Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 157–178 | Cite as

Environmental impact assessment: An international evaluation

  • Malcolm Hollick
Profile

Abstract

Experiences with environmental impact assessment (EIA) in a number of countries are discussed in the light of both explicit and implicit goals and objectives. Adequate environmental information is not always available to decision makers because of failure to apply EIA to all relevant decisions, the continuing inadequacies of prediction and evaluation techniques, the failure to consider alternatives adequately, and the bias of some EISs. EIA frequently results in changes to proposals and may result in stricter environmental management conditions in some cases, but some people regard it as a failure because it has not stopped development. Generally, EIA leads to better integration of environmental factors into project planning. Open procedures and freedom of information encourage responsiveness to EIA procedures, which can be weakened by discretionary powers and lack of access to the courts by public interest groups. However, legal standing may have side effects that offset its advantages. EIA can encourage cooperation and coordination between agencies but does not ensure them. Similarly, it can have a limited role in coordinating interstate and international policies. In the long term, the success of EIA depends on adequate monitoring, reassessment, and enforcement over the life of the project. EIA has generally opened up new opportunities for public participation, and may help to reduce conflict. EIA procedures need to be integrated with other environmental protection and development control programs, and various means exist for reducing its cost to developers and the public.

Key words

Environmental impact assessment Environmental impact statement Environmental planning Environmental management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Ball, M. 1983. Circumvention of environmental law in NSW. NSW Environmental Law Association,Environmental Law Newsletter no. 12:21–31.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, A. B., M. McKee, T. W. Morgan, and R. Narayanan. 1976. Multiobjective planning: concepts and methods. Proceedings of the ASCE,Journal Water Resources Planning and Management Division 102:239–254.Google Scholar
  3. Bonnicksen, T. M., and R. H. Backer. 1983. Environmental impact studies: an interdisciplinary approach for assigning priorities.Environmental Management 7:109–118.Google Scholar
  4. Boer, B. 1983. Environmental values: a role for the law. Pages 129–167in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  5. Bramble, B. 1980. Council on Environmental Quality. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  6. Bunnag, J. 1983. Environmental controls of natural resources development projects in Thailand. Pages 72–88in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  7. Burchill, R. W., and D. Listokin. 1975. The environmental impact handbook. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, NJ 234 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, R. H. 1983. The Environment Effects Act 1970 (Victoria): milestone or millstone? Pages 89–128in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar, International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  9. Caldwell, L. K. 1978. The environmental impact statement: a misused tool. Pages 11–25in R. K. Jain and B. L. Hutchings (eds.), Environmental impact analysis: emerging issues in planning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  10. Catlow, J., and C. G. Thirlwall. 1976. Environmental impact analysis. Department of Environment, Research Report 11. London. 115 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, B. D., R. Bisset, and P. Wathern. 1981. The British experience. Pages 125–153in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, B. D., K. Chapman, R. Bisset, and P. Wathern. 1976. Assessment of major industrial applications: a manual. Department of Environment, Research Report 13, London. 170 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Commission for the Environment. 1982. Environmental impact assessment: a guide to “environmental protection and enhancement procedures” (1981). Commission for the Environment, Wellington, NZ. Pamphlet.Google Scholar
  14. Commission for the Environment. 1983. Environmental impact report: audit procedure. Commission for the Environment, Wellington, NZ. Pamphlet.Google Scholar
  15. Commission of the European Communities. 1980. Proposal for a council directive concerning the assessment of the environmental effects of certain public and private projects. COM (80), 313 final. Brussels. 19 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Council on Environmental Quality. 1973. Preparation of environmental impact statements: guidelines.Federal Register 38:20550–20562.Google Scholar
  17. Council on Environmental Quality. 1976a. Environmental quality: the seventh annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 378 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Council on Environmental Quality. 1967b. Environmental impact statements: an analysis of six years' experience by seventy federal agencies. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 65 pp. and appendices.Google Scholar
  19. Council on Environmental Quality. 1977. Environmental quality: the eighth annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 445 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Council on Environmental Quality. 1978a. Regulations for implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.Federal Register 43:55978–56007.Google Scholar
  21. Council on Environmental Quality. 1978b. Environmental quality: the ninth annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 599 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Environmental quality: the eleventh annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 497 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Environmental quality: the twelfth annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 291 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Cowen, D. V., and C. H. Geach. 1983. The cost-benefit of development controls for environmental conservation in South Africa. Pages 210–226in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  25. Dee, N., J. Baker, N. Drobny, K. Duke, I. Whitman, and D. Fahringer. 1973. An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning.Water Resources Research 9:523–535.Google Scholar
