Improving quality

William A. Ross Environmental Science, Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4 Phone: +1 403 220 6961 Fax: +1 403 220 6961 E-mail: [email protected]

Angus Morrison-Saunders Environmental Assessment, School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia Phone: +618 9360 6125 Fax: +618 9360 6125 E-mail: [email protected]

Ross Marshall National Environmental Assessment Service, National Operations Group, Environment Agency (UK National Environmental Assessment Service), Waterside House, Waterside North, Lincoln, LN2 5HA, UK Phone: +44 01522 785885 E-mail: [email protected]

Luis E. Sánchez Escola Politćnica, University of São Paulo, Av Prof Mello Moraes, 2373, 05508-900, São Paulo, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]

Joe Weston Department of Planning, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK Phone: +44 1865 483450 E-mail: [email protected]

Elvis Au Assistant Director of Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, 46th Floor, Revenue Tower, 5 Gloucester Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong Phone: +852 2594 6033 E-mail: [email protected]

Richard K. Morgan Department of Geography, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Otago, New Zealand Phone: +64 3 479 8782 Fax: +64 3 479 8782 E-mail: [email protected]

Richard Fuggle Environmental Studies, Department of Environmental Science, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa Phone: +27-21 650 4741 E-mail: [email protected]

Barry Sadler International Agencies, 1631 Barksdale Drive, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8N 5A8 E-mail: [email protected]

William A. Ross

Angus Morrison-Saunders

Ross Marshall

show all

Abstract

Reviews of environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, particularly by industrial proponents, have highlighted common shortfalls. EIA would benefit from more ‘common sense’, which is not very common. For example, issue scoping usually includes too many inconsequential factors, and issues not directly affecting project decisions. Consideration of significance is often vague, misleading or inconsistent. Quality of environmental impact statements (EISs) leaves much to be desired, with EIS documents of little use to stakeholders. EIA guidance is a possible solution but is not always focused or applied sensibly. While we suggest more effective signals from government EIA regulators to project proponents to overcome these difficulties, our primary intention is to evoke discussion and provoke practitioners to take up the fight to improve the quality and integrity of EIAs.

Keywords:

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Improving quality

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Improving quality

Abstract

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature