A review of the quality of environmental impact statements with a focus on urban projects from Romania

• Published in: Ecological informatics 2022-09, Vol.70, p.101723, Article 101723
• Main Authors: Nita, Andreea, Hossu, Constantina-Alina, Mitincu, Cristina G., Iojă, Ioan-Cristian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Environmental impact statement; Quality assessment; Review; Urban projects
• ISSN: 1574-9541
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101723

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has experienced substantial difficulties in effectively achieving its purpose owing to the interplay of political, social, and economic interests, as well as institutional and policy contexts in developing countries such as Romania. This study presents a systematic evaluation of the quality of environmental impact statements (EISs) from seven urban areas in Romania. We followed an updated Lee-and-Colley evaluation approach to assess the quality of 21 EISs in four main categories, namely development and local environment, impact identification and evaluation, alternatives and mitigation, and presentation and communication. Our findings show that the range of impacts studied, the alternatives, and mitigation measures were poorly outlined in the analyzed reports, while the description of the project and the environmental factors were of higher quality. Our study identifies EISs weaknesses, namely insufficient data sources for determining the baseline conditions, poor reliance on rigorous quantitative modelling when predicting the impacts, and unclear monitoring arrangements. It also suggests ways to improve the quality of EISs and to enhance sustainable policy decisions in countries that are struggling with the implementation of EIA depending on the scale of the project and the actors involved. •The EISs assessed for urban projects in Romania have moderate quality overall.•The EISs assessed are more descriptive and less analytic.•Public participation during scoping has not been addressed in the EISs assessed.•EISs contains mostly qualitative than quantitative methods for impact assessments.