  26. Department of Conservation and Environment. 1978. Procedures for environmental assessment of proposals in Western Australia. Bulletin 38. Perth, Western Australia. 11 PP.Google Scholar
  27. Drtina, R. E., and S. B. Lundstet. 1982. Structuring cooperative behavior under the National Environment Policy Act of the U.S.A.Environmental Management 6:21–26.Google Scholar
  28. Dunk, P. 1980. Assistant Director (Assessments), Ministry for Conservation, Victoria. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  29. ENDS Report. 1978. British Gas Corporation: EIA is “good business.” Pages 5–8in Ends report no. 9. Environmental Data Services, London.Google Scholar
  30. Environmental Protection Authority. 1976. West coast highway, Swanbourne area study. Perth, Western Australia. 77 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Fairfax, S. K., and H. M. Ingram. 1981. The United States experience. Pages 29–45in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. 1980. Environmental assessment panels: what they are—what they do. Minister of Supply and Services, Canada. 15 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Formby, J. 1981. The Australian experience. Pages 187–225in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Fowler, R. J. 1982. Environmental impact assessment, planning and pollution measures in Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 297 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Friesema, H. P. 1978. Environmental impact statements and long-range environmental management. Pages 55–62in R. K. Jain and B. L. Hutchings (eds.), Environmental impact analysis: emerging issues on planning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  36. Gillett, J. A., and J. Dickie. 1983. The case for an environmental management approach to development. Pages 1050–1068in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar, International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  37. Goldberg, J. L. 1978. Environmental impact and the importance of a Freedom of Information Act. Pages 62–67in Institution of Engineers, Australia, Environmental engineers conference. Sydney.Google Scholar
  38. Hase, T. 1981. The Japanese experience. Pages 227–251in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Hase, T. 1983. The status of environmental impact assessment in Japan and its pitfalls: as depicted in the Omi Park construction case. Pages 403–419in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar, International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  40. Hill, N. 1980. Assistant Secretary, Resources Agency, California. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  41. Hollick, M. 1980. Environmental impact assessment in Australia: the federal experience.Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1:330–336.Google Scholar
  42. Hollick, M. 1981a. Report on environmental impact assessment procedures in Western Australia. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Western Australia. 238 pp. and summary and appendices.Google Scholar
  43. Hollick, M. 1981b. Environmental impact assessment in Australia: EIA and environmental management in Western Australia.Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2:116–119.Google Scholar
  44. Hollick, M. 1981c. Environmental impact assessment as a planning tool.Journal of Environmental Management 12:79–80.Google Scholar
  45. Hollick, M., 1981d. Enforcement of mitigation measures resulting from environmental impact assessment.Environmental Management 5:507–513.Google Scholar
  46. Hollick, M. 1981e. The role of quantitative decision-making methods in environmental impact assessment.Journal of Environmental Management. 12:65–78.Google Scholar
  47. Hollick, M. 1981f. Industry agreement acts in Australia: a tool for resource and environment management? Research report. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Western Australia. Research report ED-81-010.Google Scholar
  48. Hollick, M. 1983. Industry agreement acts and environmental management in Australia.Environmental Management 7:253–262.Google Scholar
  49. Hollick, M. 1984. Who should prepare environmental impact assessments?Environmental Management 8:191–196.Google Scholar
  50. Holling, C. S. (ed.). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York. 377 pp.Google Scholar
  51. Holm, M. C. 1983. New Zealand's National Development Act: an experiment in streamlining the environmental consent process for major development projects. Pages 1069–1080in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  52. Hughes, H. R. 1983. What's wrong with New Zealand's environmental impact assessment procedures? Paper presented to annual congress, Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, Perth. 19 pp. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  53. Hyman, E. L. 1982. Wyoming's industrial siting permit process and environmental impact assessment.Environmental Management 6:1–7.Google Scholar
  54. Jeffery, M. I. 1983. Cost benefits of environmental assessment as it relates to the approval process in Ontario. Pages 603–629in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  55. Jokela, A. W. 1976. Self-regulation of environmental quality: impact analysis in California local government. Office of Research and Development, US EPA, EPA-600/3-76-040. 131 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Kenderdine, S. E. 1983. What price an audit? A look at one phase in New Zealand's method of environmental assessment. Pages 630–648in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  57. Kennedy, W. V. 1981. The West German experience. Pages 155–185in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Kennedy, W. V. 1982. The directive on environmental impact assessment.Environmental Policy and Law 8:84–95.Google Scholar
  59. Ketcham, D. E. 1980. Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  60. Lafili, L. 1983. Belgian report, title II, cost benefit of environmental and planning control: environmental impact assessments. Pages 1101–1106in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  61. Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1978. Statewide planning goals and guidelines. Salem, Oregon, 24 pp.Google Scholar
  62. Lee N., and C. Wood. 1976. Final report on the introduction of environmental impact statements in the European Economic Community. 84 pp. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  63. Lee, N., and C. Wood. 1977. Environmental impact assessment of physical plans in the European communities. 162 pp. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  64. Lee, N., and C. Wood. 1978a. The assessment of environmental impacts in project appraisal in the European communities.Journal of Common Market Studies 16:189–210.Google Scholar
  65. Lee, N., and C. Wood. 1978b. Environmental impact assessment of projects in EEC countries. Journal of Environmental Management 6:57–71.Google Scholar
  66. Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Balsley. 1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Geological Survey circular 645. US Geological Survey. 13 pp.Google Scholar
  67. Lundquist, L. J. 1979. Environmental impact assessment in Sweden: status, problems and proposals for change.Policy and Politics 7:245–268.Google Scholar
  68. McAllister, D. M. 1980. Evaluation in environmental planning. MIT Press, Cambridge. 308 pp.Google Scholar
  69. McHarg, I. 1969. Design with nature. Doubleday, Garden City, New York. 197 pp.Google Scholar
  70. Munowitch, B. 1980. Planning Division, City of Davis, California. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  71. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1979. Environmental impact assessment: analysis of the environmental consequences of significant public and private projects. Paris. 71 pp.Google Scholar
  72. O'Riordan, J. 1981. The British Columbia experience. Pages 95–123in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  73. O'Riordan, T., and W. R. D. Sewell. 1981. From project appraisal to policy review. Pages 1–27in O'Riordan and Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  74. Orth, K. 1980. Water Resources Council, Washington, DC. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  75. Pearce, D. W. 1976. Measuring the economic impact of environmental change. Pages 142–166in T. O'Riordan and R. Hey (eds.), Environmental impact assessment. Saxon House, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar
  76. Pierce, T. 1980. Office of Environmental Review, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  77. Quazi, A. M. A. 1983. Legislation on environmental and planning controls in Malaysia: a review. Pages 763–784in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  78. Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. 1976. First report. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 207 pp.Google Scholar
  79. Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. 1977. Second report. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 415 pp.Google Scholar
  80. Robbins, B. M. 1978. Public participation and the civil engineer. M. Eng. Sc. dissertation, University of Western Australia. 79 pp.Google Scholar
  81. Sewell, W. R. D. 1981. How Canada responded: the Berger inquiry. Pages 77–93in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  82. Speden, I., J. Robertson, K. Warren, and P. Wilkinson. 1983. A review of the implementation of recommendations made in audits and appraisals and the administration of the environmental protection and enhancement procedures. Commission for the Environment, Wellington, NZ. 159 pp.Google Scholar
  83. Spry, A. 1976. A consultant's views on environmental impact statements in Australia.Search 7:252–255.Google Scholar
  84. Shane, J. N. 1979. Environmental law in the developing nations of Southeast Asia. Pages 15–45in C. MacAndrews and Chia Lin Sien (eds.), Developing economies and the environment. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  85. Thomas, E. N., and J. L. Schofer. 1970. Strategies for the evaluation of alternative transportation plans. National Cooperative Highway Research progress report 96. Highway Research Board, Washington. 111 pp.Google Scholar
  86. Tolentino, A. S. 1983. New legislative developments in environment and planning controls. Pages 913–922in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  87. Trzyna, T. C., and A. W. Jokela. 1974. California Environmental Quality Act: innovation in state and local decision making. Office of Research and Development, US EPA, EPA-600/5-74-023. 125 pp.Google Scholar
  88. Turner, A. R., and R. J. Somerville. 1983. The role of the law in environmental management in New Zealand. Pages 923–947in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
  89. Walker, G. A. Undated. Environmental impact studies: an aid to planning. Occasional paper no. 2. Irish Planning Institute. 23 pp.Google Scholar
  90. Wandesforde-Smith, G. 1979a. Environmental impact assessment in the European community.in Zeitschrift für umweltpolitik 1:35–76.Google Scholar
  91. Wandesforde-Smith, G. 1979b. Environmental impact assessment and the policies of development in Europe. Pages 205–237in T. O'Riordan and R. K. Turner (eds.), Progress in resource management and environmental planning, vol. 2. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  92. Wandesforde-Smith, G. 1981. The evolution of environmental impact assessment in California. Pages 45–75in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  93. Wilcox, M. 1983. Environmental assessment in New South Wales. Pages 1213–1229in Proceedings, 3rd environmental law seminar. International Bar Association, Singapore.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malcolm Hollick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Western AustraliaNedlands

Personalised recommendations