Introducing Spatial Variability to the Impact Significance Assessment

  • Rusne SileryteEmail author
  • Jorge Gil
  • Alexander Wandl
  • Arjan van Timmeren
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


The concept of Circular Economy has gained momentum during the last decade. Yet unsustainable circular systems can also create unintended social, economic and environmental damage. Sustainability is highly dependent on a system’s geographical context, such as location of resources, cultural acceptance, economic, environmental and transport geography. While in some cases an impact of the proposed change may be considered equally significant under all circumstances (e.g. increase of carbon emissions as a main contributor to the global climate change), many impacts may change both their direction and the extent of significance dependent on their context (e.g. land consumption may be positively evaluated if applied to abandoned territories or negatively if a forest needs to be sacrificed). The geographical context, (i.e. its sensitivity, vulnerability or potential) is commonly assessed by Spatial Decision Support Systems. However, currently those systems typically do not perform an actual impact assessment as impact characteristics stay constant regardless of location. Likewise, relevant Impact Assessment methods, although gradually becoming more spatial, assume their context as invariable. As a consequence, impact significance so far is also a spatially unvarying concept. However, current technological developments allow to rapidly record, analyse and visualise spatial data. This article introduces the concept of spatially varying impact significance assessment, by reviewing its current definitions in literature, and analysing to what extent the concept is applied in existing assessment methods. It concludes with a formulation of spatially varying impact significance assessment for innovation in the field of impact assessment.


Impact significance assessment Impact significance determination Spatial decision support Spatial differentiation 



This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 688920 and has been supported by the Amsterdam Institute of Advanced Metropolitan Solutions.


