17Introductionandprinciplesfauna and human beingslandscape,urban and rural conservation and thebuilt heritage(DOE1991).TheDOEchecklistofenvironmentalcomponentsisoutlinedinTable1.3However,as alreadynoted in Section1.2,theenvironmenthasimportanteconomicandsociocultural dimensions.Theseincludeeconomicstructure,labourmarkets,demography,housing,services (education,health,police,fire,etc.),life-stylesandvalues, and these are added to the checklist in Table 1.3. This wider definition is more intune with an Australian definition,"For thepurposes of EIA,themeaning ofenvironmentincorporates physical,biological,cultural,economic and social factors"(ANZECC1991)The environment can also be analyzed at various scales (Fig.1.6).Many of the spatialimpacts of projects affect the local environment,although thenature of"local"mayvaryaccording to the aspect of environment under consideration and to the stage in a project'slife.However,someimpactsaremorethanlocal.Trafficlocalregionalbeyondnationalphysicalenvironment20202000socio-economicenvironmentnowFigure1.6Environment:components,scaleandtimedimensions.noise,forexample,maybealocal issue,butchanges intrafficflows caused byaprojectmay have a regional impact, and the associated COz pollution contributes to the globalgreenhouseproblem.The environmentalso has a time dimension.Base-linedata on thestate of the environment are needed at the time a project is being considered. This in itselfmaybeadauntingrequest.IntheUK,localdevelopmentplansandnationalstatisticalsources,suchas the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Standards,mayprovide some relevant data.However, tailor-made state-of-the-environment reports andaudits are still in limited supply (see Ch. 12 for further information). Even more limitedare time-series data highlighting trends in environmental quality.The environmentalbaseline is constantly changing,irrespective of any development under consideration,andit requires a dynamic ratherthan a static analysis
fauna and human beings; landscape, urban and rural conservation and the built heritage (DOE 1991). The DOE checklist of environmental components is outlined in Table 1.3. However, as already noted in Section 1.2, the environment has important economic and sociocultural dimensions. These include economic structure, labour markets, demography, housing, services (education, health, police, fire, etc.), life-styles and values, and these are added to the checklist in Table 1.3. This wider definition is more in tune with an Australian definition, “For the purposes of EIA, the meaning of environment incorporates physical, biological, cultural, economic and social factors” (ANZECC 1991). The environment can also be analyzed at various scales (Fig. 1.6). Many of the spatial impacts of projects affect the local environment, although the nature of “local” may vary according to the aspect of environment under consideration and to the stage in a project’s life. However, some impacts are more than local. Traffic Figure 1.6 Environment: components, scale and time dimensions. noise, for example, may be a local issue, but changes in traffic flows caused by a project may have a regional impact, and the associated CO2 pollution contributes to the global greenhouse problem. The environment also has a time dimension. Base-line data on the state of the environment are needed at the time a project is being considered. This in itself may be a daunting request. In the UK, local development plans and national statistical sources, such as the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Standards, may provide some relevant data. However, tailor-made state-of-the-environment reports and audits are still in limited supply (see Ch. 12 for further information). Even more limited are time-series data highlighting trends in environmental quality. The environmental baseline is constantly changing, irrespective of any development under consideration, and it requires a dynamic rather than a static analysis. Introduction and principles 17
18Introductiontoenvironmental impactassessmentThenature ofimpactsThe environmental impacts of a project are those resultant changes in environmentalparameters, in space and time, compared with what would have happened had the projectnot been undertaken.Theparametersmaybe anyof thetypeof environmental receptorsnoted previously:air quality,water quality,noise,levels of local unemployment andcrime, for example. Figure 1.7 provides a simple illustration of the concept.Table1.4providesa summaryof someof thetypesof impactthatmaybeencounteredin EIA.The biophysical and socio-economic impacts have already been noted.These areoften seen as synonymous with adverse and beneficial.Thus,newdevelopmentsmayproduceharmful wastesbut alsoproducemuchneeded jobsinenvironmentalparameterwithprojoctENVIRONMENTALIMPACTwithoutprojectprojoctinitiatedtimeFigure 1.7 The nature of anenvironmentalimpact.areas of high unemployment. However, the correlation does not always apply. A projectmay bring physical benefits when, for example, previously polluted and derelict land isbrought back into productive use; similarly the socio-economic impacts of a majorproject on a community could includepressure on local health services and on the localhousing market, and increases in community conflict and crime.Projects may also haveimmediate and direct impacts that give rise to secondary and indirect impacts later.Areservoirbased on a river systemnot onlytakeslandfor theimmediatebodyof waterbutalsomayhaveseveredownstreamimplicationsforfloraandfaunaandforhumanactivities suchas fishingandsailing.The direct and indirect impacts may sometimes correlate with short-run and long-runimpacts. For some impacts the distinction between short-run and long-run may also relateto the distinction between a project's construction and its operational
