© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005
Environmental Impact Assessment:Principles,Methodology and Conceptual Framework
Tarek A.Kassim1(✉) · Bernd R.T.Simoneit2
1
2
Department ofCivil and Environmental Engineering,Seattle University,901 12thAvenue,PO Box 222000,Seattle,WA 98122-1090,USAkassimt@seattleu.edu
Environmental and Petroleum Geochemistry Group,College ofOceanic
and AtmosphericSciences,Oregon State University,COAS Admin.Bldg.104,Corvallis,OR 97331-5503,USA
122.12.22.333.13.23.33.43.544.14.24.355.15.1.15.1.25.1.35.25.35.466.16.1.16.1.26.1.36.1.46.1.5
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Natural and Man-Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Problem Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EIA Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Data Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Presentation and Exchange ofInformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Acquisition,Analysis and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Administrative Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Administrative Design Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sequence ofEnvironmental Planning/Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . .The Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EIA Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Establishing the Initial Reference State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Predicting the Future State in the Absence ofAction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Predicting the Future State in the Presence ofAction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Impact Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Impact Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EIA Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .General Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methods for Identification ofEffects and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methods for Prediction ofEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methods for Interpretation ofImpacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methods for Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Methods for Determining Inspection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
44677899910111213171718181819192020222224242526
26.26.2.16.2.26.2.36.2.46.377.17.27.2.17.2.27.2.37.2.47.37.47.4.17.4.27.4.37.4.47.57.5.17.5.27.5.37.67.6.17.6.27.6.37.6.47.77.87.98
T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Analysis ofThree General Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Leopold Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Critical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Problem ofUncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Model Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Simulation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Time-Dependent Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Explicit Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Uncertainty and Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delimitation and Strategic Evaluation ofthe Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Initial Variable Identification and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assigning Degrees ofPrecision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction ofa Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Interaction Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Simple Policy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Developing Impact Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Developing Policy and Management Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Putting the Pieces Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Model Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Deterministic versus Probabilistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Linear versus Non-Linear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Steady-State versus Time-Dependent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Predictive versus Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Simulation Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Complex Policy Analysis ofSimulation Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Model Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
2631343737394040404141424243434444444545454546464747474748505152
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AbstractPublic approval ofan environmental analysis and impact assessment project isusually coupled with different conditions that the project is required to meet.Environmen-tal impact assessment (EIA) constitutes an important basis for decisions regarding possibleimposition ofconditions.The main focus ofthe present chapter is to clarify the roles thatEIAs can have in such decision-making processes.
The present chapter discusses and reviews the various types ofenvironmental im-pacts(natural and man-made);the need for EIA data and its proper handling;the differentenvironmental administrative procedures used in EIA projects;the EIA characteristics (in terms oftheir goals,impact indicators,impact estimation,applicability);the different EIAmethods;and a general conceptual framework that could be applied to any environmental project.
KeywordsImpact assessment · Methodology · Conceptual framework · Assessors
Environmental Impact Assessment
AbbreviationsAPAdministrative Procedures
EAIAEnvironmental Analysis and Impact AssessmentEIAEnvironmental Impact AssessmentIAImpact Assessment
SIASocial Impact Assessment
3
1
Introduction
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an activity designed to identify andpredict the impact on the biogeophysical environment and on man’s health andwell-being oflegislative proposals,policies,programs,projects,and operationalprocedures,and to interpret and communicate information about the impacts[1–10].Although the institutional procedures to be followed in the assessmentprocess have been formalized,the scientific basis for these assessments is stillrather uncertain [11–18].The literature published on the subject is scatteredthrough many journals,and has not been evaluated critically in ways that areuseful to environmental scientists,engineers and managers.It is important tomention that the environmental assessor is sometimes unaware ofthe fact thatthe main task is not to prepare a scientific treatise on the environment,butrather to help the decision-maker select from amongst several choices for de-velopment and then to consider appropriate management strategies.
The term EIA is also used broadly to include a whole range ofsocial and eco-nomic impacts.Social impact assessment (SIA) and economic analysis are seenas being quite distinct from an EIA in the organizations involved,professionalskills used,and methodological approaches [19–23].No matter how the termsare used,it is important to recognize that impacts on ecosystems,and biogeo-chemical cycles,are intimately related through complex feedback mechanismsto social impacts and economic considerations.The social impacts ofany pro-ject that involves environmental changes should be studied in close associationwith studies ofbiosphere impacts [88–91].
Recognizing the need for a comprehensive review,discussion and synthesis ofcurrent EIA practices,the present chapter introduces various views about EIA,its principles,methodology,and general conceptual framework which could beused for any environmental analysis and impact assessment (EAIA) project.2
Environmental Impact
The next few paragraphs will give information about the different terms usedin environmental impact studies,the types ofnatural and man-made impacts,and address how to identify an environmental change.
4T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
2.1
Terminology
A number ofterms have been used by several researchers and policy makers[24–25] to distinguish:(a) between natural and man-made environmentalchanges;and (b) between changes and the harmful and/or beneficial conse-quences ofsuch changes.In one approach,a man-induced change is called aneffect,while the harmful and/or beneficial consequences are calledimpacts.Sometimes,an impact could be beneficial to some citizens but harmful to others.Another convention is to use the termimpactto denote only harmful effects.In still other countries,the wordseffectsandimpactsare synonymousand deleterious effects are termeddamage.No matter how the words are defined,however,achange/effect/impactis usually given in terms ofits nature,magnitude,and significance.
In the present chapter,the distinction will be maintained that achangecanbe natural and/or man-induced,that aneffectis a man-induced change,andthat animpactincludes a value judgment ofthe significance ofaneffect.2.2
Natural and Man-Made
Even in the absence ofman,the natural environment undergoes continualchange.This may be on a time-scale of:(a) hundreds ofmillions ofyears,aswith continental drift and mountain-building;(b) tens ofthousands ofyears,as with the recent Ice Ages and the changes in sea level that accompanied them;(c) hundreds ofyears,as with the natural eutrophication ofshallow lakes;or (d)over a period ofa few years,as when a colony ofbeavers rapidly transforms dryland into swamp.
Superimposed on natural environmental changes are those produced byman.The rate increased with the development ofindustry as muscle power wasreplaced by energy derived from fossil fuels,until during the last few decadeshuman impacts have reached an unprecedented intensity and affect the wholeworld,due to a vastly increased population and higher consumption per capita.Man’s increasing control ofhis environment often creates conflicts betweenhuman goals and natural processes.In order to achieve greater yields,man de-flects the natural flows ofenergy,by-passes natural processes,severs foodchains,simplifies ecosystems,and uses large energy subsidies to maintain del-icate artificial equilibria.In some cases,these activities may create surround-ings that man considers desirable.Nevertheless,conflicts often arise betweenstrategies that maximize short-term gains and those that maximize long-termbenefits.The former sometimes require a penalty ofirreversible environmen-tal degradation.
Perceptions about environmental impacts can be rather different in diversecountries.Where poverty is widespread and large numbers ofpeople do nothave adequate food,shelter,health care,and education,the lack ofdevelop-Environmental Impact Assessment5
ment may constitute a greater aggregate degradation to life quality than do theenvironmental impacts ofdevelopment.The imperative for development to rem-edy these defects may be so great that consequent environmental degradationmay be tolerated.The pervasive poverty in the underdeveloped nations has beenspoken ofas thepollution ofpoverty,while the widespread social and environ-mental erosion in the developed nations has been characterized in its advancedstate as thepollution ofaffluence.While it is clear that decisions will and shouldbe made based upon different value judgments concerning the net cost-benefitassessments about environmental,economic,and social impacts,it is now widelyaccepted that development can be planned to make best use ofenvironmental resources and to avoid degradation.The process ofEIA forms a part ofthe plan-ning ofsuch environmentally sound development [26–30].In developing countries a special challenge is to stimulate developmentprocesses at the local level.Ifsuch a process can be inaugurated broadly,thefruits ofdevelopment may reach more ofthe segments ofthe population thando the large,centralized schemes.Better adapted development projects andprograms are apt to engender broader public support and cause less undesirablesocial displacement than a few large centralized projects.
The emerging recognition that sources ofenergy,for example,can be betterutilized,that materials can be recycled more effectively,and that some pollutionproblems can be alleviated or largely avoided by prudent,locally scaled activityforms a basis for encouraging wider use ofsuch objectives in development ac-tivities,both in industrialized and developing nations.The termeco-developmenthas been used to describe this approach [31–33].The success ofenvironmentallysound development depends on proper understanding ofsocial needs and op-portunities and ofenvironmental characteristics.For this reason,some forms ofEIA are appropriate to local development as well as to large centralized projects.Environmental problems are clearly linked to unbalanced development.Thisis why EIA,as a component ofsound development planning,is particularly important.But these countries face a dilemma.Their need for environmentalchange is very great.Their resources oftrained scientists to participate in environmental surveys and impact assessments are very slender.And a lack offinance,training,and infrastructure may restrict the development modes opento them.The simple transfer ofthe technologies now employed in the devel-oped nations – including their methods ofenvironmental impact assessment –may not be the best way to alleviate these problems.
Planning and management ofland and water still present major problems in the industrialized countries,for example in containing urban sprawl,con-structing highways and airports,maintaining the quality oflakes and estuaries,and preserving wilderness areas [34–40].Many ofthese problems are associatedwith the massive and mounting demands for energy and water by industryanda consumer society,and are present only in embryonic form in the less devel-oped countries.
The production ofnovel chemicals has introduced new environmental haz-ards and uncertainties.The addition oflarge amounts ofbiodegradable sub-
6T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
stances to the environment has accelerated the eutrophication ofrivers andlakes,where these materials or their metabolites accumulate.Non-biodegrad-able compounds may be less conspicuous but more dangerous.Some are con-centrated as they pass through food chains and endanger the health ofman andhis domestic animals,as well as that ofnumerous other species ofwildlife.Several crisis episodes attract much attention,but long-term exposure tomoderate degrees ofpollution may be a more serious threat to human health.Acute or even chronic human toxicity is only one part ofthe pollution problem;pollutants also have implications for the long-term maintenance ofthe bio-sphere.The short-term problems are much simpler,and are amenable in partto narrowly compartmentalized pragmatic solutions.Long-term effects ofpollutants are insidious,chronic,and often cumulative.Ecologists must askwhat effects these pollutants have on the structure ofnatural ecosystems andon biological diversity,and what such changes could mean to the long-term potential for sustaining life.2.3
Problem Identification
When a project or a program is undertaken,it sets in motion a chain ofeventsthat modifies the state ofthe environment and its quality.For example,a majorhighway construction changes the physical landscape,which may,in turn,affect the habitat ofsome species,thus modifying the entire biological systemin that area [1–2,41–42].The same highway affects land values,recreationalhabits,work-residence locations,and the regional economy.These various fac-tors are interrelated,so that the net result is difficult to predict.A confounding
Fig.1Conceptual framework for assessing environmental changes.(The reference conditionis thewithout-actioncondition and,because ofnaturally occurring changes,is not necessar-ilythe present condition.The downward slope ofthe curves is for illustration only)
Environmental Impact Assessment7
factor is that ifthe project were not undertaken,the environment would still exhibit:(a) great variability (due to,for instance,variations in weather and climate,natural ecological cycles and successions);(b) irreversible trends ofnatural origin (from the eutrophication oflakes for example);and (c) irre-versible trends due to a combination ofnatural and man-induced factors (suchas overgrazing,salinization ofsoils).
One ofthe problems for the environmental impact assessor,as indicatedschematically in Fig.1,is to identify the various components ofenvironmentalchange,due to the interacting influences ofman and nature.It also implies novalue judgment ofwhether environmental change isgoodorbad.However,atsome stage in the assessment or the decision-making process,such a judgmentmust be made.
3
EIA Data
Data are sets ofobservations ofenvironmental elements,indicators or properties,which may be quantitative or qualitative.Scientists are accustomed to reservingjudgment on environmental questions until they have adequate data [1–3,41–45].When preparing an EIA,however,the environmental impact assessormust often make predictions based on incomplete and sometimes irrelevant datasets.Sometimes,an over-abundance ofdata is available;but in undigested form.This flood ofinformation would only confuse the readers ofan EIA.The task ofthe assessor is,therefore,to select those observations that are relevant and suf-ficiently accurate for the problem under study.The selection process should bedone in an objective manner.The sections that follow outline some ofthe prob-lems that are commonly encountered in obtaining,assessing,and presenting datapertinent to environmental analysis and impact studies.3.1Needs
Many scientists,engineers,and environmental agencies are generating data.In-dividuals tend to bediscipline-oriented,while agencies aremission-oriented.Ineither case,the data may seem to be deficient for use in broad interdisciplinaryenvironmental studies.In many instances,however,the deficiency is imaginedand reflects the fact that individuals are vaguely aware ofavailable sources ofdata in other disciplines.The environmental impact assessor often overlooksrich sources ofinformation resident in experienced individuals or organiza-tions.The public,for example,is seldom invited to contribute its views about val-ues,and needs.In general,there are two philosophies ofdata collection [46–49]:–Theaccounting theoryassumes that the subsequent use ofdata is indepen-dent ofcollection methods.An accountant believes that it is possible to col-
8T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
lect data in some neutral sense,and that any subsequent manipulation canbe justified ifit contributes to the understanding ofa problem.
–Thestatistical theoryinsists on the essential interdependence between theways in which data are collected and the methods ofanalysis that are ap-propriate for these data.The collection methods limit the range ofanalysismethods that may be employed.Much ofthe discussion on data collection and data banks assumes acceptanceofthe accounting theory ofdata manipulation.In contrast,most,ifnot all,oftheavailable methods for handling numerical data assume the statistical theoryofdata collection,management,and manipulation.
The data sets available at the outset ofan impact assessment are mostly ofthe first type.However,the environmental impact assessor will be guided to acertain extent in the selection ofdata sets by knowledge ofthe physical,bio-logical,social and/or economic systems they are studying.Conversely,however,the data sources available within a region will influence the nature ofthe per-ceptual models used in the assessment.Where there are few data,the analysiswill not include much detail.Supplementary data collected during the impactassessment should preferably be ofthe second type.The data should be suffi-cient to enable the prediction ofan impact to be made within specified confi-dence limits.The amount to be collected,the frequency,precision,accuracy,andtype are dependent upon the known variability ofthe element in space andtime.Where the variability is unknown,it must be determined by a pilot study.In general,errors in field data include those resulting from the instrumentand those introduced by the observer.Unless the instrumentation is very specialized,the measured value is rarely the same as the true value.However,standardized observational procedures tend to minimize errors to the pointthat many data can be used directly without concern about quality.They alsotend to ensure that data biases are similar from one location or time to another,so that the data,ifnot accurate,are at least comparable.3.2
Interpretation
Having selected some environmental data sets,the assessor should next try todetermine their information content (to search for patterns,trends,and cor-relations) and test for statistical significance.
The interdisciplinary nature ofenvironmental assessments challenges theassessor and his staff.Even within the natural sciences,specialists in differentfields may use a phrase in quite different ways.Even greater difficulties occurwhen natural and social scientists attempt to communicate with one another.Inevitably,the varied nature ofenvironmental problems leads scientists touse all information which does not fall within their sphere ofspecialization.Time and other constraints may cause them to do this without due regard forthe accuracy and representativeness ofthe data.
Environmental Impact Assessment9
3.3
Data Banks
Data banks and retrieval systems speed up the impact assessment process by op-timizing the use ofexisting data and by helping to eliminate wasteful redundancy[50].These systems work well ifthey have been designed and managed carefully.However,the limitations ofdata banks should be appreciated.The developmentofa very large,all-inclusive system could lead to a morass ofdata,sometimes withlarge amounts never being used.Furthermore,the data within such a system maycontain hidden traps.A lack ofan updating procedure is a related impediment.The discipline-based data systems that have been developed for national environmental purposes provide large sources ofquality controlled data.How-ever,the observing sites may not always be representative ofthe proposed development site.In addition,because the acquisition ofenvironmental data isundertaken by a variety ofgovernmental departments,organizations,and in-dividuals,there may be data gaps and incompatibilities amongst systems.A datasystem is needed wherein information from these diverse sources can be putreadily at the disposal ofthe environmental impact assessor in the desired form.Special attention must also be given to the ways in which data are stored so thatthey may be recalled in sub-sets convenient for comparison and modeling.3.4
Presentation and Exchange of Information
Data may be presented directly or in summarized form,such as on maps andgraphs.However,since humans respond visually in different ways to differentgeometric forms and arrays,a scientifically correct diagram may sometimes bemisleading.Care is therefore required to ensure that the interpretative materi-als convey exactly what is intended.Large data sets are sometimes reduced tosmall sets with the aid ofempirical or physical models.Dimensional analysisoften permits several variables to be collapsed to a single new parameter.In thisconnection,it is important to note that empirical models cannot be extrapo-lated with assurance to new situations [50,51].
The mere fact that information exists does not ensure availability to pro-spective users.Communication links between major interest groups must there-forebe established.At an early stage ofan impact assessment,these groups andtheir respective needs must be identified as a basis for developing inventoriesofrelevant data sources and procedures for exchanging data amongst users.3.5
Acquisition,Analysis and Processing
The principles which must be followed by the environmental impact assessorconcerning data,their acquisition,analysis,and processing should include thefollowing points [52–56]:
10T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
–Standardization ofunits,sampling methods,criteria,classification,carto-graphic scales,and projections are essential.
–Because information required for EIAs is often widely scattered,the need fordata storage and retrieval capabilities is particularly important.
–The environmental databases should always be clearly identified in terms ofquantity,quality,and character to ensure that they are not misemployed ormisinterpreted by the reviewer.
–Data should be consistent with respect to sampling and averaging times,time lags,and measurement locations.
–Statistical tests should be carried out to ascertain the significance,errors,frequency distributions,and other characteristics ofdata that are used as abasis for subsequent analysis.
–The methods ofdata synthesis,as well as the physical constraints on data use(like threshold effects),should be clearly identified.
–The precision and accuracy demanded for the resolution ofproblems should be clearly defined prior to establishing supplementary data net-works.
–Empirical relationships may not be transposable.Extreme caution must beemployed in using relationships that were not developed for the project;their validity should be established by pilot programs.
–New technology should not be overlooked.New systems and sensors maygreatly facilitate supplementary data acquisition.
4
Administrative Procedures
Attention is directed in this part ofthe present chapter to the administrativeprocedures (APs) required to support the EIA process.The general frameworkto be described here is applicable to a wide range ofnational and internationalenvironmental laws,policies,and social customs.The procedures can be uti-lized in their simplest form but may be expanded according to the number oftrained specialists locally available for undertaking EIAs.
The details are shown schematically in Fig.2.The relationships between the variousplayersand theirrolesvary from country to country but thecast ofplayersmust be designated.Those involved may include:the decision-maker,environmental impact assessor,project proponent,assessment reviewer,centraland local government agencies,the public at large,special interest groups,ex-pert advisors,and governments in adjacent jurisdictions,the legislative branchofgovernment,and the judiciary.
Environmental Impact Assessment11
Fig.2EIA as an integral part ofthe planning and decision-making process
4.1
Administrative Design Factors
A number ofpoints about administrative procedures (APs) should be consid-ered when establishing an EIA process [57–59]:
–Thedecision-makeris a single point ofauthority or responsibility wherethedecision is made.The decision may be:(a) to proceed;(b) not to proceed;(c) to refer back the proposal for modification;or (d) to transfer responsi-bility for making a decision to a higher or to a lower level ofresponsibility.Clearly,there must be a decision-making process with well-defined terms ofreference at the management level where the proposal is being considered.–The decisions are oftenshapedrather thanmadeortaken.Everyone involvedin policy formulation,planning,impact assessment studies,public hearings,reviews,and legislative and media debates is in fact playing a part in shap-ing the decision.The final responsibility rests with a responsible person (orgroup) whose signature appears on the relevant document.This emphasizesthat EIAs should not be considered only at the time ofpresentation ofan impact statement to a decision-maker.Rather,environmental considerationsshould be included throughout the entire planning process.
12T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
–Environmental assessment should be a continuing activity,not only prior tothe decision point but also afterwards.An EIA should be considered as anadaptive process,with review and updating ofthe EIA document periodicallyafter the project/action has been completed.
–One defect in the way that EIAs tend to be carried out is that they are ori-ented to specific projects or proposals.There is often no mechanism for examination ofmany projects inaggregate.Therefore,it is possible that theimpacts ofan array ofproposals would be found individually acceptable,although their effects,when taken together,would not.It,therefore,seemsdesirable to develop the concept ofimpact assessment at the program orpolicy level.–An important question that needs to be resolved in each jurisdiction iswhether EIAs should be undertaken by theproponents(whether they be inthe public or in the private sector),by an independent body,or by a smallteam drawn from proponents,environmental scientists,and representativesofthose with whom decisions rest.
–EIAs need to bereviewedby an independent body for relevance,complete-ness,and objectivity.The reviewer may be a government department or sep-arate body.But whatever mechanism is chosen,the objective is to ensurecompliance,with the spirit as well as the fine print ofthe environmental law,with established procedures and guidelines,including appropriate time-tables.
–The review process could include study by specialists on the staffofthe review authority,study by other designated experts,or both.Public partici-pation is often desirable,as the perceptions ofspecialists may differ markedlyfrom those ofthe public.Ways in which this might be accomplished includethe:(a) appointment ofprivate citizens to the review authority;(b) establish-ment ofregional planning committees to include members ofthe public;(c) canvassing ofelected representatives;(d) public hearings;and (e) seminarsor workshops.–APs should include a provision for post-auditing ofactions,to ensure com-pliance with the requirements and to test the validity ofthe predictionscontained in the EIA.
–Guidelines concerning APs should be prepared and made public.4.2
Sequence of Environmental Planning/Decision-Making
In Fig.2,individual functions in the planning/decision-making process arenumbered,1 through 10.These are not necessarily separate operations in timeor place,nor are they necessarily performed by separate individuals or in-stitutions.It is emphasized that the detailed way in which the environmentalplanning system operates depends upon the approach taken within a particu-lar jurisdiction.The diagram (Fig.2) is presented mainly to show the relation-ship ofone function to the next,particularly the relationship ofthe assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment13
Fig.3The consideration ofalternatives to achieve a goal
procedure to the overall decision-making process.Figure3 shows an iterativeprocedure for the consideration ofalternatives to achieve certain goals.In addition,Table1 discusses the various sequences ofenvironmental planningand decision-making.
The main focus ofthe present book,entitledEnvironmental Impact Assess-ment ofRecycled Wastes on Surface and Groundwaters,is mainly on func-tions5–7,but it is necessary to consider the entire sequence in order to fully appreciate the linkages and relationships.4.3
The Players
The responsibilities ofindividuals and groups ofindividuals who participatein the EIA process vary.In each case,the roles should be explicitly delineated,and the procedure to be followed should be understood by all the players,
Table1Sequence ofenvironmental planning and decision-making (schematically shown in Fig.2)14
Process step–Governments and their officials set goals –These goals,general or specific,would establish the framework within which environmental policies,programs,and actions are implemented–Ifone goal is to ensure that environmental considerations receive adequate attention in the planning and implementation ofactions,an EIA procedure is a way in which this can be achieved –The goal-setting process must be translated into actionsviapolicy and program activities–It is important to ensure that environmental considerations are raised and taken into account by the decision-maker as early as possible in the planning process and not almost as an afterthought,just before a final decision is taken (in Step 7) –This can be accomplished with a formal EIA ofgoals,policies,or programs,in addition to the more usual EIAs ofactionActions may originate in several ways:–(4A):solely through programs ofthe central government–(4B):through programs initiated by local levels ofgovernment or in the private sector,but supported financially through grants or loans from the central government–(4C):through programs initiated by local levels ofgovernment or in the private sector,but subject to approval or licensing by the central government–The evaluation ofwhether a proposal will significantly affect the environment is a first screening ofthe proposal to decide whether or not a detailed EIA will be required,and to ensure that a range ofalternatives is examined–This may be a simple judgment by the responsible official or advisory body,or it may be based on a formal document,briefbut relevant,prepared by a small group ofspecialistsPurposeDescription (see also Fig.2)Step 1Goals establishmentSteps 2 and 3Policy and program establishmentStep 4ActionsT.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Step 5Significant impact determinationTable1(continued)Process step–Ifthe responsible person or group decides that a proposed action will not significantly affect the environment,then a so callednegative determinationis made (Step 6B) which may involve a public notice or explanation;steps are then taken to proceed with the proposed action responsible person a group simply identifies such cases–Ifa proposed action is believed to have potentially significant impacts on the environment,then an EIA is performed on the proposed action and on feasible alternatives (Step 6A) –It is at this point that the public may provide input into the process in many countries (Step 10)–An important potential result ofthe EIA process is the development ofnew alternatives that may lessen the environmental impacts–These will be fed back into Step 6,so that an iterative process may eventually allow the project to proceed to Step 8–After review ofthe EIA (Step 6),the decision-maker may decide that the action should proceed (Step 7A) or that it is environmentally unsatisfactory (Step 7B)–In the latter case,the proposed action may either be withdrawn,or be modified and fed back again into the EIA process–The decision-maker will make a wise decision,although the task is not easy because ofthe large number ofpolitical,environmental,and other factors which often conflict with one another –Sometimes the EIA itselfwill contain conflicting objectives (such as the maintenance ofwater quality at the expense ofair quality)–The environmental impact assessor will usually assign a system ofweights when he makes his recommendationsPurposeDescription (see also Fig.2)Step 5Significant impactdeterminationEnvironmental Impact Assessment
Step 6Environmental impact assessmentStep 7Decision-making15
16
Table1(continued)Process step–However,the various components should be clearly separated in order that the reviewer and the decision-maker may change these weights to accommodate other considerations such as the relative political sensitivities ofneighboring countries to releases ofair versus water pollutants–Implementation involves several functions:detailed planning,design,and operation –Implementation may be carried out by a designated government agency or by others–In the case ofnon-governmental implementation,there is still a responsibility within government to ensure compliance with regulations and standardsPurposeDescription (see also Fig.2)Step 7Decision-makingStep 8ImplementationStep 9Post-audit–The whole implementation process (including planning,initiation,and operation) should remain under review to ensure that the designated environmental quality standards are achieved by continued monitoring ofcertain features ofthe environment–Such data be used to verify the predictions made for the selected alternative,and also may contribute to the improvement offuture assessments–The continuing review may improve the goal-setting and decision-making processes by providing information on the environmental effectiveness ofeach action–It is recommended that reasonably comprehensive post-audits ofEIAs be made a year or so after completion ofthe actions,to determine the accuracy ofthe pre-assessment process and to advance the scientific basis for impact assessmentsT.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Environmental Impact Assessment17
including the public.The following points should be taken into considerationabout the various players in EIA process [60–62]:
–Decision-maker:can be a head ofstate,a group ofministers,an elected body,or a single designated individual.