  1. Accorsi R, Manzini R, Pini C, Penazzi S (2015) On the design of closed-loop networks for product life cycle management: economic, environmental and geography considerations. J Transp Geogr 48:121–134.
  2. Antunes P, Santos R, Jordão L (2001) The application of Geographical Information Systems to determine environmental impact significance. Environ Impact Assess Rev 21(6):511–535.
  3. Barrow CJ (2000) Social impact assessment: an introduction. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Bojesen M, Boerboom L, Skov-Petersen H (2015) Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector. Land Policy 42:264–277.
  5. Bojórquez-Tapia LA, Ezcurra E, Garcıa O (1998) Appraisal of environmental impacts and mitigation measures through mathematical matrices. J Environ Manage 53(1):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bojórquez-Tapia LA, Juarez L, Cruz-Bello G (2002) Integrating fuzzy logic, optimization, and GIS for ecological impact assessments. Environ Manage 30(3):418–433.
  7. Bonzanigo L, Giupponi C, Balbi S (2016) Sustainable tourism planning and climate change adaptation in the Alps: a case study of winter tourism in mountain communities in the Dolomites. J Sustain Tour 24(4):637–652.
  8. Briggs S, Hudson MD (2013) Determination of significance in Ecological Impact Assessment: Past change, current practice and future improvements. Environ Impact Assess Rev 38:16–25,
  9. van Buren N, Demmers M, van der Heijden R, Witlox F (2016) Towards a circular economy: The role of Dutch logistics industries and governments. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8(7):1–17.
  10. Canter LW, Canty GA (1993) Impact significance determination-Basic considerations and a sequenced approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev 13(5):275–297.
  11. Cloquell-Ballester VA, Monterde-Díaz R, Cloquell-Ballester VA, Santamarina-Siurana MC (2007) Systematic comparative and sensitivity analyses of additive and outranking techniques for supporting impact significance assessments. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(1):62–83.
  12. Corral S, De Lara DRM, Salguero MT, Mendoza CCJ, De La Nuez DL, Santos MD, Peña FD (2016) Assessing Jatropha crop production alternatives in abandoned agricultural arid soils using MCA and GIS. Sustainability 8(6).
  13. Dapueto G, Massa F, Costa S, Cimoli L, Olivari E, Chiantore M, Federici B, Povero P (2015) A spatial multi-criteria evaluation for site selection of offshore marine fish farm in the Ligurian Sea, Italy. Ocean Coast Manage 116:64–77.
  14. Duinker PN, Beanlands GE (1986) The significance of environmental impacts: an exploration of the concept. Environ Manage 10(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrlich A, Ross W (2015) The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations. Impact Assess Project Apprais 5517(January):37–41.
  16. Elia V, Gnoni MG, Tornese F (2017) Measuring circular economy strategies through index methods: a critical analysis. J Clean Prod 142:2741–2751.
  17. Erfani M, Afrougheh S, Ardakani T, Sadeghi A (2015) Tourism positioning using decision support system (case study: Chahnime-Zabol, Iran). Environ Earth Sci 74(4):3135–3144.
  18. Escamilla EZ, Habert G (2016) Method and application of characterisation of life cycle impact data of construction materials using geographic information systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  19. European Commission (2014) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by: directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the CouncilGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferretti V, Montibeller G (2016) Key challenges and meta-choices in designing and applying multi-criteria spatial decision support systems. Decis Support Syst 84:41–52.
  21. Gangolells M, Casals M, Gasso S, Forcada N, Roca X, Fuertes A (2011) Assessing concerns of interested parties when predicting the significance of environmental impacts related to the construction process of residential buildings. Build Environ 46(5):1023–1037.
  22. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NM, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy a new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 143:757–768.
  23. Gibson R, Hassan S, Holtz S, Tansey J, Whitelaw G (2005) Sustainability assessment: criteria. Process Appl EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodchild M (2001) Issues in spatially explicit modeling. Agent-based models of land-use and land-cover change, pp 13–17Google Scholar
  25. Grêt-Regamey A, Altwegg J, Sirén EA, van Strien MJ, Weibel B (2016) Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planningA spatial decision support tool. Landscape Urban Plan.
  26. Haupt M, Zschokke M (2017) How can LCA support the circular economy?-63rd discussion forum on life cycle assessment, Zurich, Switzerland, November 30, 2016. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(5):832–837.
  27. Hellweg S, Mila i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 1109–1114Google Scholar
  28. Hiloidhari M, Baruah D, Singh A, Kataki S, Medhi K, Kumari S, Ramachandra T, Jenkins B, Shekhar Thakur I (2017) Emerging role of geographical information system (GIS), life cycle assessment (LCA) and spatial LCA (GIS-LCA) in sustainable bioenergy planning. Bioresour Technol
  29. Ijäs A, Kuitunen MT, Jalava K (2010) Developing the RIAM method (rapid impact assessment matrix) in the context of impact significance assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30(2):82–89.
  30. Janssen R, Arciniegas G, Alexander Ka (2015) Decision support tools for collaborative marine spatial planning: identifying potential sites for tidal energy devices around the Mull of Kintyre, Scotland. J Environ Plan Manage 58(4):719–737.
  31. Jeong JS, Garcia-Moruno L (2016) The study of building integration into the surrounding rural landscape: Focus on implementation of a Web-based MC-SDSS and its validation by two-way participation. Land Policy 57:719–729.
  32. Jones M, Morrison-Saunders A (2016) Making sense of significance in environmental impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 5517(January):1–7.
  33. Kim J, Yalaltdinova A, Natalia S, Baranovskaya N (2015) Integration of life cycle assessment and regional emission information in agricultural systems. Sci Food Agric (March).
  34. Lawrence DP (2007a) Impact significance determination-back to basics. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(8):755–769.
  35. Lawrence DP (2007b) Impact significance determination-Designing an approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(8):730–754.
  36. Lawrence DP (2007c) Impact significance determination-pushing the boundaries. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(8):770–788.
  37. Maier M, Mueller M, Yan X (2017) Introducing a localised spatio-temporal LCI method with wheat production as exploratory case study. J Clean Prod 140:492–501.
  38. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. WileyGoogle Scholar
  39. Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in detroit. Landscape Urban Plan 159:62–75.
  40. van Niekerk A, du Plessis D, Boonzaaier I, Spocter M, Ferreira S, Loots L, Donaldson R (2015) Development of a multi-criteria spatial planning support system for growth potential modelling in the Western Cape, South Africa. Land Policy 50:179–193,
  41. Nitschelm L, Aubin J, Corson MS, Viaud V, Walter C (2016) Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle Assessment LCA applied to an agricultural territory : current practices and method development 112:2472–2484.
  42. Ottomano Palmisano G, Govindan K, Boggia A, Loisi RV, De Boni A, Roma R (2016) Local Action Groups and Rural Sustainable Development. A spatial multiple criteria approach for efficient territorial planning. Land Policy 59:12–26.
  43. Pope J, Bond A, Morrison-Saunders A, Retief F (2013) Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: setting the research agenda. Environ Impact Assess Rev 41:1–9,
  44. REPAiR (2016) REPAiR—Resource Management in Peri-uran Areas: Going Beyond Urban MetabolismGoogle Scholar
  45. REPAiR D61 (2017) D6.1 Governance and Decision-Making Processes in Pilot Cases. Technical report, H2020 project deliverableGoogle Scholar
  46. Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, King N (2016) Global megatrends and their implications for environmental assessment practice. Environ Impact Assess Rev 61:52–60.
  47. Rovai M, Andreoli M, Gorelli S, Jussila H (2016) A DSS model for the governance of sustainable rural landscape: a first application to the cultural landscape of Orcia Valley (Tuscany, Italy). Land Policy 56:217–237.
  48. Smetana S, Tamásy C, Mathys A, Heinz V (2015) Sustainability and regions: sustainability assessment in regional perspective. Reg Sci Policy Pract 7(4):163–186.
  49. Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. ESRI Press, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Thompson MA (1990) Determining impact significance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies. Journal of Environmental Management 30(3):235–250,
  51. Udo de Haes H (2006) How to approach land use in LCIA or, how to avoid the Cinderella effect? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(4):219–221,
  52. Uran O, Janssen R (2003) Why are spatial decision support systems not used? Some experiences from the Netherlands. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 27(5):511–526,
  53. Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G (2017) Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production 148:866–881,
  54. Wood G (2008) Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact significance in environmental statements: ’See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’? Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28(1):22–38,
  55. Zelenakova M, Zvijakova L (2017) Environmental Impact AssessmentState of the Art. In: Using Risk Analysis for Flood Protection Assessment, Springer International Publishing, chap 1, pp 1–72,
  56. Zulueta Y, Rodríguez D, Bello R, Martínez L (2013) A linguistic fusion approach for heterogeneous Environmental Impact Significance Assessment. Applied Mathematical Modelling 40:1402–1417,
  57. Zulueta Y, Rodríguez R, Bello R, Martínez L (2017) A Hesitant Heterogeneous Approach for Environmental Impact Significance Assessment. Journal of Environmental Informatics 29(2, June):74–87,

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rusne Sileryte
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jorge Gil
    • 1
  • Alexander Wandl
    • 1
  • Arjan van Timmeren
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Architecture and the Built EnvironmentDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations