A critical review of checklist-based evaluation of environmental impact statements

Most of the research on environmental impact assessment quality has been focused on the quality of environmental impact statements (EIS), if they supplied important information about the components of the assessment process. This paper highlights some topical methodological issues concerning the two...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Impact assessment and project appraisal 2011-03, Vol.29 (1), p.27-36
Main Authors: Põder, Tõnis, Lukki, Tiit
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Environmental impact
environmental impact assessment (EIA)
environmental impact statement (EIS)
Environmental impact statements
Environmental impact studies
Europe
Evaluation
Information
Judgment
Methodology
Pollution control
Probability
Quality
quality evaluation
Quality standards
Review Checklist
Review Package
Studies
Uncertainty
Western Europe
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Most of the research on environmental impact assessment quality has been focused on the quality of environmental impact statements (EIS), if they supplied important information about the components of the assessment process. This paper highlights some topical methodological issues concerning the two most widely used checklists - the Environmental Statement Review Package and the European Commission's EIS Review Checklist. Both were found to be neglecting several important aspects, such as quality of information, uncertainty and probability of predictions, consideration of alternatives, and public participation. This causes overvaluation of EISs that inadequately address these aspects. An empirical study of inter-individual variations in judgements of 41 evaluators revealed significant divergence at all stages of the review process. The frequency of two-grade differences in the evaluation outcomes was about 25%. Highlighted inadequacies in two popular tools, along with variation in application due to user subjectivity, indicate that these tools should be applied with considerable care and caution, especially for research and monitoring of EIS quality.
ISSN:1461-5517
1471-5465
DOI:10.3152/146155111X12913679730511