Addressing significant impacts coherently in environmental impact statements
Graphical abstract
Addressing significant impacts coherently means providing relevant information in appropriate EIS sections.
Introduction
Significance determination in environmental impact assessment (EIA) indicates to decision-makers and stakeholders which impacts are most relevant. As a fundamental task in EIA, it is considered ‘the very heart of EIA’ (Beanlands and Duinker, 1983) and a question of ‘widespread centrality’ (Ehrlich and Ross, 2015), that is always part of EIA quality criteria (Cashmore et al., 2002; European Commission, 2001; IAIA and IEA, 1999; Lee and Colley, 1992).
Significance determination is both value- and context-dependent, and the perception on what is significant may change in different communities and sectors (Ehrlich and Ross, 2015; Healey, 2006; Lawrence, 2007a; Lyhne and Kørnøv, 2013; Weiss, 1999). This requires a context-specific, scientifically and technically grounded process to ensure rigorous argumentation and transparency (Glasson et al., 2012; Lawrence, 2007b; Sippe, 1999).
Having such an importance, it is reasonable to expect that much information included in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should support significance determination. Starting from a preliminary list of potential impacts scoped in, activities in the preparation of an EIS are planned aiming to answer which of those impacts will be significant. Baseline and project description should provide necessary and sufficient information to substantiate impact identification and prediction. Impact significance can then be determined considering, among others, the magnitude of predicted impacts. The conclusions of significance determination, in turn, should be used to guide mitigation proposals (Glasson et al., 2012; Perdicoúlis and Glasson, 2009; Sánchez, 2013). Following which, significance determination can be performed for residual impacts also, assuming the expected outcomes and effectiveness of mitigation measures.
Therefore, significant impacts can be considered as guiding threads for EIA development and a central issue for selecting the appropriate information to be presented in an EIS (Ehrlich and Ross, 2015; Lawrence, 2007a). Thus, obviously, when writing the final report it is necessary to organize information in a logical way aiming to demonstrate to EIS readers and decision-makers whether or not all adverse impacts will likely be at acceptable levels, which is usually considered as a basis for approving a proposal (Sippe, 1999). Additionally, significant beneficial impacts must be explained, to demonstrate their characteristics, origination and if measures will be taken to maximize the benefits.
However, coherence and/or integration can be a challenge when working in teams with numerous professionals responsible for multiple related tasks (Burdge and Opryszek, 1984). There are many cases where the impact analysis section of an EIS is not related to the previous content (i.e. project description and baseline) nor to the subsequent (conclusions and mitigation) (Brown et al., 2017; Ross et al., 2006).
This is reflected in at least three problems cited in the literature: the baseline is underused for impact identification, impact prediction is neglected in many cases, and some impacts are “forgotten” in the proposal of mitigation measures (Ross et al., 2006; Wood, 2008). Additionally, significance determination itself is often evaluated as poor, confused or not clear in several reviews of EIS quality, e.g. Jones and Morrison-Saunders (2016), wasting available information and producing fragile results.
An EIS should address significant impact coherently, which means providing information related to significant impacts in appropriate EIS sections. An EIS should be coherent in reaching conclusions about impact significance and in reverberating them in its conclusions and recommendations about mitigation and management. In this paper we present a procedure to analyze whether significant impacts are addressed coherently in EIS.
Bellow we elaborate on the grounds for the proposed coherency analysis (Section 2), on the methodology (Section 3), a description of the procedure to perform coherency analysis (Section 4), present an illustrative application of the procedure to two cases (Section 5) and, finally, a discussion and conclusions about the proposed analysis (6 Discussion, 7 Conclusions).
Section snippets
Coherency in addressing significant impacts – theoretical foundations
Significance determination occurs throughout the EIA process, so that defining what is significant or not is progressively refined as EIA stages unfold. In screening, significance is considered for defining if projects should undergo the assessment; in scoping, significance guides selecting which impacts should be studied in detail, and in EIS development, to investigate and finally conclude what is really important to decision making and follow up (European Commission, 2017a; Glasson et al.,
Methodology
The approach of Quivy and van Campenhoudt (2008) was adopted as a basis for developing the procedure for analyzing whether significant impacts are addressed coherently in EIS. These authors recommend seven steps for qualitative research: (1) setting initial research questions, (2) exploring the related literature, (3) specifying a problematic to the context, (4) building a model of analysis, (5) collecting data, (6) analyzing data and information, and (7) setting the conclusions. The model of
How to analyze coherency
Significance determination is expected to be grounded on relevant information about the project and its environmental setting, as well as in a proper prediction of impact magnitude. It is also expected to unfold into proportional mitigation (Fig. 1). Analyzing coherency requires evaluating each of these connections for each one of the significant impacts individually, as synthetized in Fig. 2.
As each impact has different characteristics to describe its magnitude (intensity, duration, spatial
An application of the coherency analysis
The procedure for coherency analysis was tested by reviewing the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of two projects following the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) Performance Standards, considered here as the state-of-the-art impact assessment applicable internationally (Rosa and Sánchez, 2015). Access to the documents is facilitated because the IFC's repository publicly discloses the reports and other project related information.
The reports were intentionally selected
Discussion
As many authors argue, determining significance is not exact science, it is both value- and context-dependent (Ehrlich and Ross, 2015; Lawrence, 2007a). This is the main reason why an EIS should be as clear as possible on its grounds and conclusions related to significant impacts. As stated by Ehrlich and Ross, 2015 (p. 3): “Court judges must determine whether the accused is guilty or not; EIA decision-makers must determine whether potential impacts are significant or not”. Thus, in the same
Conclusions
In this paper we develop and test a procedure to analyze whether significant impacts are coherently addressed in EIS. The procedure consists in analyzing if each significant impact of an EIS has related content in baseline, project description, impact prediction and mitigation measures. We consider that our main contribution is showing the value of making explicit the presence or absence of connections related to significant impacts in an EIS, which are related to rigorous argumentation and
Author contribution
C.G.D. and L.E.S conceived the procedure, selected and analyzed the cases, and both contributed to the writing of all the sections of the manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We have no conflict of interest to declare.
Acknowledgements
To the São Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp) for supporting this research (grant #2013/04285-0). We also thank the staff of the São Paulo State EIA Department, especially Mrs. Maria Cristina Poletto.
Carla Grigoletto Duarte is an Environmental Management professor at the Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp). She is an Environmental Engineer and a Ph.D. in Sciences of Environmental Engineering, both from University of São Paulo (USP). Her main research field is environmental impact assessment, followed by interests in planning initiatives focused on sustainability goals. She is the author of two books recently published in Portuguese: Strategic Environmental Assessment, and
References (70)
- et al.
A systematic quality assessment of environmental impact statements in the oil and gas industry
Sci. Total Environ.
(2016) - et al.
A proposed framework and database for EIA auditing
J. Environ. Manag.
(1990) - et al.
The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion
J. Environ. Manag.
(2017) - et al.
An approach for evaluating EIAs— deficiencies of EIA in Mexico
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
(1998) - et al.
Impact assessment: eroding benefits through streamlining?
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
(2014) - et al.
Streamlining or sidestepping? Political pressure to revise environmental licensing and EIA in Brazil
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
(2017) - et al.
Interdisciplinary problems in doing impact assessment : the case of Lake Shelbyville
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
(1984) - et al.
Innovation in impact assessment theory and practice: how is it captured in the literature?
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
(2019) - et al.
Assessing the quality of the ecological component of English environmental statements
J. Environ. Manag.
(2015) - et al.
Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
(2017)
Biodiversity in environmental assessment — current practice and tools for prediction
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Comparing GIS-based habitat models for applications in EIA and SEA
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Strategy making and power in environmental assessments. Lessons from the establishment of an out-of-town shopping Centre in Västerås, Sweden
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Impact significance determination - Back to basics
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Impact significance determination—pushing the boundaries
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
A procedure to evaluate environmental rehabilitation in limestone quarries
J. Environ. Manag.
Causal networks in EIA
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Logical chains in territorial impact assessment
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
The quality of Portuguese environmental impact studies: the case of small hydropower projects
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Is the ecosystem service concept improving impact assessment? Evidence from recent international practice
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Treatment of biodiversity issues in impact assessment of electricity power transmission lines: a Finnish case review
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Principles to gain a social licence to operate for green initiatives and biodiversity projects
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’?
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.
An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies
Adding organized reasoning to the IA process: lessons learned so far
Auditing the precision and accuracy of environmental impact predictions in Australia
Environ. Monit. Assess.
An evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements in Thessaloniki, Greece
J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag.
Decision making by voluminous speculation: the contents and accuracy of U.S. environmental impact statements
A methodology for reviewing the quality of strategic environmental assessments in development cooperation
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.
Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Best Professional Practices
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Kospo 51.75 MW Wind Power Project in Tafileh
The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais.
Rénovation et extension de l’aéroport de Fascene (Nosy Be) - Étude d’impact environnemental et social
Cited by (15)
Forward-looking impact assessment – An interdisciplinary systematic review and research agenda
2022, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :Early research on impact assessment explicitly focused on prediction practices; however, since the 1990s, the focus of the literature has shifted to emphasise ex-post assessments (Duarte and Sánchez, 2020). In recent years, impact assessment practice has evolved towards a more forward-looking approach, and thus scholars have called for more attention to predictions and forecasts in impact assessment literature (Duarte and Sánchez, 2020). In practice, there has been an increase of initiatives focusing especially on projecting, predicting and forecasting impact.
A review of the quality of environmental impact statements with a focus on urban projects from Romania
2022, Ecological InformaticsCitation Excerpt :Article 5(1) of the European EIA Directive presents the minimum information mandatory in the EIS, whereas Annex IV (referred to in Article 5(1)(f)) expands on these requirements. Evaluation of the quality of EISs represents an important subject in EIA literature (Duarte et al., 2017; Duarte and Sánchez, 2020; Gwimbi and Nhamo, 2016; Sarmah et al., 2020). Several EISs have been found to fail to properly address certain factors in their content, that is, which impacts are significant and why, along with a weak coherence of the impact predictions (Duarte and Sánchez, 2020), low public participation during scoping and reduced requirements concerning alternative comparison (Duarte et al., 2017), a lack of consideration of mitigation measures (Gwimbi and Nhamo, 2016), a lack of consideration of biodiversity (Gannon, 2021), improper handling of the uncertainties (Lees et al., 2016) or poor alignment with SDGs (Ravn Boess et al., 2021).
Effectiveness of environmental impact statement methods: A Colombian case study
2021, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :According to Cashmore et al. (2004), procedural effectiveness has received more attention. Although studies related to procedural effectiveness have been focussed on the legal framework, good practices of EIA or the quality of EIS (Cashmore et al., 2002; Duarte and Sánchez, 2020; Sadler, 1996), studies of EIA effectiveness tend to focus on the process in general (the decision-making process) and not on the impact assessment (IA) methodologies and methods (Loomis and Dziedzic, 2018; Lyhne et al., 2017). EIA needs to present reliable results with limited evaluator subjectivity and parameters that support final decisions (Martínez et al., 2019).
Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: Second Edition
2023, Advanced Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: Second EditionDo bridges dream of water pollutants? Towards DreamsKG, a knowledge graph to make digital access for sustainable environmental assessment come true
2023, ACM Web Conference 2023 - Companion of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2023
Carla Grigoletto Duarte is an Environmental Management professor at the Federal University of São Paulo (Unifesp). She is an Environmental Engineer and a Ph.D. in Sciences of Environmental Engineering, both from University of São Paulo (USP). Her main research field is environmental impact assessment, followed by interests in planning initiatives focused on sustainability goals. She is the author of two books recently published in Portuguese: Strategic Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impacts: Analysis and Measures.
Luis E. Sánchez is Full Professor of Mining Engineering at Escola Politécnica, University of São Paulo (USP). He holds a degree in Mining Engineering and a Bachelor degree in Geography, both from USP, and a Ph.D. in Economics of Natural Resources and Development from École des Mines de Paris (now part of Paris Tech). His main research field is environmental and social impact assessment. Recent research has focused on ecosystem services in impact assessment, mine closure planning and biodiversity offsets. He acted as Visiting Lecturer at the University of Montreal, Canada, and Research Fellow at Murdoch University, Australia. Luis authored the textbook Environmental Impact Assessment: Concepts and Methods, published both in Portuguese and in Spanish, and three environmental good practice handbooks on mining.
- 1
Present address: Institute of Environmental, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of São Paulo - UNIFESP, Rua São Nicolau, 210, 09913-030 Diadema, SP, Brazil.