–Assessor:is the person,agency or company with responsibility for preparingthe EIA.
–Proponent:can be a government agency or a private firm wishing to initiatethe project.
–Reviewer:is the person,agency or board with responsibility for review-ingthe EIA and assuring compliance with published guidelines or regu-lations.–Other government agencies:are agencies with a special interest in the project.They may be components ofthe national government services or they maybe associated with provinces,states,cities or villages.
–Expert advisors:are persons with the specialized knowledge required to evaluate the proposed action.They may come from within or outside thegovernment service.
–Public at large:includes citizens and the press.
–Special interest groups:includes environmental organizations,labor unions,professional societies,and local associations.
–International:refers to neighboring countries or intergovernmental bodies,and indicates the need in some cases for consultations with these bodies.
5
EIA Characteristics
The next few paragraphs discuss the general characteristics ofEIAs,their goals,impact indicators,impact estimation and applicability.5.1Goals
An EIA should:(a) describe the proposedaction,as well as alternatives;(b) esti-mate the nature and magnitudes ofthe likely environmental changes;(c) iden-tify the relevant human concerns;(d) estimate the significance ofthe predictedenvironmental changes (estimate theimpactsofthe proposed action);(e) makerecommendations for either acceptance ofthe project,remedial action,accep-tance ofone or more alternatives,or rejection;(f) make recommendations forinspection procedures to be followed after the action has been completed.AnEIA should contain three subsections relating to environmental effects (Fig.1),as follows [3–10,63–65]:
18T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
5.1.1
Establishing the Initial Reference State
Assessment ofenvironmental change pre-supposes knowledge about the presentstate.It will be necessary to select attributes that may be used to estimate thisstate.Some ofthese will be directly measurable;others will only be capable ofbeing recorded within a series ofdefined categories,or ranked in ascending ordescending order ofapproximate magnitude.At worst,it will be necessary torecord the state ofthe environment by the presence or absence ofsome oftheattributes.Difficult decisions will need to be made about the population (in astatistical sense) which is to be represented by the measured variables,and theextent to which sub-division ofthis population into geographical regions,ecosystems,and so on,is either feasible or necessary.In fact,it must be em-phasized that the establishment ofan initial reference state is difficult;not onlyare environmental systems dynamic but they contain cyclical and random com-ponents.An initial state cannot therefore be described satisfactorily with aonce-offsurvey;even with a regular monitoring program,a description ofanexisting environmental state still contains a degree ofsubjectivity and uncer-tainty.
5.1.2
Predicting the Future State in the Absence of Action
In order to provide a fair basis for examining human impacts,future environ-mental states in the absence ofaction must be estimated.The populations ofaspecies ofanimal or fish may already be declining (which can be schematicallyrepresented in Fig.1),due to over-grazing or over-fishing,even before a smelteris built.This part ofthe analysis is largely a scientific problem,requiring skillsdrawn from many disciplines.The prediction will often be uncertain,but thedegree ofuncertainty should be indicated in qualitative terms at least.
Predictions ofthe behavior ofbiological sub-systems and their responses to environmental stresses are also subject to uncertainty.Fortunately,there are mathematical techniques for describing these uncertainties and subject-ingthem to critical analysis.The decision-maker should be aware ofthe de-greeofuncertainty that surrounds the predicted state ofthe environment andhave some understanding ofthe methods by which this uncertainty is calcu-lated.
5.1.3
Predicting the Future State in the Presence of Action
For each ofthe proposed actions,and for admissible combinations ofthese actions,there will be an expected state ofthe environment which is to be compared with the expected state in the absence ofaction.Consequently,pre-dictions similar to those outlined in the subsection above must be derived for
Environmental Impact Assessment19
each ofthe proposed alternatives.Forecasts will be required for several time-scales,both for thewithand thewithoutaction cases.5.2
Impact Indicators
Animpact indicatoris an element or parameter that provides a measure ofthesignificance ofthe effect (in other words ofthemagnitudeofan environ-mental impact).Some indicators,such as mortality statistics,have associatednumericalscales.Other impact indicators can only be ranked on simple scalessuch asgood-better-bestoracceptable-unacceptable.
The selection ofa set ofindicators is often a crucial step in the impact as-sessment process,requiring an input from the decision-maker.In the absence ofrelevant goals or policies,the assessor may suggest some indicators and scales,but he should not proceed with the assessment until his proposals are accepted.The most widely used impact indicators are those such as air and waterquality standards that have statutory authority.These standards integrate insome sense the worth that a jurisdiction places on clean air and clear water[66–70].The numerical values have been derived from examination oftheavailabletoxicological data relating pollutant dosages to health and vegetationeffects,combined with a consideration ofbest practical technology.Admittedlythe evidence is sometimes incomplete and controversial,but the assessorshould accept the derived standards.The impact assessment process is not theappropriate forum for debates on the validity ofnumerical values.A possibleexception occurs when,in the absence ofnational standards,a local decision-maker or an overseas engineering firm decides to employ standards borrowedfrom another jurisdiction.Toxicological evidence based on temperate-zonestudies cannot always be confidently extrapolated to the tropics or to the arctic.
After the impact indicators and their scales are selected,their values mustbe estimated from the predicted values ofthe environmental effects for eachproject alternative and for several time-scales.5.3
Impact Estimation
In some defined way,the description ofthe environment must be collapsed tothe behavior ofa few variables,which must then be related to the impact indi-cators.An objective,although not always achievable,is that for each ofthe pro-posed actions and for each ofthe human concerns,the expected outcomes canbe compared on numerical scales.
The original measurement units for the impact indicators will normally bequite different:some may be numerical,while others are in the form ofa seriesofclasses.At this point in the analysis,therefore,the environmental impact assessor should convert the scale into a comparable set using some system of
20T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
normalization.In the most primitive system,each indicator is rated as beingsignificant-positive,insignificant,orsignificant-negative;the numbers ofpos-itive and ofnegative counts are then compared [5–8].Because some humanconcerns are frequently more important than others,however,a series ofweightsmay be assigned to the concerns.
Having estimated the environmental impacts ofthe proposed action,the assessor next needs to make recommendations.The wisdom ofthese recom-mendations depends greatly on the extent to which there is discussion span-ning many disciplines among the assessor’s staffand advisors.This group ofpeople should include scientists,engineers,sociologists,and economists,eachofwhom feels a personal commitment and sense ofexcitement.5.4
Applicability
EIAs have been most widely used in the industrialized countries,but they havegeneral applicability,provided that they take into account not only the physi-cal and biological characteristics ofa particular region but also its local socio-economic priorities and cultural traditions.Countries,and often differentprovinces within a country too,are at different stages ofeconomic develop-ment,and have different priorities,policies,and preoccupations.The probableadverse consequences ofany development must be weighed against estimatedsocio-economic benefits.What is unacceptable will vary greatly from one coun-try or situation to another.
In developing countries particularly,the process ofelaborating EIAs mustin no way be viewed as a brake or obstacle to economic development,but ratheras a means for assisting in planning the rational use ofthe country’s natural resources.This is because the economic development and prosperity ofwholenations are tied to the successful long-term management ofnatural resources.The cost ofan EIA will usually be much less than that ofremedial measuresthat may subsequently be necessary.
Apart from any consideration ofpossible adverse effects on the quality oflife,the environmental effects on many development projects may well be cru-cial for their economic viability [71–73].
6
EIA Methods
The variety ofmethods used to assess impacts is very large [1–10,15–19,31–38],however,in this chapter;we cannot attempt to include all ofthe exist-ing methods.Instead,a few representative types are described.These can beused at almost every stage in the preparation ofan EIA.
In order to choose a suitable EIA method,various desirable propertiesshould be taken into consideration.Such properties are discussed in Table2.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Table2Desirable properties for EIA methods21
PropertiesComprehensivenessDescription–Sometimes a method is required that will detect the full range ofimportant elements and combinations ofelements,directing attention to novel or unsuspected effects or impacts,as well as to the expected ones–Sometimes a method is required that focuses attention on major factors–It is often desirable to eliminate unimportant impacts that would dissipate effort ifincluded in the final analysis as early as possible–To some degree,screening at the identification stage re-quires a tentative pre-determination ofthe importance ofan impact,and this may on occasion create subsequent bias–The task ofavoiding double counting ofeffects and impactsis difficult because ofthe many interrelationships that exist in the environment–In practice,it is permissible to view a human concern from different perspectives,provided that the uniqueness ofthe phenomenon identified by each impact indicator is preserved–The point can be illustrated by noting that there could be several impacts ofsome action affecting recreation;the major human concern might be economic (for those whose income is derived there from),social (for those who use the area),and ecological (for those concerned with the effects on wildlife)–Subjective approaches to uncertainty are common in many existing methods and can sometimes lead to quite useful predictions–Explicit procedures are generally more acceptable,as their internal assumptions are open to critical examination,analysis,and alteration–In statistical models,measure ofuncertainty is typically given as the standard deviation or standard error–Ideally,the measure ofuncertainty should be in a form common to the discipline within which the prediction is made–Having estimated the range ofuncertainty,the environ-mental impact assessor should undertake three separate analyses whenever possible,using the most likely,the greatest plausible (like two standard deviations away from the mean),and the smallest plausible numerical values ofthe element being predicted–When the resulting range ofpredicted values proves to be unacceptably wide,the assessor is alerted to the need for further study and/or monitoring SelectivenessMutual exclusivenessConfidence limits22
Table2(continued)
T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
PropertiesObjectiveness
Description
–This property is desirable to minimize the possibility that the predictions automatically support the preconceived notions ofthe promoter and/or assessor
–These prejudgments are usually caused by a lack ofknowledge oflocal conditions or insensitivity to public opinion
–A second reason is to ensure comparability ofEIA predictions amongst similar types ofactions–An ideal prediction method contains no bias –Environmental,sociological,and economic processes often contain feedback mechanisms
–A change in the magnitude ofan environmental effect or impactindicator may then produce unexpected amplifications or dampening in other parts ofthe system
–Prediction methods should include a capability to identify interactions and to estimate their magnitudes
Interactiveness
6.1
General Types
The present section outlines information about the general types ofEIA meth-ods,such as those for the identification ofeffects and impacts,the predictionofeffects,the interpretation ofimpacts,communication,and the determinationofinspection procedures.The following is a summary.6.1.1
Methods for Identification of Effects and Impacts
There are three principal methods for identifying environmental effects andimpacts [5,7,10–15],as follows:
–Checklists:Checklists are comprehensive lists ofenvironmental effects andimpact indicators designed to stimulate the analyst to think broadly aboutpossible consequences ofcontemplated actions.This strength can also be aweakness,however,because it may lead the analyst to ignore factors that arenot on the lists.Checklists are found in one form or another in nearly all EIAmethods.
–Matrices:Matrices typically employ a list ofhuman actions in addition to a list ofimpact indicators.The two are related in a matrix that can be usedto identify,to a limited extent,cause-and-effect relationships.Publishedguidelines may specify these relationships or may simply list the range of
Environmental Impact Assessment23
possible actions and characteristics in an open matrix,which is to be com-pleted by the analyst.
–Flow diagrams:Flow diagrams are sometimes used to identify action-effect-impact relationships.An example is given in Fig.4,which shows the connection between a particular environmental impact (decrease ingrowth rate and size ofcommercial shellfish) and coastal urban develop-ment.The flow diagram permits the analyst to visualize the connection between action and impact.The method is best suited to single-project assessments,and is not recommended for large regional actions.In the lat-ter case,the display may sometimes become so extensive that it will be oflittle practical value,particularly when several action alternatives must beexamined.Fig.4Example ofa flow-chart used for impact identification
24T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
6.1.2
Methods for Prediction of Effects
Methods for prediction cover a wide spectrum and cannot readily be catego-rized.All predictions are based on conceptual models ofhow the universe func-tions;they range in complexity from those that are totally intuitive to thosebased on explicit assumptions concerning the nature ofenvironmental pro-cesses [5–10].Provided that the problem is well formulated and not too complex,scientific methods can be used to obtain useful predictions,particularly in thebiogeophysical disciplines.
Methods for predicting qualitative effects are difficult to find or to validate.In many cases,the prediction indicates merely whether there will be degrada-tion,no change,or enhancement ofenvironmental quality.In other cases,quali-tative ranking scales (from 1 to 5,10 or 100) are used.
Because some methods are better or more relevant than others,a listing ofrecommended methods for solving specific environmental problems wouldseem to be desirable.However,a compendium ofmethods is likely to be a snarefor the unwary non-specialist.The environment is never as well-behaved as assumed in models,and the assessor is to be discouraged from accepting off-the-shelfformulae.
6.1.3
Methods for Interpretation of Impacts
There are three methods for comparing impact indicators,as follows:6.1.3.1
Display of Sets of Values of Individual Impact Indicators
One way to avoid the problem ofsynthesis is to display all ofthe impact indi-cators in a checklist or matrix [6,10].For a relatively small set,and providedthat some thought is given to a sensible grouping ofsimilar kinds ofindicatorsinto subsets,a qualitative picture ofthe aggregate impact may become appar-entby the clustering ofcheckmarks in the diagram.