The nature of impacts The environmental impacts of a project are those resultant changes in environmental parameters, in space and time, compared with what would have happened had the project not been undertaken. The parameters may be any of the type of environmental receptors noted previously: air quality, water quality, noise, levels of local unemployment and crime, for example. Figure 1.7 provides a simple illustration of the concept. Table 1.4 provides a summary of some of the types of impact that may be encountered in EIA. The biophysical and socio-economic impacts have already been noted. These are often seen as synonymous with adverse and beneficial. Thus, new developments may produce harmful wastes but also produce much needed jobs in Figure 1.7 The nature of an environmental impact. areas of high unemployment. However, the correlation does not always apply. A project may bring physical benefits when, for example, previously polluted and derelict land is brought back into productive use; similarly the socio-economic impacts of a major project on a community could include pressure on local health services and on the local housing market, and increases in community conflict and crime. Projects may also have immediate and direct impacts that give rise to secondary and indirect impacts later. A reservoir based on a river system not only takes land for the immediate body of water but also may have severe downstream implications for flora and fauna and for human activities such as fishing and sailing. The direct and indirect impacts may sometimes correlate with short-run and long-run impacts. For some impacts the distinction between short-run and long-run may also relate to the distinction between a project’s construction and its operational Introduction to environmental impact assessment 18
19Introduction andprinciplesTable 1.4 Types of impact.Physical and socio-economicDirect and indirect Short-run and long-runLocal and strategic (including regional, national and beyond)Adverse and beneficialReversible and irreversibleQuantitative and qualitativeDistribution by group and/or areaActual and perceivedRelative to other developments.stage; however, other construction-stage impacts, such as change in land-use, are muchmorepermanent.Impacts also havea spatial dimension.Onedistinction isbetween localand strategic,thelatter covering impacts on areas beyond the immediatelocality.Theseareoften regional, but may sometimes beof national or even international significanceEnvironmentalresources cannotalways bereplaced; oncedestroyed, somemaybelostfor ever.The distinction between reversible and irreversible impacts is a very importantone, and the irreversible impacts, not susceptible to mitigation, can constitute particularsignificant impacts in an EIA. It may be possible to replace, compensate for orreconstruct a lost resource in some cases, but substitutions are rarely ideal.Theloss of aresourcemaybecomemore serious later,and valuations need to allow for this.Someimpacts can be quantified, others are less tangible. The latter should not be ignored. Norshould the distributional impacts of a proposed development be ignored. Impacts do notfall evenly on affected parties and areas.Although a particular project may be assessedasbringing a general benefit, some groups and/or geographical areas may be receiving mostof any adverse effects, the main benefits going to others elsewhere.There is also adistinctionbetweenactual and perceived impacts.Subjectiveperceptions of impacts maysignificantly influence the responses and decisions of people towards a proposeddevelopment.They constitute an important source of information,to be consideredalongside more objective predictions of impacts.Finally,all impacts should be comparedwith the"do-nothing" situation, and the state of the environment predicted without theproject. This can be widened to include comparisons with anticipated impacts fromalternativedevelopmentscenariosforanarea.We conclude on a semantic point: the words“impact"and "effect"are widely used inthe literature and legislation on EIA, but it is not always clear whether they areinterchangeable or should be used only for specifically different meanings.In the UnitedStates,theregulationsforimplementingtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActexpresslystate that"effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous".Thisinterpretation is widespread, and is adopted in this text. But there are other interpretationsrelating to timing and to value judgements. Catlow and Thirlwall (1976) make a
