The mitigation hierarchy upside down – a study of nature protection measures in Danish infrastructure projects

Figures & data

Table 1. Explanations and examples of the categories of mitigation measures applied in this paper.

Categories of mitigation measures	Explanation	Examples of measures
Avoid	Avoiding that a negative impact on nature arises	Adjusting the location or tracks of the structure, for example, to avoid impacts on protected natural areas
Minimise	Minimising a negative impact on nature	Constructing wildlife passages to minimise the impact of the structure as a barrier to wildlife
Repair	Repairing a negative impact on nature after it has occurred	Re-establishing natural areas, after the construction works has impacted them negatively
Compensate	Compensating for an unavoidable negative impact on nature	Constructing natural areas as a replacement for nature destroyed by the construction of the structure
Enhance	Enhancing a positive impact on nature	Designing and management of road borders to make them suitable habitats for sand lizards

Note:

Inspired by (Mitchell 1997; Glasson et al. 2005; Tinker et al. 2005).

Table 2. The included EIA reports distributed on project types.

Project types	No. of reports	Project types	No. of reports
Road	44	Oil and gas pipes	5
Railway	8	Power lines	4
Bridges/tunnels	5	Signal systems (railway)	1

Table 3. Questions in analytical framework.

Questions in analytical framework
Is the mitigation measure directed towards a species or type of nature? Which species or type of nature?
Which type of mitigation measure from the mitigation hierarchy is it?
In which phase of the project will the mitigation measure be implemented? Construction, operation or closure?
In which phase of the project will the mitigation measure have effect? Construction, operation or closure?
Which specific type of mitigation measure is it?
How acute is the wording of the mitigation measure?
Is responsibility for implementation of the mitigation measure assigned to anyone?
Is a deadline set for the mitigation measure?

Table 4. The two cases studied.

Name	Route 18: Riis-Ølholm-Vejle (Motorway)	400 kV højspændingsledning Aalborg – Århus (High voltage power line)
Year of publication of EIA report	2005	2000
Proponent	The Road Directorate	Eltra ^a
Level of authority	State – implemented by passing a specific law	Regional

^a Former electricity transmission company with responsibility for the electricity grid in Jutland and on Funen.

Figure 1. Number of mitigation measures in the categories found in the EIA reports.

Figure 2. Number of specific types of mitigation measures found in the EIA reports.

Table 5. Number of mitigation measures to be implemented in each project phase, and number of mitigation measures aimed at mitigating impacts in each project phase.

	Construction phase	Operation phase
Number of mitigation measures to be implemented in each project phase	1004	228
Number of mitigation measures aimed at impacts in each project phase	437	796

Figure 3. Number or mitigation measures phrased as must, should and could.

Mitchell J . 1997. Mitigation in environmental assessment – furthering best practice. EA – The Magazine of IEA and EARA.

 Google Scholar

Glasson J , Therivel R , Chadwick A . 2005. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Tinker L , Cobb D , Bond A , Cashmore M . 2005. Impact mitigation in environmental impact assessment: paper promises or the basis of consent conditions? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 23(4):265–280.10.3152/147154605781765463

 Google Scholar