This approach is used in numerous methods.Because the assessor intendsto be all-inclusive,however,the sets are usually much too large for visual com-prehension.In the Leopold matrix [10,74–75],for example,17,600 pieces ofinformation are displayed.Such an array may confuse the decision-maker,particularly ifa separate checklist or matrix is prepared for each alternative.Effort may be wasted ifthe environmental impact assessor conscientiouslytries to fill in a high proportion ofthe boxes,and he may be swamped withexcessive information ifhe succeeds.Environmental Impact Assessment25
6.1.3.2
Ranking of Alternatives Within Impact Categories
A second and better method for estimating relative importance is to rank alternatives within groups ofimpact indicators [4,10].This permits the deter-mination ofalternatives that have the least adverse,or most beneficial,impacton the greatest number ofimpact indicators.No formal attempt is made to assign weights to the impact indicators;hence the total impacts ofalternativescannot be compared.
6.1.3.3
Normalization and Mathematical Weighting
In order to compare indicators numerically and to obtain aggregate impacts foreach alternative:(a) the impact indicator scales must be in comparable units,and (b) an objective method for assigning numerical weights must be selected.Various normalization techniques are available to achieve the first objective[1,2,10,76–78].For example,environmental quality is scaled from 0 (very bad)to 1 (very good) by the use ofvalue functions.Very badandvery goodcan bedefined in various ways.For a qualitative variable such as water clarity that hasbeen ranked from 1 to 5 or from 1 to 10 by the environmental impact assessor,the scales are simply transformed arithmetically to the range from 0 to 1.Forquantitative variables such as water or air quality,very badcould be the max-imum permissible concentrations established by law,whilevery goodcould bethe background concentrations found at great distances from sources.
Finally,a method ofweighting may be required in order to obtain an aggre-gate index for comparing alternatives [3,41–42,79–80].This is undoubtedly acontroversial part ofthe analysis.The following schemes are listed in increas-ing order ofcomplexity:
a.Count the numbers ofnegative,insignificant,and positive impacts,and sumin each class.
b.When the impact indicators are in comparable units,assign equal weights.c.Weight according to the number ofaffected persons.
d.Weight according to the relative importance ofeach impact indicator.Scheme (a) is a special case of(b),both ofwhich are to be discouraged.Scheme(d)may implicitly include (c).In either case,the criteria for weighting shouldbe obtained from the decision-maker or from national goals.The number ofweights will often be rather small,as few as two positive and two negative.6.1.4
Methods for Communication
Communication is sometimes the weakest component in the EIA process [10].The assessor may not have direct access to the decision-maker,in which case
26T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
preparation ofthe EIA Executive Summary or Statement is probably the mostimportant part ofthe EIA document.Every effort should be made to avoid in-comprehensibility and/or ambiguity,which may occur in several ways,as follows:(a) ifscientific jargon is used without explanation;(b) ifuncommon measure-ment units or scales are used to predict impacts;(c) ifthe explicit criteria and as-sumptions used in connection with value judgments and trade-offs are not given;or (d) iftheaffected partiesare not clearly indicated.Generally,affected partiesshould be clearly indicated.A good communication method should indicate thelink in space and time between the expected impact and the affected parties.6.1.5
Methods for Determining Inspection Procedures
After an action has been completed,environmental quality may fall below de-sign criteria [81–83] because of:(a) an incorrect or incomplete impact assess-ment;(b) a rare environmental event or episode;(c) an accident or structuralfailure ofa component;or (d) human error.
The inspection procedures should take account ofthese four possibilitiesand may include periodic examination ofequipment and safety procedures.In some cases,recommendations for regular monitoring programs may be nec-essary.The procedures to be followed in most cases can be derived from thepredictions ofeffects and impacts that have already been made.6.2
Analysis of Three General Approaches
Three general approaches,selected because they represent a range ofoptionsfor impact assessment,are discussed in this section.These include the LeopoldMatrix,Overlays,and the Battelle environmental evaluation system.The fol-lowing is a summary.6.2.1
The Leopold Matrix6.2.1.1Description
The pioneering approach to impact assessment,the Leopold Matrix,was de-veloped by Dr.Luna Leopold and others ofthe United States Geological Survey[6,10,74–75].The matrix was designed for the assessment ofimpacts associ-ated with almost any type ofconstruction project.Its main strength is as achecklist that incorporates qualitative information on cause-and-effect rela-tionships,but it is also useful for communicating results.
The Leopold system is an open-cell matrix containing 100 project actionsalong the horizontal axis and 88 environmentalcharacteristicsandconditionsalong the vertical axis.These are listed in Table3.The list ofproject actions in
Environmental Impact Assessment27
Table3The Leopold Matrix (PartI lists the project actions,arranged horizontally in the matrix;and Part2 lists the environmental characteristics and conditions,arranged verticallyin the matrix)Part 1:Project actionsA.Modification ofregimea.Exotic flora or fauna introductionb.Biological controlsc.Modification ofhabitatd.Alteration ofground covere.Alteration ofground-water hydrologyf.Alteration ofdrainageg.River control and flow codificationh.Canalizationi.Irrigationj.Weather modificationk.Burningl.Surface or pavingm.Noise and vibrationB.Land transformation and constructiona.Urbanizationb.Industrial sites and buildingsc.Airportsd.Highways and bridgese.Roads and trailsf.Railroadsg.Cables and liftsh.Transmission lines,pipelines and corridorsi.Barriers,including fencingj.Channel dredging and straighteningk.Channel revetmentsl.Canalsm.Dams and impoundmentsn.Piers,seawalls,marinas,& sea terminalso.Offshore structuresp.Recreational structuresq.Blasting and drillingr.Cut and fills.Tunnels and underground structuresC.Resource extraction a.Blasting and drillingb.Surface excavationc.Sub-surface excavation and retortingd.Well drilling and fluid removale.Dredgingf.Clear cutting and other lumberingg.Commercial fishing and huntingD.Processinga.Farmingb.Ranching and grazingc.Feed lotsd.Dairyinge.Energy generationf.Mineral processingg.Metallurgical industryh.Chemical industryi.Textile industryj.Automobile and aircraftk.Oil refiningl.Foodm.Lumberingn.Pulp and papero.Product storageE.Land alterationa.Erosion control and terracingb.Mine sealing and waste controlc.Strip mining rehabilitationd.Landscapinge.Harbor dredgingf.Marsh fill and drainageF.Resource renewala.Reforestationb.Wildlife stocking andmanagementc.Ground-water recharged.Fertilization applicatione.Waste recycling28
Table3(continued)
T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Part 1:Project actionsG.Changes in traffica.Railwayb.Automobilec.Truckingd.Shippinge.Aircraft
f.River and canal trafficg.Pleasure boatingh.Trails
i.Cables and liftsj.Communicationk.PipelineH.Waste emplacement and treatmenta.Ocean dumpingb.Landfill
c.Emplacement oftailings,spoil
and overburden
d.Underground storagee.Junk disposalf.Oil-well flooding
g.Deep-well emplacement
h.i.j.k.l.m.
Cooling-water dischargeMunicipal waste dischargeIrrigation
Liquid effluent discharge
Stabilization and oxidation pondsSeptic tanks,commercial anddomestic
n.Stack and exhaust emissiono.Spent lubricants
I.Chemical treatmenta.Fertilization
b.Chemical deicing ofhighwaysc.Chemical stabilization ofsoild.Weed control
e.Insect control (pesticides)J.Accidents
a.Explosionsb.Spills and leaksc.Operational failure
Part 2:Environmental “characteristics”and “conditions”A.Physical and chemical characteristics1.Earth
a.Mineral resources
b.Construction materialsc.Soils
d.Landform
e.Force fields and background
radiation
f.Unique physica1 features2.Water
a.Surfaceb.Ocean
c.Undergroundd.Qua1itye.Temperature
f.Snow,ice,and permafrost
3.Atmosphere
a.Quality (gases,particulates)b.Climate (micro,macro)c.Temperature4.Processesa.Floodsb.Erosion
c.Deposition (sedimentation,
precipitation)d.Solution
e.Sorption (ion exchange,
complexing)
f.Compaction and settlingg.Stability (slides,s1umps)h.Stress-strain (earthquake)i.Recharge
j.Air movements
Environmental Impact AssessmentTable3(continued)
29
Part 2:Environmental “characteristics”and “conditions”B.Biological conditions1.Floraa.Treesb.Shrubsc.Grassd.Cropse.Microfloraf.Aquatic plants
g.Endangered speciesh.Barriersi.CorridorsC.Cultural factors
1.Land use
a.Wildeness and open spacesb.Wetlandsc.Forestryd.Grazinge.Agriculturef.Residentialg.Commercialh.Industrial
i.Mining and quarryingj.Presence ofmisfits2.Recreationa.Huntingb.Fishingc.Boatingd.Swimming
e.Camping and hikingf.Picnickingg.Resorts3.Aesthetics and Human Interesta.Scenic views and vistasb.Wilderness qualitiesD.Ecological relationships such as:a.Salinization ofwater
resources
b.Eutrophication
c.Disease-insect vectors
d.e.f.g.
Food chains
Salinization ofsurficial materialsBrush encroachmentOtherc.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.
Open space qualitiesLandscape design
Unique physical featuresParks and reservesMonuments
Rare and unique species or ecosystems
Historical/archaeological sites and objects
Presence ofmisfits
2.Faunaa.Birds
b.Land animals including reptilesc.Fish and shellfishd.Benthic organismse.Insectsf.Microfauna
g.Endangered speciesh.Barriersi.Corridors
4.Cultural Status
a.Cultural patterns (life style)b.Health and safetyc.Employment
d.Population density5.Man-made facilities and activitiesa.Structures
b.Transportation networkc.Utility networksd.Waste disposale.Barriersf.Corridors
30T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Table3 is comprehensive,but the environmental impact assessor will find thatmany ofthe cells will not be used in any individual case.Thecharacteristicsandconditionsin Table3 are a combination ofenvironmental effects and impacts.6.2.1.2
Identification
The Leopold Matrix is comprehensive in covering both the physical-biologicaland the socio-economic environments.The list of88 environmental charac-teristics is weak,however,from the point ofview ofstructural parallelism andbalance.
The Leopold Matrix is notselective,and includes no mechanism for fo-cusing attention on the most critical human concerns.Related to this is the factthat the matrix does not distinguish between immediate and long-term im-pacts,although separate matrices could be prepared for each time period ofinterest.
The principle ofamutually exclusivemethod is not preserved in the LeopoldMatrix,and there is substantial opportunity for double counting.This is a faultofthe Leopold Matrix in particular rather than ofmatrices in general.6.2.1.3Prediction
The method can accommodate both quantitative and qualitative data.It doesnot,however,provide a means for discriminating between them.In addition,the magnitudes ofthe predictions are not related explicitly to thewith-actionandwithout-actionfuture states.
Objectivity is not a strong feature ofthe Leopold Matrix.Each assessor isfree to develop his own ranking system on the numerical scale ranging from1 to 10.
The Leopold Matrix contains no provision for indicatinguncertaintyresult-ing from inadequate data or knowledge.All predictions are treated as ifcertainto occur.Similarly,there is no way ofindicating environmental variability,including the possibility ofextremesthat would present unacceptable hazardsifthey did occur,nor are the associated probabilities indicated.
The Leopold Matrix is not efficient in identifyinginteractions.However,because the results are summarized on a single diagram,interactions may beperceived by the reader in some cases.6.2.1.4
Interpretation
The Leopold Matrix employs weights to indicate relative importance ofeffectsand impacts.A weakness ofthe system is that it does not provide explicit criteria for assigning numerical values to these weights.
Environmental Impact Assessment31
Synthesis ofthe predictions into aggregate indices is not possible,becausethe results are summarized in an 8,800 (88¥100) cell matrix,with two entriesin each cell – one for magnitude and one for importance.Therefore,the decision-maker could be presented with as many as 17,600 items for each alternative pro-posal for action.6.2.1.5
Communication
By providing a visual display on a single diagram,the Leopold Matrix may often be effective in communicating results.However,the matrix does not in-dicate the main issues or the groups ofpeople most likely to be affected by theimpact.
6.2.1.6
Inspection Procedures
The matrix has no capability for making recommendations on inspection pro-cedures to be followed after completion ofthe action.
In summary,although the matrix approach has a number oflimitations,itmay often provide helpful initial guidance in designing further studies.In thisconnection,the assessor can modify the matrix to meet certain particularneeds.For initial screening ofalternatives,it is recommended that the numberofcells be reduced,and that a series ofmatrices be prepared:(a) one set forenvironmental effects and another for impact indicators;(b) one set for eachoftwo or three future times ofinterest;(c) one set for each oftwo or three al-ternatives.Particular cells could be flagged ifthe assessor felt that an extremecondition might occur,even though the probability was very low,and foot-notes could be used where appropriate.A set of8 or 12 such matrices mightbe a useful tool at the outset ofan assessment,or whenever the resourcesoftheassessor are limited.6.2.2Overlays6.2.2.1Description
The overlay approach to impact assessment on a series oftransparencies isused to identify,predict,assign relative significance to,and communicate im-pacts in a geographical reference frame larger in scale than a localized actionwould require [5–7,10].
The study area is subdivided into convenient geographical units,based on uniformly-spaced grid points,topographic features or differing land uses[84,85].Within each unit,the assessor collects information on environmental
32T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
factors and human concerns,through aerial photography,topological and government land inventory maps,field observations,public meetings,discus-sions with local science specialists and cultural groups,or by random samplingtechniques.The concerns are assembled into a set offactors,each having acommon basis.Regional maps (transparencies) are drawn for each factor,thenumber ofmaps having a practical limitation ofabout 10.By a series ofover-lays,the land-use suitability,action compatibility,and engineering feasibilityare evaluated visually,in order that the best combination may be identified.The overlay approach can accommodate both qualitative and quantitativedata.There are,however,limits to the number ofdifferent types ofdata thatcan be comprehended in one display.A computerized version has greaterflexibility.Although in this case the individual cartographic displays may betoo complex to follow in sequence,the final maps are readily prepared andunderstood.6.2.2.2
Identification
The approach is only moderatelycomprehensivebecause there is no mecha-nism that requires consideration ofall potential impacts.When using overlays,the burden ofensuring comprehensiveness is largely on the analyst.
The approach isselectivebecause there is a limit to the number oftrans-parencies that can be viewed together.
The Overlays approach may bemutually exclusiveprovided that checklistsofconcerns,effects,and impacts are prepared at the outset and a simplified matrix-type analysis is undertaken.6.2.2.3Prediction
Because predictions are made for each unit area,the overlay method is strongin predicting spatial patterns,although weak in estimating magnitudes:arather elaborate set ofrules is often required to reveal differences in severity ofimpacts from place to place.
In some regions,the assessor may be able to find cartographic charts offuture environmental states,which have been prepared recently for some otherpurpose.Thewith-actionandwithout-actionconditions can then be readilycompared.
Theobjectivityofthe overlay method is high with respect to the spatial po-sitioning ofeffects and impacts,but is otherwise low.Overlays are not effectivein estimating or displayinguncertaintyandinteractions.
Extreme impactswith small probabilities ofoccurrence are not considered.A skilled assessor may indicate in a footnote or on a supplementary map,however,those areas near proposed corridors where there is a possibility oflandslides,floods or other unacceptable risks.
Environmental Impact Assessment33
6.2.2.4
Interpretation
Two methods [6–10] are used to obtain aggregate impacts from overlays:(a)conventional weighting,the weights being a measure ofrelative impor-tance;(b)threshold technique,in which a unit square is excluded from furtherconsideration whenever a designated number ofimpacts are forecast to occur,or whenever an individual impact is unacceptably high.A weighted average tends to give too little emphasis to impacts that are extreme for only a few people;the decision-maker may wish to be alerted to these extremes,and may wish to receive recommendations for remedial actions.
Overlays are strong in synthesis and in indicating trade-offs whenever spa-tial relationships are important.Although the analysis is limited to the totalarea represented by the transparencies,several levels ofdetail may be examinedby preparing:(a) a set ofoverlays for a geographical scale much larger than thearea covered by the action,and in only modest detail;or (b) a set ofoverlays forpart ofthe region on an expanded scale,and in much greater detail than theother set.6.2.2.5
Communication
The overlay approach can be used to communicate clearly where the types andnumbers ofaffected parties are to be found.Other advantages include:(a) thepossibility ofdisplaying magnitudes by color,coding or shading;and (b) theease with which the system can be programmed on a computer to provide composite charts that can be readily understood.6.2.2.6
Inspection Procedures
The overlay method provides guidance on the spatial design ofinspection procedures to be followed.
In summary,the overlay system cannot be considered ideal,but despite its limitations it is useful for illuminating complex spatial relations.It is rec-ommended for large regional developments and corridor selection problems,provided that the assessor views his analysis with at least a modest degree ofskepticism.
34T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
6.2.3
The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System6.2.3.1Description
The environmental evaluation system [7,10] was designed by the BattelleColumbus Laboratories in the United States to assess impacts ofwater-resourcedevelopments,water-quality management plans,highways,nuclear powerplants,and other projects.
The Battelle environmental evaluation system for water resources is describedin Table4.The human concerns are separated into four main categories:(a) ecol-ogy;(b) physical/chemical;(c) aesthetics;and (d) human interest/social.Eachcategory contains a number ofcomponents that have been selected specificallyfor use in all U.S.Bureau ofReclamation water-resource development projects.6.2.3.2
Identification
The approach iscomprehensiveand at the same timeselective.The assessor mayselect an appropriate level ofdetail.The system is notmutually exclusivein thestrict sense ofthe phrase.Impacts are not counted twice;nevertheless,the sameimpact may sometimes appear in different parts ofthe system.For example,thewater-quality problems caused by high concentrations ofsuspended particu-late matter are contained in the physical/chemistry category (turbidity),whilethe associated aesthetic problems are to be found in the aesthetic category (ap-pearance ofwater).6.2.3.3Prediction
The method providesprediction ofmagnitudeson normalized scales,from whichdifferences between the states with and without action can readily be determined.Theobjectivityis high in terms ofcomparisons between alternatives and between projects.The value-function curves have been standardized,and therationale for the shapes ofthese curves is public knowledge.
The system contains no effective mechanism for estimating or displayinginteractions.However,the assessor is alerted to the possibility ofuncertaintyand ofextremesby red flags.6.2.3.4
Interpretation
The numerical weighting scheme is explicit,permitting calculation ofa projectimpact for each alternative.Although any type ofweighting scheme is contro-
Environmental Impact Assessment35
Table4The Battelle environmental classification for water-resource development projects(the numbers in parentheses are relative weights)
Ecology
Terrestrial species and populationsBrowsers and grazers (14)Crops (14)Natural vegetation (14)Pest species (14)Upland game birds (14)Aquatic species and populationsCommercia1 fisheries (14)Natural vegetation (14)Pest species (14)Sport fish (14)Water fowl (14)Terrestrial habitats and communitiesFood web index (12)Land use (12)Rare and endangered species (12)Species diversity (14)Aquatic habitats and communitiesFood web index (12)Rare and endangered species (12)River characteristics (12)Species diversity (14)Physical/chemical
Water qualityBasin hydrologic loss (20)Biochemical oxygen demand (25)Dissolved oxygen (31)Fecal coliforms (18)Inorganic carbon (22)Inorganic nitrogen (25)Inorganic phosphate (28)Pesticides (16)pH (18)Stream flow variation (28)Temperature (28)Total dissolved solids (25)Toxic substances (14)Turbidity (20)Air qualityCarbon monoxide (5)Hydrocarbons (5)Nitrogen oxides (10)Particulate matter (12)Photochemical oxidants (5)Sulfur oxides (10)Other (5)Land pollution Land use (14)Soil erosion (14)Noise pollutionNoise (4)Aesthetics
Land
Geologic surface material (6)
Reliefand topographic character (16)Width and alignment (10)Air
Odor and visual (3)Sounds (2)
Water
Appearance ofwater (10)Land and water interface (16)
Human interest/socialEducation/ScientificArcheological (13)Ecological (13)Geological (11)Hydrological (11)Historical
Architecture and styles (11)Events (11)Persons (11)
Religions and cultures (11)Western Frontier (11)
36
Table4(continued)
T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Aesthetics
Water
Odor and floating material (6)Water surface area (10)
Wooded and geologic shoreline (10)Biota
Animals:domestic (5)Animals:wild (5)
Diversity ofvegetation types (9)Variety within vegetation types (5)Man-made objects
Man-made objects (10)Composition
Composite effect (15)Unique composition (15)
Human interest/socialCultures
Indians (14)
Other ethnic groups (7)Religious groups (7)Mood/Atmosphere
Awe/inspiration (11)Isolation/solitude (11)Mystery (4)
“Oneness”with nature (11)Life patterns
Employment opportunities (13)Housing (13)
Social interactions (11)
versial,this one has been developed from systematic studies and its rationaleis documented.The designers ofthe system believe strongly that the weightsshould not be allowed to vary within project alternatives.
The Battelle system ofdetermining weights is a useful example to discuss[10,18].The human concerns are divided into a fewcategories,each ofwhichhascomponents,for which there are separate sets ofimpact indicators.For ex-ample,pollution is a category,water pollution is a component,and pH is one ofa set ofimpact indicators.The system for selecting weights contains nine steps,as follows:
Step 1:Select a group ofindividuals and explain to them in detail the weight-ing concept and the use oftheir rankings and weights.
Step 2:List the categories,components,and impact indicators,and ask each
individual independently to rank each member ofeach set in decreas-ing order ofimportance.
Step 3:Each individual assigns a value of1 to the first category on his list,and
then decides how much the second is worth compared to the first,ex-pressing his estimate as a decimal between 0 and 1.
Step 4:Each individual makes similar comparisons for all consecutive pairs of
categories.
Step 5:Steps 3 and 4 are repeated for all ofthe sets ofcomponents and impact
indicators.
Step 6:Averages are computed over all individuals for all categories,compo-nents,and indicators,the weights being adjusted in the cases ofcom-
Environmental Impact Assessment37
ponents and indicators to take account ofthe weights obtained for thelarger groupings.
Step 7:The group results are revealed to the individuals.
Step 8:The experiment is repeated with the same group ofindividuals.
Step 9:The experiment is repeated with a different group ofindividuals to
check for reproducibility.6.2.3.5
Communication
The approach does not link impacts toaffected partiesor todominant issues.However,the system is effective in itssummary format,which is usually a tablelisting individual and aggregate impacts as well as flagging impacts in need offuture study.The summary format is designed for the specialist and may some-times require explanation.6.2.3.6
Inspection Procedures
The approach provides modest guidance on the development offuture in-spection procedures.Particularly for value functions that are related to nationalstandards or criteria,the system indicates the parameters that will requiremonitoring.
In summary,the Battelle methodology,although not ideal,has much to recommend it wherever the assessor has sufficient resources.6.2.4
Critical Evaluation
Table5 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses ofthe three general ap-proaches presented in this chapter.The environmental impact assessor mayhave difficulty in choosing from amongst the range ofapproaches and ofmeth-ods.The choice that wins depends upon the nature ofthe action and upon theavailable resources.Indeed,the assessor may sometimes intend to use morethan one approach,either:(a)consecutivelyat different stages and levels ofde-tail ofthe assessment;or (b)concurrentlyat a single stage.In the latter case,theassessor may wish to test whether two approaches yield the same results.6.3
The Problem of Uncertainty
An EIA contains four kinds ofuncertainty,due to the:(a) natural variability ofthe environment;(b) inadequate understanding ofthe behavior ofthe en-vironment;(c) inadequate data for the region or country being assessed;and (d) socio-economic uncertainties.
38T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Table5Comparison between the Leopold Matrix,Overlays and Battelle environmental evaluation approachesLeopoldCapabilityIdentificationPredictionInterpretationCommunicationInspection proceduresAction complexitycapabilityRisk assessment capabilityCapability offlagging extremesReplicability ofresultsLevel ofdetailScreening ofalternativesDetailed assessmentDocumentation stageMoneyResource requirementsTimeSkilled manpowerComputationalKnowledgeLowMediumLowMediumIncrementalYesYesLowMediumLowLowLowLowOverlaysBattelleMediumLowLow-mediumHighMediumHighHighHighLow-mediumLow-mediumIncrementalalternativesNilMediumHighIncremental Fundamental alternativesand incremental alternativesNilLowLowNilLowLow-mediumFundamental and incrementalYesYesMaps low;computer highIncrementalYesYesHighMaps low;computer highHighMaps low;computer highMediumHighHighMediumMediumMethods are available for predicting the first kind ofuncertainty [86–87].Frequency distributions ofthe numerical values ofphysical and biological elements can be estimated in many cases,and can be used to predict the prob-abilities ofrare events.Although prediction ofthe exact date ofoccurrence ofa rare environmental event is not possible,the environmental engineer can design a structure so that its risk offailure is smaller than any value specifiedin national environmental codes or standards.
Environmental Impact Assessment39
The second and third types ofuncertainty are more difficult to manage.Thedegree ofknowledge and data varies from discipline to discipline,and this leadsto mismatches,not only in the confidence to be placed in a prediction but alsoin the philosophies advocated by members ofthe assessment team.
The fourth kind ofuncertainty,socio-economic,is the most difficult toquantify.Externalities such as wars,and changes in international trade rela-tions are impossible to predict.But even when national and international con-ditions remain relatively stable,the construction ofa highway may sometimesproduce unexpected adjustments by the local population [41–42].For example,there is always uncertainty in predicting the ways in which a community willrespond after a highway has been constructed:in terms ofemployment,hous-ing,recreational,and other kinds ofpatterns.Furthermore,the strong feedbackloops between socio-economic and biophysical impacts can result in corre-sponding uncertainty in the long-term biophysical impacts.
It should be noted that uncertainty increases as a prediction is made fortimes further and further into the future.In some cases,predictions oflongterm consequences may be so uncertain that the decision-maker has no optionbut to make a decision on the basis ofthe expected short-term impacts.Ac-cordingly,an EIA should be considered as aninvestigation into,rather than adetermination ofimpacts.At present,an EIA is one ofseveral considerationsleading to a decision to implement a proposed action.Once the decision hasbeen taken,the EIA is generally filed,and the assessment team is disbanded.Amodest monitoring program may be established by the proponent or by a des-ignated government agency.
7
Conceptual Framework
Generally,a conceptual framework needs to be formulated before the EIAmethods are applied [1–3,10,92–94].Ifthe environmental impact assessor sim-ply follows existing,pre-packaged methods,the results will fall short oftheirpotential.An outline for such a framework is presented in this section.This begins by defining a simulation model,describing its essential characteristics,and identifying the criteria that will establish the need for such a model in anEIA.Then,assuming that the use ofa simulation is appropriate,the sectionsgive advice on how to start,and on what the decision-maker will need to do.After a briefdescription ofa simple policy analysis that will determine whetheror not it is worth continuing with the development ofthe simulation,theprocesses ofmodel and validation are outlined so that the administrator willknow what the technical experts concerned with these stages are doing.The useofsimulations in complex policy analysis and possible ways that the resultsfrom the analysis can be presented are then described [95–96].Finally,a verybriefdescription is given ofpossible developments in simulation techniquesrelevant to EIAs.