Table 1.4 Types of impact. ● Physical and socio-economic ● Direct and indirect ● Short-run and long-run ● Local and strategic (including regional, national and beyond) ● Adverse and beneficial ● Reversible and irreversible ● Quantitative and qualitative ● Distribution by group and/or area ● Actual and perceived ● Relative to other developments stage; however, other construction-stage impacts, such as change in land-use, are much more permanent. Impacts also have a spatial dimension. One distinction is between local and strategic, the latter covering impacts on areas beyond the immediate locality. These are often regional, but may sometimes be of national or even international significance. Environmental resources cannot always be replaced; once destroyed, some may be lost for ever. The distinction between reversible and irreversible impacts is a very important one, and the irreversible impacts, not susceptible to mitigation, can constitute particular significant impacts in an EIA. It may be possible to replace, compensate for or reconstruct a lost resource in some cases, but substitutions are rarely ideal. The loss of a resource may become more serious later, and valuations need to allow for this. Some impacts can be quantified, others are less tangible. The latter should not be ignored. Nor should the distributional impacts of a proposed development be ignored. Impacts do not fall evenly on affected parties and areas. Although a particular project may be assessed as bringing a general benefit, some groups and/or geographical areas may be receiving most of any adverse effects, the main benefits going to others elsewhere. There is also a distinction between actual and perceived impacts. Subjective perceptions of impacts may significantly influence the responses and decisions of people towards a proposed development. They constitute an important source of information, to be considered alongside more objective predictions of impacts. Finally, all impacts should be compared with the “do-nothing” situation, and the state of the environment predicted without the project. This can be widened to include comparisons with anticipated impacts from alternative development scenarios for an area. We conclude on a semantic point: the words “impact” and “effect” are widely used in the literature and legislation on EIA, but it is not always clear whether they are interchangeable or should be used only for specifically different meanings. In the United States, the regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act expressly state that “effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous”. This interpretation is widespread, and is adopted in this text. But there are other interpretations relating to timing and to value judgements. Catlow and Thirlwall (1976) make a Introduction and principles 19
20Introductiontoenvironmental impactassessmentdistinction between effects which are".the physical and natural changes resulting.directly or indirectly,from development"and impacts which are“...the consequences orend products of those effects represented by attributes of the environment on which wecan place an objective or subjectivevalue".In contrast,a recentAustralian study(CEPA1994)reversesthe arguments, claiming that"there does seemto be greater logic inthinking of an impact resulting in an effect, rather than the other wayround".Othercommentators have introduced the concept of value judgement into the differentiation.Preston and Bedford (1988)state that"theuse of the termimpacts'connotes a valuejudgement".This view is supported by Stakhiv (1988), who sees a distinction between"scientificassessmentoffacts (effects),and the evaluation of therelative importanceofthese effects by the analyst and thepublic (impacts)".The debate continues!1.5Current issues in environmental impact assessmentAlthough EIA now has almost 30 years of history in the USA, elsewhere thedevelopment of concepts and practice is more recent. Development is moving apace inmany other countries, including the UK and the other EU Member States. Such progresshas not been without its problems, and a number of the current issues in EIA arehighlighted here and will be discussed more fully in later chapters.ScopeoftheassessmentWhereas legislators may seek to limit coverage, best practice may lead to its widening.For example, project EIA may be mandatory only for a limited set of major projects. Inpractice many others have been included. But which projects should have assessments?In the UK, caselaw is now building up,but thecriteriafor theinclusion or exclusion ofaproject for EIA are still developing. in a similar vein, there is a case for widening thedimensions of the environment under consideration to include socio-economic impactsmorefully.Thetrade-off between the adverse biophysical impacts ofa development andits beneficial socio-economic impacts often constitutes the crucial dilemma for decision-makers. Coverage can also be widened to include other types of impacts only verypartially covered to date. Distributional impacts would fall into this category. Lichfieldand others are seeking to counter this problem (see Lichfield 1996).ThenatureofmethodsofassessmentAs noted in Section 1.2, some of the main steps in the EIA process (e.g. the considerationof alternatives,monitoring)maybemissingfrommany studies.Theremay alsobeproblems with the steps that are included. The prediction of impacts raises variousconceptual and technicalproblems.The problem of establishing the environmentalbaselinepositionhas already been noted. It mayalsobe difficultto establish thedimensions and development stages of a project clearly.Further conceptual problemsinclude establishing what would have happened in the relevant environment without aproject, clarifying the complexity of interactions of phenomena,and making trade-offs inan integrated way (i.e.assessing the trade-offs between economic apples, social oranges
distinction between effects which are “.the physical and natural changes resulting, directly or indirectly, from development” and impacts which are “.the consequences or end products of those effects represented by attributes of the environment on which we can place an objective or subjective value”. In contrast, a recent Australian study (CEPA 1994) reverses the arguments, claiming that “there does seem to be greater logic in thinking of an impact resulting in an effect, rather than the other way round”. Other commentators have introduced the concept of value judgement into the differentiation. Preston and Bedford (1988) state that “the use of the term ‘impacts’ connotes a value judgement”. This view is supported by Stakhiv (1988), who sees a distinction between “scientific assessment of facts (effects), and the evaluation of the relative importance of these effects by the analyst and the public (impacts)”. The debate continues! 1.5 Current issues in environmental impact assessment Although EIA now has almost 30 years of history in the USA, elsewhere the development of concepts and practice is more recent. Development is moving apace in many other countries, including the UK and the other EU Member States. Such progress has not been without its problems, and a number of the current issues in EIA are highlighted here and will be discussed more fully in later chapters. Scope of the assessment Whereas legislators may seek to limit coverage, best practice may lead to its widening. For example, project EIA may be mandatory only for a limited set of major projects. In practice many others have been included. But which projects should have assessments? In the UK, case law is now building up, but the criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of a project for EIA are still developing. In a similar vein, there is a case for widening the dimensions of the environment under consideration to include socio-economic impacts more fully. The trade-off between the adverse biophysical impacts of a development and its beneficial socio-economic impacts often constitutes the crucial dilemma for decisionmakers. Coverage can also be widened to include other types of impacts only very partially covered to date. Distributional impacts would fall into this category. Lichfield and others are seeking to counter this problem (see Lichfield 1996). The nature of methods of assessment As noted in Section 1.2, some of the main steps in the EIA process (e.g. the consideration of alternatives, monitoring) may be missing from many studies. There may also be problems with the steps that are included. The prediction of impacts raises various conceptual and technical problems. The problem of establishing the environmental baseline position has already been noted. It may also be difficult to establish the dimensions and development stages of a project clearly. Further conceptual problems include establishing what would have happened in the relevant environment without a project, clarifying the complexity of interactions of phenomena, and making trade-offs in an integrated way (i.e. assessing the trade-offs between economic apples, social oranges Introduction to environmental impact assessment 20
Introductionandprinciples21and physical bananas).Other technical problems are thegeneral lack of data and thetendency to focus on the quantitative, and often single, indicators in some areas.Theremay also be delays and discontinuities between cause and effect, and projects andpolicies may discontinue. The lack of auditing of predictive techniques limits thefeedback on the effectiveness of methods.Nevertheless, innovative methods are beingdeveloped to predict impacts, ranging from simple checklists and matrices to complexmathematical models.These methods are not neutral, in the sense thatthemore complexthey are, the more difficult it becomes for the general public to participate in the EIAprocess.TherelativerolesofparticipantsintheprocessThe various "actors" in the EIA process—the developer, the affected parties, the generalpublic andtheregulatorsat variouslevels ofgovernment-havedifferentaccessestotheprocess,and their influence on the outcome varies. Many would argue that in countriessuch as the UK, the process is too developer-orientated.The developer or the developer'sconsultant carries out the EIA and prepares the EIS, and is unlikely to predict that theproject will be an environmental disaster.Notwith-standing this,developers themselvesare concerned about thepotential delays associated with the requirement to submit anEiS.They are also concerned about cost.Details about costs are difficult to obtain.Clark(1984) estimates EIA costs of 0.5-2.0 per cent of a project's value. Hart (1984) andWathern (1988)suggest figures of a similar order.Morerecent estimates by Coles et al.