. A. Sandham and Dewald Van Niekerk of North West University, South Africa, explore improved SIA through DRA integration and in this context draw lessons from a South African legislative comparison. The ensuing letter by Chris Joseph of Swift Creek Consulting, Canada looks at problems and resolutions in GHG impact assessment. Finally, the book review by Neil Andrew Cochrane of the University of Strathclyde, UK is on John Glasson and Riki Therivel’s fifth edition of ‘Introduction to Environmental impacts Assessment’. Enjoy reading! IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 2020, VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1–2 https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1701876

中文翻译：

---

社论

亲爱的读者，欢迎来到2020年第一期。距NEPA首次在美国法律要求环境影响评估（EIA）至今已有50年了。从那时起，影响力评估不断发展，遍及世界各地，并采取各种形式和形式，包括紧随EIA和战略环境评估（SEA）之后，例如社会影响力评估（SIA），健康影响力评估（HIA），可持续性评估（ SA）等。但是，即使经过50年的环境影响评估，其有效性仍然面临挑战。但是，考虑到在经常受到政治指控的情况下这是一种支持工具，这不足为奇。此外，将IA的性能与其他决策支持工具（例如成本效益分析（CBA））的性能进行比较，很显然它的性能还不错。Fischer（2009）对一系列欧洲国家的EIA做法进行分析后发现，有10％的评估对项目决策产生了重大影响，有30％的影响为中度影响，有30％的影响为小影响，有20％的影响为零。关于SEA中所做预测的总体正确性，看来多年来，我们也看到了改进。因此，在1998年，Bisset和Tomlinson将95％的EIS预测确定为不正确，不确定，无法验证或不可量化，Dipper等人。（1998）发现只有“ 55％”属于这一类。同样，在那些可以审计的预测中，近四分之三是准确的。尽管这种趋势似乎继续存在（Phylip-Jones and Fischer 2013），但目前仍缺乏经验证据。另一方面，CBA往往会系统地低估成本（Flyvbjerg等。2010年），并高估了收益，因此臭名昭著。因此，在布里斯班举行的IAIA19的全体会议的大多数参与者中的大多数参与者认为，需要IA的进一步发展而不是革命，这并不令人感到意外。IA工具本身已经发生了很大的变化，EIA和SEA越来越涵盖生物物理方面以外的其他方面，尤其是社会和健康问题。在这种情况下，每当提及环境时，联合国欧洲经济委员会（UNECE）的《跨境环境影响评估中的埃斯波公约》的SEA协议都明确提到了健康。在这里，欧洲经委会与世界卫生组织（WHO）和欧洲投资银行（EIB）合作，目前正在制定有关SEA健康的指南。这些将适用于《议定书》的签署方。此外，许多开发银行和组织现在都定期应用环境和社会影响评估（ESIA）。但是，当整合可能朝不同方向发展的不同方面时，经验表明，必须谨慎处理生物物理方面，以免因经济等相关的社会或健康问题而被系统地权衡（Morrison-Saunders和Fischer 2006）。本期IAPA为您带来7篇论文全文，一封信函和一本书的评论。在第一篇论文中，巴西里约热内卢联邦大学的Gardenio Diogo Pimentel Da Silva，Alessandra Magrini和David Alves Castelo Branco介绍了用于大规模太阳能光伏影响评估的多标准提议。接下来，Ariane Dilay，Alan P. 来自加拿大温尼伯大学的Diduck和Kirit Patel正在研究印度的环境正义：EIA，社区参与和公共利益诉讼的案例研究。在第三篇论文中，约翰内斯堡大学和南非西北大学的Delmarie Fischer，Paul Lochner和Harold Annegarn对南非进行的战略环境评估的有效性进行了评估，以促进可再生能源规划和改进决策。来自德国慕尼黑工业大学的Bayarmaa Byambaa和Walter T. de Vries评估了蒙古的EIA流程对游牧牧民土地使用者的有效性。在第五篇论文中，加拿大纽芬兰纪念大学的史蒂夫·邦纳尔（Steve Bonnell）着眼于SEA范围内的EA项目范围界定，重点是在纽芬兰和拉布拉多的海上油气勘探。紧随其后的是旁遮普大学和拉合尔经济学院的Mehreen Khan，Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry，Sajid Rashid Ahmad和Samia Saif。他们着眼于非政府组织在巴基斯坦旁遮普邦的环境影响评估过程中的作用和面临的挑战。最后是卢克（Leke）的莱安德里·克鲁格（Leandri Kruger）。南非西北大学的A. Sandham和Dewald Van Niekerk通过DRA整合探索改进的SIA，并在此背景下从南非立法比较中吸取了教训。随后来自加拿大Swift Creek Consulting的克里斯·约瑟夫（Chris Joseph）致信，探讨了温室气体影响评估中的问题和解决方案。最后，斯特拉斯克莱德大学的尼尔·安德鲁·科克伦（Neil Andrew Cochrane）撰写的书评，英国正在John Glasson和Riki Therivel撰写的《环境影响评估简介》的第五版中。享受阅读！冲击评估和项目评估2020 38号 1，1–2 https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1701876