40T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
7.1
Model Classes
The models used in EIAs are simplified representations ofreality.Models canbe sub-divided into three main classes:
–A scaled-down copy ofa physical object (for instance,a ship).
–A mathematical representation ofa physical or biological process (such asthe spread ofpollution from a chimney,or the movement ofa weather dis-turbance across a region).
–An exploratory representation ofcomplex relationships amongst physical,biological,and socio-economic factors or indicators (quantitative or quali-tative).Section7 ofthis chapter is mainly about the third class ofmodel,often calledasimulationor ascenario.In its simplest form,this kind ofrepresentation is extremely useful in the first stages ofan EIA,helping to synthesize the widelydiverse information reaching the environmental impact assessor through manyspecialists.As the simulation model becomes more and more complex,it becomes less and less relevant to the EIA process.In fact,the tendency towardscomplexity,leading to the construction ofmathematical extravaganzas,hasgiven the modeler a poor public image in some cases.7.2
Simulation Model
The essential feature ofan EIA is the provision ofchoice between a range ofalternatives.Any choice will affect several heterogeneouselements:physical,ecological,and sociological [2,10].Further,these elements are usually inter-related in complicated ways and there is a mass ofinformation.This mass maybe small;it may have obvious and not so obvious gaps in it.7.2.1
Complexity
The interconnected nature ofthe elements in the environment poses specialproblems for impact assessment,because the linkages between these elementsare often far from simple.Ifthere are two related elements,representing anactionand animpact,the simplest assumption to make is that when an alter-ation to one element slightly occurs,the other element will change slightly andproportionately (Fig.5a).The technical term for such relationships islinear.Very often in natural or social systems,however,the assumption oflinear relationships is false.Anactionmay produce animpact,but increasing the action may not significantly increase the impact (Fig.5b).Alternatively,a grad-ually increasing action may produce negligible change until a point is reachedat which dramatic alterations in impact occur (Fig.5c).Both ofthese relation-
Environmental Impact Assessment41
abc
Typical forms ofrelationships between action and impact:alinear;bnon-linear;
and ccomplex non-linear
ships are technically described asnon-linear.In the former,the probable impact ofincreased action may be over-estimated by assuming linearity;in thelatter,a potential catastrophe may not be foreseen.Further,these responses maybe displaced by the system and appear as impacts at points structurally or geographically distant from the action.7.2.2
Time-Dependent Relations
The natural world is not static.Flows ofenergy and matter,and changes inthese flows,are not only usual but also sometimes necessary for the mainte-nance ofviable ecosystems [97].Conditions that appear to be static may beslowly changing or may represent only a temporary equilibrium condition be-tween several processes acting in opposite ways.Because man’s actions alterthese relations,analysis ofthe time-dependent processes may be necessary topredict the future.Ofparticular importance is the need to search for possiblefeedback mechanisms amongst the various environmental,sociological,andeconomic processes [2,10,98].
Sometimes not only the scale ofthe changes to be imposed by a developmentproject,but also the rate at which these changes will be introduced affects thefinal equilibrium state ofthe system.In some cases,the impact might be less ifthe rate ofdevelopment is slowed down.
In other cases,changes may be set in motion leading to impacts that are per-ceptible only a long time after the project has been completed.If,for each ofthelinks,the relationships which affect the changes can be defined,including de-lays and time-lags,then the overall changes can be estimated.In mathematicalterms,the analysis would then be dynamic (time-dependent) and not static.7.2.3
Explicit Relations
One apparent disadvantage ofa model is that every element and every link mustbe defined explicitly.It is not enough to say,for example,that the water quality42T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
ofa lake will deteriorate.It is necessary to characterize the types ofpollutantscausing the change,determine their concentrations,measure various water qual-ity parameters,estimate the size ofthe present contamination,and then the rateofdeterioration [99–101].In fact,this apparent disadvantage is actually a majoradvantage.The nature ofthe model process forces hidden assumptions into theopen that may have little real basis.It reveals areas where information seems inadequate,and,especially,it makes the participants in the assessment,who mayhave very different backgrounds,aware ofeach other’s problems.7.2.4
Uncertainty and Gaps
When the elements and links in a model have been defined,it is likely that veryfew will have the exactness ofsimple elements.Many will have wide limits totheir probable values,either through a lack ofknowledge or because they do really vary in space and time [102–106].Ifthe average value ofeach element isused as a basis for the simulation,then the model will produce only a single,apparently exact,result ofthe consequences ofan environmental change.It is also essential that inadequacies in the data or in the assumptions are notconveniently lost within the computer simulation.Facts and values must not be-come confused.Because answers are usually required quickly,it is no help to starta long-term research program.In contrast to scientific research,experimentaltests ofthe model are not normally possible in environmental impact studies.7.3
Delimitation and Strategic Evaluation of the Problem
From the previous sections,it is clear that the problems ofEIA are interdisci-plinary.However,the strategy will start by imposing some specific limits to thereal universe surrounding the problem.In order to reduce the problem to a man-ageable size,the following points should be taken into consideration [102–113]:–Classes ofoutput needed to make decisions:From the whole host ofvariablesinvolved in the problem,only a fraction ofthem will be relevant to the finaldecision.
–The geographical limits to the problems:Although human technology hasproved to be capable ofproducing effects at the global scale,geographicallimits should be placed on the size ofthe problem,with only a few exceptions.This is an arbitrary limitation that usually reflects the interests involved,andhelps to indicate the desired strategy.By restricting the problem to too smallan area,important factors may be ignored.By trying to take in everything,theproblem may become unmanageable.The preliminary analysis may indicate,however,that certain aspects can be omitted.
–The time horizons ofthe impact:The assessment ofa given environmental im-pact has to be performed in relation to a given period oftime.There is no
Environmental Impact Assessment43
simple way to define this dimension,and the decision will depend on many specific factors surrounding a given problem.Frequently,the events involved in environmental impacts are characterized by non-linear processes,or by lags between cause and effect,so that consequences that are negligibleduring one period oftime may become important ifthat period is extended.–The sub-systems affected by the model:The previous sections have describedsome ofthe problems ofsetting boundaries oftime and space for the model.The result,in technical terms,will be a listing ofelements and ofthe links be-tween them,either as a table or a flowchart.The number ofelements may berelatively small or very large.The links may also be large in number,althougheach link is ofa relatively simple kind,or there may be complex interactionsat many points.The next stage in the delimitation ofthe problem is to see ifthismass ofelements and links needs to be,or can be,considered as a group ofsub-systems.This decomposition into sub-systems is useful,not only for the strate-gic analysis ofthe problem,but also for the management ofthe assessment.For any major development,there is always a set ofpossible alternatives [111].The initial generation ofthese alternatives is a crucial step,because it providesthe reference frame that will largely determine the kind ofinformation needed,as well as the type and usefulness ofthe model to be constructed,and the universe ofmore detailed alternative options needed to be assessed.
The initial generation ofalternatives may be greatly helped by some rules forproviding a systematic reference frame.While it would be impossible to presenta complete list ofalternatives for many projects,a few guidelines may be ofassistance.Usually,the most obvious proposal for a development in a particu-lar region is the one that is expected to produce the maximum benefit.How-ever,it is important to look for alternatives that will imply a minimal cost ifthings do go wrong.In addition,one may look for alternatives with a high prob-ability ofbeing successful (i.e.,low probability offailure),even ifthe potentialbenefits are not very high.7.4Duties
After constructing a strategic boundary and evaluating the problem,the firstand obvious essential is to gather together all the available information and toidentify the people who can contribute to the model (including system analystsand computer programs),as follows:7.4.1
Initial Variable Identification and Organization
Having carefully identified the problem within the strategic framework devel-oped above,and listed the essential variables,the following steps are necessary[45,103,112]:
44T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
–Organize the variables into separate classes identified according to somecommon properties.
–Specify hypotheses concerning the interactions between classes ofvariables,and illustrate these graphically.Some thought should be given to the formofthe independent and dependent variables in order to facilitate interfacingwith the rest ofthe model.
–Identify,for each interaction,all reasonable alternative hypotheses and makerough estimates ofmaxima,minima,and thresholds.Retain these subse-quent tests ofthe sensitivity ofthe simulation model to various alternativesand extremes.7.4.2
Assigning Degrees of Precision
When a problem can be divided into subsystems,it is important to have ap-proximately the same degree ofprecision in each subsystem.The best way todo this is to make an initial estimate ofthe required or possible precision foreach subsystem,identifying inputs,model detail,and outputs [105,110–113].The choice ofthe appropriate level ofprecision should be a joint effort by youand your staff,and should be based on the kind ofquestions you want an-swered,the time available for the study,and the quality ofthe data.7.4.3
Construction of a Flow Diagram
A wide choice ofconventions is available for drawing flow diagrams,based oncontrol system theory,cybernetics,and information theory.The best conven-tions seem to be the simplest,in which one symbol designates an input or output,another an intervention,and a third a process.The same symbols areused throughout both the model and its constituent submodels.7.4.4
Interaction Table
Ifseparate subsystems are independently analyzed,one ofthe most difficulttasks is to ensure effective interfacing between sub-models.The device thatseems to work best is an interaction matrix,which identifies the inputs eachsub-system expects to receive from others.
Not only can the interaction table be prepared rather quickly but also it provides an immense amount ofqualitative information which itselfcouldform the basis for a preliminary assessment.Alternatively,ifthe resources,time,and information are not available for an extensive assessment and evaluation,the same table could be the basis for a formal evaluation.
Environmental Impact Assessment45
7.5
Simple Policy Analysis
Three sets ofinformation are necessary for the first step in the simple policyanalysis,as follows [10,105–111]:7.5.1
Developing Impact Indicators
The strategic evaluation should have identified the major impact classes in re-lation to the original goal ofthe project.Because these classes are broad andgeneral,they must be disaggregated into variables that are measurable and rel-evant.Having developed a list ofindicator variables,it is then often necessaryto express them in the most relevant forms.7.5.2
Developing Policy and Management Actions
In any one development,there are several internal options for action during theconstruction and post-construction phases.Some relate directly to the projectitself,while others are indirect actions.This process is identical to the effortmade to decompose the environmental system into the system variables,andit is identical to the effort performed to decompose project goals into impactindicators.
7.5.3
Putting the Pieces Together
There are three elements necessary to develop the first rough assessment:thesystem variable interaction table,the list ofimpact indicators,and the list ofpolicy actions.The goal is to develop a table ofactionsvs.impacts.This tableis BoxIV in Fig.6.The interaction table ofthe system variables acting on oneanother (in BoxI in Fig.6) allows you to do this.In the complete analysis youwill use the model that you are creating,but in the meantime the interactiontable in Fig.6 will provide a preliminary policy assessment and an indicationofadaptations needed in the assessment activity.
Briefly,two intermediate tables are developed.The first is designed to showhow each action is likely to affect each system variable (BoxII,Fig.6).The sec-ond shows how each system variable is related to each impact variable (BoxIII,Fig.6).The action vs.impact table (BoxIV,Fig.6) is formed by linking BoxesIIand III through BoxI,as indicated in Fig.6.With tables ofthis kind for each ofthe alternative plans,it should then be feasible to reject the most extreme pro-posals,leaving a smaller set for later discussion and decision.
46T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
Relationships between tables ofsystem,action,and impact variables
7.6
Model Process
Now that the problem has been defined in terms ofits boundaries,its sub-sys-tems,its possible variables and their couplings,the modeling process can beginassuming that the decision to proceed beyond the stage ofthe simple policyanalysis has been reached [10,16,111–113].It is at this point that the expertiseofthe applied mathematician becomes paramount,and some understanding ofthe role is necessary to retain the necessary control ofthe impact assessmentprocess.
The mathematician will first choose the kind ofmodel to be used,who willbe guided by the size ofthe problem,the nature ofthe various classes ofvari-ables,and by the degrees ofuncertainty present in the relationships betweenthem.The different models that a mathematician could use will lie between thefollowing classes ofmodels:7.6.1
Deterministic versus Probabilistic
In the former,all ofthe relationships are constructed as ifthey were governedby fixed natural laws – the uncertainties and random fluctuations are not builtinto the model.In the latter,some or all ofthe relationships that are defined bystatistical probabilities are included explicitly in the model,whose output then
Environmental Impact Assessment47
directly represents the consequences ofthose probabilities.This is sometimescalled theMonte Carloapproach.7.6.2
Linear versus Non-Linear
Although it may be convenient to assume that relationships between variablesare linear,most practical problems require the more complex assumption ofnon-linearity.
7.6.3
Steady-State versus Time-Dependent
Steady-state models compute a fixed final condition based on a fixed pre-actioncondition,whereas time-dependent models incorporate the way actions affectprocesses that may eventually produce impacts.7.6.4
Predictive versus Decision-Making
Predictive models enable the consequences ofparticular decisions to be ex-plored,while decision-making models indicate which ofthe decisions is “best”in some defined way.When a computer is used in conjunction with a mathe-matical model,the computer program must be unambiguous.The resultingalgorithmmust define the model in sufficient detail for its essential features tobe communicated to other experts.After testing the algorithm to ensure thatall ofthe component parts operate correctly,the next step is to validate it withrespect to the real world system being studied,searching for possible incon-sistencies or unrealistic results.By modifying the model at this point and sub-jecting the resulting version to further analysis,the process ofimproving themodel within the limitations ofthe time and resource constraints ofthe impactassessment process should continue.
In this connection,asensitivity analysisshould be employed.Second,themathematician searches for the maximum simplification ofthe model that isconsistent with its value in a predictive or decision-making process.Frequently,it is possible to show that parts ofthe model that have been developed to satisfy theoretically important considerations have relatively little effect on thefinal outcome ofthe modeling process.In such cases,simplification ofthemodel is both desirable and readily achievable.7.7
Simulation Validation
Repetitions ofanalysis and refinement can,in theory,continue indefinitely,butin an EIA they will usually be brought to a halt by the need to provide results
48T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
quickly.Indeed,there may be too little time to develop the model to the degreethat would be desirable in a research investigation.At some earlier stage,an attempt at validation will therefore be necessary.
Validation (i.e.,the matching ofthe model with reality) in EIAs is not easy.Sometimes,the only apparent validation that can be achieved is the matchingoffuture performance ofthe environmental system with the expectation fromthe model – a test which hardly meets the criteria ofgood science.Nor does it contribute to the decision-making process that seeks the assessment.Never-theless,some confirmation ofthe appropriateness ofthe model can be ob-tained,as follows:
–First,the analysis necessary for the refinement ofthe model will give someconfidence that the behavior ofthe modeled system is consistent with ourexpectations.Where it has been possible to divide the total system into sub-systems,the behavior ofthese sub-systems,singly and in aggregate,will havereinforced the knowledge ofthe dynamics ofthe system.Ifthe behavior ofan aggregated system runs counter to the intuitive expectations,there willbe a need to reconsider the basis ofcommon sense expectation.In this way,confidence in the value ofthe model will have been increased.
–Second,experimentation with model systems may indicate critical experi-ments that would enable a valid test ofthe model to be carried out as a directappeal to nature,consistent with the logic ofthe scientific method.Such a testmay seem relatively unlikely in EIAs,where the time-scale for the assessmentis limited.But the model may indicate a specific,focused experiment that cancontribute significantly to the validation;alternatively,existing experimen-tal evidence that had not yet been considered may be suggested for testing thepredictions ofthe model system.
–Third,where it has been possible to undertake surveys to obtain the neces-sary data for the construction and parameterization ofmathematical mod-els,it may be desirable to hold back a certain proportion ofthe data so thatthey may be used in an independent test ofthe hypothetical model derivedfrom the main data set.In this way,the inconsistency offormulating andtesting a hypothesis on the same set ofdata can be avoided.In summary,whatever method is used in an attempt to validate the model sys-tem,one ofthe paramount advantages ofmathematical models dominates theargument at this point.In contrast to all other forms ofreasoning,the math-ematical model is explicit in its statement ofthe relationships between thevariables and ofthe assumptions underlying the model.7.8
Complex Policy Analysis of Simulation Output
Once a model has been satisfactorily validated,the next step is to select fromamongst the set ofpossible alternative policies or actions that have been gen-erated [10,109–112].For example,in the case ofbeing confronted with a set
Environmental Impact Assessment
Table6Hypothetical example ofcomplex policy analysis49
Probability ofFailureABCDEF0.20.80.50.10.10.1Success0.80.20.50.90.90.9Consequences ofFailure–80–40–15–90–20–500Success1010010503080Probable loss–16–32–7.5–9–2–50Probable benefit8205452772Most likely net benefit–8–12–2.5+36+25+22(such as A,B,C,D,E,F) ofalternative policies or actions,generated by somekind ofmodel,for each ofthe alternatives it is feasible to estimate the proba-bility ofbeingrightorwrongon some objective basis.That is,according to theuncertainties involved in the construction ofthe model and the likelihood ofa critical hypothesis being wrong,the degree ofconfidence to be placed on thesuccessorfailureofthe policy might be allocated or be given.
Given this information,there are different ways ofchoosing,which can bebest illustrated by a hypothetical example.Suppose there are six alternativepolicies or actions,their associated probabilities,and the relative weights to beapplied to the consequences ofbeingrightorwrong,as seen in Table6.
From these two sets ofvalues (Table6),it is possible to estimate in relativeterms for each alternative:
–The probable loss (the probability offailing multiplied by cost offailing).–The probable benefit (the probability ofsucceeding multiplied by the ben-efit ofsucceeding).
–The most likely net benefit (the probable benefit minus the probable loss).This table may be used to make thebestchoice from amongst the six alterna-tives,using several different criteria for defining the wordbest,as follows:–The first criterion is trivial,and consists ofchoosing the alternative that hasthe greatest probability ofsuccess (lowest offailure) without considering thesize ofbenefits or costs associated with success or failure.Using this crite-rion,either alternatives D,E,or F would be chosen.
–The second criterion consists ofchoosing the alternative that provides thehighest gain ifsuccessful (alternative B,with a possible benefit taken as 100in the example).This criterion has been widely used,either explicitly or im-plicitly,sometimes with disastrous consequences.No account is taken oftheconsequences ofthe action being wrong,or ofthe probability ofthe actionbeing right.
–The third criterion is to choose the alternative that produces the lowest costin case offailure,which is in a sense the safest choice.Using this criterion,
50T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
alternative C (with a loss of15 ifthe alternative is wrong) would be selected.–The fourth criterion is to use the alternative that provides the highest prob-able gain (to select the alternative which takes into account both the mag-nitude ofthe possible benefit and the probability ofsucceeding).In this case,alternative F (probable gain of72) is chosen.
–The fifth criterion is to pick alternative E,which has the lowest probable loss(–2).
–Finally,the sixth criterion is to select the alternative with the highest valueofthe most likely net benefit,which takes into account both the probablebenefit and the probable loss;in the case under consideration,this is alter-native D (+36).Alternative A is not chosen using any ofthe above criteria.The above simple example is intended to make the following points:–There are many different criteria for choosing alternatives (in other wordsthere are many ways ofdeciding what the wordsbestorworstmean in agiven context).
–Some evaluation ofthe likelihood offailure or success and ofthe respectivelosses and benefits is necessary for the alternatives to be evaluated.
–The six different selection criteria defined above can be grouped into twoclasses,according to whether the aim is to maximize the gain or to minimizethe loss (ambitious versus cautious strategies).The ignorance about the be-havior ofcomplex environmental systems is so vast that it is often foolish toadopt anything but a cautious view ofthe outcome.7.9
Model Presentation
To overcome the difficulties presented in Section7.8,the:
–Environmental impact assessor should produce information that fits the in-terpretative capabilities ofanalysts (see Fig.7).Practically,the final infor-mation is inappropriate ifit exists in one form only (such as tables).
–Assessor should be able to explain the algorithms (to state clearly the waysin which raw data have been converted to finished information within thecomputer).Figure7 shows the relationships between different “Levels ofDecision-Mak-ing”,the forms ofdisplaying information in the “Information Package”,and thecomparative “Depth ofExplanation”versus “Ease ofInterpretation”ofeachForm.
With a common set ofdata,a computer system can simultaneously producea wide variety ofspecialized displays (e.g.,flowcharts,tables,matrices,graphs,maps).With such a graduated series ofdisplays,which trade offdepth ofex-planation for simplification,almost any decision-maker can locate a displayform which suits his interpretative abilities and through which an understand-ing and beliefcan be built in more or less complex forms ofassessment (Fig.7).
Environmental Impact Assessment51
Fig.7Model presentation
8
Conclusions
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an activity designed to identifyand predict the impact ofan action on the biogeophysical environment and onman’s health and well-being,and to interpret and communicate informationabout the impacts.An action is used in this chapter in the sense ofany engi-neering project,legislative proposal,policy,program or operational procedurewith environmental implications.
EIAs should be an integral part ofall planning for major actions,and shouldbe carried out at the same time as engineering,economic,and socio-politicalassessments.In order to provide guidelines for EIA,national goals and policiesshould be established which take environmental considerations into account;these goals and policies should be widely promulgated.
An EIA should contain the following:(a) a description ofthe proposed actionand ofalternatives;(b) a prediction ofthe nature and magnitude ofenviron-mental effects;(c) an identification ofhuman concerns;(d) a listing ofimpactindicators as well as the methods used to determine their scales ofmagnitudeand relative weights;(e) a prediction ofthe magnitudes ofthe impact indicatorsand ofthe total impact,for the project and for alternatives;(f) recommendationsfor acceptance,remedial action,acceptance ofone or more ofthe alternatives,or rejection;and finally (g) recommendation for inspection procedures.
EIAs should include studies ofall relevant physical,biological,economic,and social factors.At a very early stage in the EIA process,inventories shouldbe prepared ofrelevant sources ofdata and oftechnical expertise.EIAs shouldinclude studies ofalternatives (including that ofno action),and both mid-termand long-term predictions ofimpacts.
Environmental impacts should be assessed as the difference between the fu-ture state ofthe environment ifthe action took place and the state ifno action
52T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
occurred.Estimates ofboth themagnitudeand theimportanceofenvironmen-tal impacts should be obtained.Methodologies for impact assessment should beselected which are appropriate to the nature ofthe action,the database,and thegeographic setting.Approaches that are too complicated or too simple shouldboth be avoided.The affected parties should be clearly identified,together withthe major impacts for each party.
Future EIA research should be encouraged in the following areas:
–Post-audit reviews ofEIAs for accuracy and completeness in order thatknowledge ofassessment methods may be improved.–Study ofcriteria for environmental quality.
–Study ofquantifying value judgements on the relative worth ofvarious com-ponents ofenvironmental quality.
–Continual development ofmodeling techniques for impact assessments,withspecial emphasis on combined physical,biological,socio-economic systems.–Study ofsociological effects and impacts.
–Continual study and development ofmethods for communicating the resultsofhighly technical assessments to the non-specialist.
References
1.Kassim TA (1998) Characterization,chemodynamics and environmental impact assess-ment oforganic leachates from complex mixtures.PhD Dissertation,College ofEngineering,Department ofCivil,Construction and Environmental Engineering,Oregon State University,Corvallis,Oregon,USA
2.Kassim TA,Simoneit BRT (2001) Pollutant-solid phase interactions:Mechanisms,chemistry and modeling.The Handbook ofEnvironmental Chemistry (Water Pollu-tion Series),vol5/PartE.Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York,p4353.Kassim TA,Williamson KJ (2003) J Environ Informatics 1:58–75
4.Canter LW (1977) Environmental impact assessment.McGraw-Hill,New York,p3315.Canter,LW (1978) Environmental impact statements on municipal wastewater pro-grams.Information Resources,Washington,DC,p325
6.Canter LW,Hill LG (1979) Handbook ofvariables for environmental impact assessment.Ann Arbor Science,Ann Arbor,MI,p452
7.Gilpin A (1995) Environmental impact assessment:Cutting edge for the twenty-firstcentury.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UK,p214
8.Guinée J,Heijungs R,van Oers L,van de Ment D,Vermeire T,Rikken M (1996) Impactassessment oftoxic teleases;generic modeling offate,exposure and effect for ecosys-tems and human beings with data for about 100 chemicals.Dutch Ministry ofHousing,Spatial Planning and Environment,The Netherlands,p262
9.Julien B,Ferves SJ,Small MJ (1992) J Environ Manage 36:167–184
10.Lein JK (1997) Environmental decision making – an information technology approach.