(1992) suggest a much wider range, from 0.000025 to 5 per cent, for EISS in the UK.Procedures for and the practice of public participation in the EIA process varybetween, and sometimes within,countries,from thevery comprehensiveto the verypartial and largely cosmetic.An important issue is the stages in the EIAprocess to whichthepublicshouldhaveaccess.Governmentroles intheEIAprocessmaybeconditionedby caution at extending systems,by limited experience and expertise in this new andrapidly developing area, and by resource considerations. A central government may offerlimited guidanceon bestpractice,andmakeinconsistentdecisions.Alocalgovernmentmayfind itdifficulttohandlethescopeand complexityofthecontentofEISSThequalityofassessmentsManyEiSS fail to meet even minimum standards.For example,a surveyby Jones et al(1991)of theEISSpublished underUK environmental impactassessmentregulationshighlighted shortcomings. They found that "one-third of the EISS did not appear tocontain the required non-technical summary,that, in a quarter of the cases,they werejudged not to contain the data needed to assess the likely environmental effects of thedevelopment, and that in the great majority of cases, the more complex, interactiveimpacts were neglected". An update by Glasson et al. (DOE 1996) suggests that althoughthere has been somelearning from experience,manyEISS in the UK are stillunsatisfactory (see Ch.8for furtherdiscussion).Quality mayvary between types ofproject. It may also vary between countries supposedly operating under the samelegislativeframework
and physical bananas). Other technical problems are the general lack of data and the tendency to focus on the quantitative, and often single, indicators in some areas. There may also be delays and discontinuities between cause and effect, and projects and policies may discontinue. The lack of auditing of predictive techniques limits the feedback on the effectiveness of methods. Nevertheless, innovative methods are being developed to predict impacts, ranging from simple checklists and matrices to complex mathematical models. These methods are not neutral, in the sense that the more complex they are, the more difficult it becomes for the general public to participate in the EIA process. The relative roles of participants in the process The various “actors” in the EIA process—the developer, the affected parties, the general public and the regulators at various levels of government—have different accesses to the process, and their influence on the outcome varies. Many would argue that in countries such as the UK, the process is too developer-orientated. The developer or the developer’s consultant carries out the EIA and prepares the EIS, and is unlikely to predict that the project will be an environmental disaster. Notwith-standing this, developers themselves are concerned about the potential delays associated with the requirement to submit an EIS. They are also concerned about cost. Details about costs are difficult to obtain. Clark (1984) estimates EIA costs of 0.5–2.0 per cent of a project’s value. Hart (1984) and Wathern (1988) suggest figures of a similar order. More recent estimates by Coles et al. (1992) suggest a much wider range, from 0.000025 to 5 per cent, for EISS in the UK. Procedures for and the practice of public participation in the EIA process vary between, and sometimes within, countries, from the very comprehensive to the very partial and largely cosmetic. An important issue is the stages in the EIA process to which the public should have access. Government roles in the EIA process may be conditioned by caution at extending systems, by limited experience and expertise in this new and rapidly developing area, and by resource considerations. A central government may offer limited guidance on best practice, and make inconsistent decisions. A local government may find it difficult to handle the scope and complexity of the content of EISS. The quality of assessments Many EISS fail to meet even minimum standards. For example, a survey by Jones et al. (1991) of the EISS published under UK environmental impact assessment regulations highlighted shortcomings. They found that “one-third of the EISS did not appear to contain the required non-technical summary, that, in a quarter of the cases, they were judged not to contain the data needed to assess the likely environmental effects of the development, and that in the great majority of cases, the more complex, interactive impacts were neglected”. An update by Glasson et al. (DOE 1996) suggests that although there has been some learning from experience, many EISS in the UK are still unsatisfactory (see Ch. 8 for further discussion). Quality may vary between types of project. It may also vary between countries supposedly operating under the same legislative framework. Introduction and principles 21