Blackwell,Malden,MA,p524
11.Bailey J (1997) Environ Manage 27:31–51
12.Christensen KS (1985) J Am Plan Assoc 51:63–7313.Dooley JE (1974) Manage Sci 20:912–920
14.Duinker PN,Baskerville GL (1986) J Environ Manage 23:271–290
Environmental Impact Assessment53
15.Morrison-Saunders A (1996) Project Appraisal 11:95–10416.White GF (1972) ProfGeographer 24:302–309
17.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1991) EPA Information Sources,EPA
6001M91–038,Washington,DC,p527
18.Bojórquez-Tapia LA,García O (1998) Environ Impact Assess Rev 18:217–24019.Biswas AK (1973) Water Res Bull 9:746–754
20.Costanza R,Daly HE (1992) Conserv Biol 61:37–46
21.IWR (1975) Social impact assessment:An overview (Paper 75-P7).Institute for Water
Resources,US Army Engineers,Fort Belvoir,VA,USA,p104
22.Smith LG (1993) Impact assessment and sustainable resource management.Wiley,New
York,p210
23.Wathern P (1988) An introductory guide to EIA.In:Wathern P (ed) Environmental im-pact assessment:Theory and practice.Unwin Hyman,London,pp3–3024.Bailey J,English V (1991) Environ Plann Law J 8:190–199
25.Beanlands GE,Duinker PN (1983) An ecological framework for environmental impact
assessment in Canada.Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies,DalhousieUniversity,published in cooperation with Federal Environmental Assessment ReviewOffice,Quebec
26.Bailey J,Hobbs V (1990) J Environ Manage 31:163–17227.Beattie RB (1995) Environ Impact Assess Rev 15:109–114
28.Caldwell LK,Bartlett DE,Parker DE,Keys DL (1982) A study ofways to improve the sci-entific content and methodology ofenvironmental impact analysis.Advanced Studiesin Science,Technology and Public Affairs,School ofPublic and Environmental Affairs,Indiana University,Bloomington,IN,pp24–53
29.Culhane,PJ,Friesema HP,Beecher JA (1987) Forecasts and environmental decision-making:The content and predictive accuracy ofenvironmental impact statements.Westview Press,Boulder,CO,p341
30.Dee N,Drobny NL,Baker JK,Duke KM,Fahringer DC (1973) Planning methodology for
water quality management:Environmental evaluation system.Battelle Columbus Labs,Columbus,OH,p48
31.Costanza R,Duplisa D,Kautsky U (1998) Ecol Model 110:1–4
32.Haefner JW (1996) Modeling biological systems,principles and applications.Chapman
and Hall,New York,p153
33.Maxwell T,Costanza R (1995) Int J Comput Simul:Spec Issue Adv Simul Methodol
53:247–262
34.Efford IE (1975) Problems associated with environmental impact studies in Canada.In:
Proc Workshop on the Biological Significance ofEnvironmental Impacts,US NuclearRegulatory Commission,NR-CONF-002,Washington,DC,pp25–4235.Fairfax SK (1978) Science 199:743–74836.Gibson RB (1993) Environ Prof15:12–24
37.Hunsaker CT,Carpenter DE (1990) Environmental monitoring and assessment pro-gram – ecological indicators (EPA 600/3-90/060).US Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park,NC,Sept1990,ppxii–xvii
38.Morrison-Saunders A (1996) Eco-Manage Audit 3:21–25
39.Morrison-Saunders A (1996) Auditing the effectiveness ofEA with respect to ongoing
environmental management performance.In:do Rosario Partidario M (ed) IAIA ’96improving environmental assessment effectiveness:Research,practice and training,16th Annual Meeting,17–23 June 1996,Centrol Escolar Turistico e Hoteleiro,Estoril,Portugal,Conference proceedings,Vol1,International Association for Impact Assess-ment,pp317–322
54T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
40.Nehman GI,Dee N,Griffin JM,Cost BW (1973) Application ofthe land-use trade-off
model to assess land-use capabilities ofthe Beaufort-Jasper County area,Vol2.TechRep,Battelle Columbus Labs,Columbus,OH
41.Eldin NE,Greene JC,Williamson KJ,Quigley MM,Lundy JR,Azizian M,Kassim TA,Frey K,Huber WC,Thayumanavan P,Edwards K,Kwon P,Martinez MA (1997) Environmental impact ofhighway construction and repair materials on surface andground waters.Interim Progress Report-Phase II,National Cooperative Highway Re-search Project (NCHRP) 25–9,Department ofCivil,Construction,and EnvironmentalEngineering,Oregon State University,Corvallis,OR,Jan1997
42.Eldin NE,Huber WC,Williamson KJ,Nelson PO,Lundy JR,Quigley MM,Azizian M,
Frey K,Thayumanavan P,Kassim TA (1998) Environmental impact ofhighway con-struction and repair materials on surface and ground waters.Final Progress Report-Phase II,National Cooperative Highway Research Project (NCHRP) 25–9,DepartmentofCivil,Construction,and Environmental Engineering,Oregon State University,Cor-vallis,OR,Feb1998
43.KrauskopfTM,Bunde DC (1972) Evaluation ofenvironmental impact through a com-puter model process.In:Ditton R,Goodale T (eds) Environmental impact analysis:Philosophy and methods.University ofWisconsin Sea Grant Program,Madison,WI,pp107–125
44.Luecht D,Adams-Walden L,Bair R,Siebert D (1989) Environ Prof7:160–170
45.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1990) Office ofWater,Environmental and
Program Information Systems Compendium (EPA 500/9-90002).Office ofWater,Wash-ington,DC,p523
46.EC (1998) Technical Guidance Document on development ofrisk reduction strategies.
European Commission,ISBN 92–828–3296–1,p612
47.Erickson NJ (1975) Scenario methodology in natural hazard research.Institute ofBehavioral Sciences,University ofColorado,Boulder,CO,p13548.Ortolano L,Shepherd A (1995) Impact Assess 13:3–30
49.Ramamoorthy S,Baddaloo E (1990) Evaluation ofenvironmental data for regulatory andimpact assessment (Studies in Environmental Science No.41).Elsevier,Amsterdam,p11450.Bernard DP,Hunsaker DB Jr,Marmorek DR (1993) Tools for improving predictive
capabilities ofenvironmental impact assessments:Structured hypotheses,audits andmonitoring.In:Hildebrand SG,Cannon JB (eds) Environmental analysis:The NEPA ex-perience.Lewis,Boca Raton,Florida,pp547–564
51.Sadler B (1995) Environmental assessment:Toward improved effectiveness.Internatio-nal study ofthe effectiveness ofenvironmental assessment,Interim report and discus-sion paper,Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the International Associ-ation ofImpact Assessment,p58
52.Bailey J (1994) EIA,management and policy reform:The tyranny ofsmall decisions
working well.14th Annual Meeting ofthe International Association for Impact As-sessment,14–18June 1994,Radisson Gouverneurs Hotel,Quebec
53.Ortolano L,Hill WW (1972) An analysis ofenvironmental statements for corps ofen-gineers’water projects (Rep.72–3).U.S.Army Corps ofEngineers,Institute for WaterResources,Alexandria,VA
54.Sadler B (1996) International study ofthe effectiveness ofenvironmental assessment,
final report,environmental assessment in a changing world:Evaluating practice to im-prove performance.Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment,Minister ofSupply and Services,Canada,p24855.SCOPE (1978) Risk assessment ofenvironmental hazard.Kates RW (ed),Wiley,New
York,p160
Environmental Impact Assessment55
56.Treweek J (1996) J Appl Ecol 33:191–199
57.Brew D,Lee N (1996) EIA Newsletter 12:10–11
58.Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management.Wiley,
New York,p214
59.Storey K (1986) From prediction to management:Increasing the effectiveness ofSIA.
In:Becker HA,Porter AL (eds) Impact assessment today,VolII.Uitgeverij Jan van Arkel,Utrecht,pp539–551
60.U.S.Department ofthe Army (1990) Environmental protection and enhancement (AR
200–1).U.S.Department ofthe Army,Washington,DC,pp73–78
61.Wenzel H,Hauschild M,Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment ofproducts method-ology,tools and case studies in product development,Vol1.Chapman and Hall,London,UK,p315
62.Wood C,Bailey J (1994) Environ Impact Assess Rev 14:37–59
63.Hugget RJ (1993) Modeling the human impact on nature,systems analysis ofenviron-mental problems.Oxford University Press,Oxford,p262
64.Munro DA (1987) Learning from experience:Auditing environmental impact assess-ments.In:Sadler B (ed) Audit and evaluation in environmental assessment and man-agement,Canadian and international experience,VolI.Commissioned research,TheBanffCentre School ofManagement and Environment Canada,Canada,pp5–3165.Ortolano L (1993) Environ Prof15:352–363
66.Deaton ML,Winebrake JJ (2000) Dynamic modeling ofenvironmental systems (mod-eling dynamic systems).Springer,Berlin Heidelberg New York,p51367.Glasson J (1994) Built Environ 20:309–320
68.Holling CS (1973) Ann Rev Ecology and Systematics 4:1–23
69.Kane J,Vertinsky I,Thomson W (1973) Water Resour Res 9:65–79
70.Sorensen J (1971) A framework for the identification and control ofresource degra-dation and conflict in the multiple use ofthe coastal zone.Department ofLandscape Architecture,University ofCalifornia,Berkeley,California,USA,p314
71.Bojórquez-Tapia LA,Ezcurra E,García O (1998) J Environ Manage 53:91–9972.Kokoszka LC (1992) Pollution Eng 24:83-9273.Schindler W (1976) Science 192:509–513
74.Leopold LB,Clark FE,Hanshaw BB,Balsley JR (1971) A procedure for evaluating envi-ronmental impact.Technical Report,Geological Survey Circular 645,US DepartmentofInterior,Washington,DC,p271
75.Leopold LB,Clarke FE,Hanshaw BB,Balsley JR (1971) A procedure for evaluating
environmental impact.Geological Survey Circular 645,Government Printing Office,Washington,DC,p13
76.Hall RC (1977) Water Air Soil Poll 7:251–260
77.Hansen BG,van Haelst AG,van Leuwen K,van der Zandt P (1999) Environ Toxicol
Chem 18:772–779
78.Well Po,DiMaggio PJ (eds) (1991) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis.
University ofChicago Press,Chicago,IL,p252
79.Christiansen K,Heijungs R,Rydberg T,Ryding S-O,Sund L,Wijnen H,Vold M,Hansen
O-J (1995) Applications oflife cycle assessments (summary ofreport from expert work-shop on LCA,in Hankø,Norway).In:Workshop on LCA 40:strategic management,product development and improvement,marketing,and eco-labeling governmentalpolicies.STØ – Stiftelsen Østfoldsforskning,Hankø,Norway80.Costanza R (1987) BioScience 37:129–13281.Bisset R (1984) Umveltpolitik 4:463–484
82.Deal B,Farello C,Lancaster M,Kompare T,Hannon T (2000) Environ Model Assess 5:47–6256T.A.Kassim · B.R.T.Simoneit
83.Fava J,Denison R,Jones B,Curran MA,Vigon B,Selke S,Barnum J (1991) A technical
framework for life-cycle assessment.SETAC workshop report from a workshop in Smug-glersNotch,VT,18–23 August 1990
84.AronoffS (1991) Geographic information systems:A management perspective.WDL,
Ottawa,p101
85.Culhane PJ (1993) Environ Prof15:66–75
86.Frenkiel FN,Goodall DW (1978) Simulation modeling ofenvironmental problems.
Wiley,Chichester,UK,p114
87.Gunderson LH,Holling CS,Light SS (1995) Barriers and bridges:To the renewal of
ecosystems and institutions.Columbia University Press,New York,p315
88.Finsterbusch K,WolfCP (eds) (1977) Methodology ofsocial impact assessment.Dow-den,Hutchinson and Ross,Stroudburg,PA,p38789.Koelble TA (1995) Comp Polit 27:231–243
90.Olsen ME,Merwin DJ (1977) Toward a methodology for conducting social impact
assessments using quality ofsocial life indicators.In:Finsterbusch K,WolfCP (eds)Methodology ofsocial impact.Dowden,Hutchinson and Ross,Stroudburg,PA,pp43–6391.Shields MA (1975) Environ Behav 7:265–284
92.Bailey J,Hobbs V,Saunders A (1992) J Environ Manage 34:1–13
93.Hauschild MZ,Olsen SI,Wenzel H (1998) Human toxicity as a criterion in the envi-ronmental assessment ofproducts.In:Hauschild MZ,Wenzel H (eds) Environmentalassessment ofproducts.Vol2:Scientific background.Chapman and Hall,London,UK,pp315–344
94.Hauschild MZ,Wenzel H,Damborg A,Tørsløv J (1998) Ecotoxicity as a criterion in the
environmental assessment ofproducts.In:Hauschild MZ,Wenzel H (eds) Environ-mental assessment ofproducts.Vol2:Scientific background.Chapman and Hall,Lon-don,UK,pp203–314
95.Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope:integrating science and politics for the envi-ronment.Island,Washington,DC,p243
96.Hedstrom GS,Obbagy JE (1988) Environmental auditing:A global perspective – tran-sition to the 1990s.UNEP Industry and Environment 11:11–13
97.SCOPE (1978) Simulation model ofenvironmental problems.Frenkiel FN,Goodall DW
(eds),Wiley,New York,p128
98.Solomon RC,Colbert BK,Hansen WJ,Richardson SE,Canter LW,Vlachos EC (1977) Wa-ter resources assessment methodology:Impact assessment and alternative evaluation.Tech.Rep.Y-77–1,US Army Eng.Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,MO,p13099.Thompson D,Wilson MJ (1994) Environ Manage 18:605–615100.Tomlinson P,Atkinson SF (1987) Environ Monit Assess 8:239–261
101.U.S.Department ofthe Army (1990) Draft environmental impact statement – Fort Dix
realignment,including Forts Bliss,Dix,Jackson,Knox,Lee,and Leonardwood.U.S.Department ofthe Army Washington,DC,p624
102.Biswas AK,Agarwal SBC (eds) (1992) Environmental impact assessment for develop-ing countries.Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford,UK,p249
103.Christopher W (1995) Environmental impact assessment:A comparative review.Long-man Scientific and Technical,Harlow,UK,p337
104.Fischer TB (2002) Strategic environmental assessment in transport and land use plan-ning.Earthscan,London,p284
105.Glasson J,Therivel R,Chadwick A (1994) Introduction to environmental impact
assessment:Principles and procedures,process,practice,and prospects.UCL,London,p340
106.Jain RK (2002) Environmental assessment.McGraw-Hill,New York,p655
Environmental Impact Assessment57
107.Lawrence DP (2003) Environmental impact assessment:Practical solutions to recurrent
problems.Wiley,Hoboken,NJ,p562
108.Sadar HM (1996) Environmental impact assessment.Carleton University Press,Carleton
University,Ottawa,Canada,p191
109.Sonnemann G,Castells F,Schuhmacher M (2004) Integrated life-cycle and risk assess-ment for industrial processes.Lewis,Boca Raton,FL,p362
110.Tickner JA (2003) Precaution,environmental science,and preventive public policy.
Island,Washington,DC,p406
111.U.S.Dept.ofthe Interior (2003) Decision record,finding ofno significant impact and
environmental assessment.Bureau ofLand Management,Wyoming State Office,RockSprings Field Office,p573
112.US-EPA (1979) Environmental impact assessment guidelines for new source fossil
fueled steam electric generating stations.Environmental Protection Agency,Office ofEnvironmental Review;Springfield,VA,p834
113.US-EPA (2002) Economic impact analysis (EIA):Small municipal waste combustors-emissions guidelines and new source performance.Office ofAir Quality Planning AndStandards,EP4.52:EC 7/10,p715
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容