The rationale for and practice of EIA follow-up: an analysis of Finnish road projects

Abstract

Follow-up is often considered to be a weak or even missing element in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Though it is recognized that follow-up practices could provide useful opportunities to learn from projects’ actual consequences, the practice is criticized for not achieving this goal. In this paper, we aim to clarify the relationship between the theoretical rationale for EIA follow-up and the actual practices carried out in a Finnish EIA context. An empirical analysis was performed with follow-up documents. The findings indicate that follow-ups focused on dealing with environmental impacts related to the physical environment, e.g., flora, fauna, and ground and surface waters. Social impacts were monitored less often, though in most of the cases, traffic noise impacts were given special attention. To some extent, various interest groups were involved with follow-up practices, especially by surveying the impacts experienced. The evidence also suggests that EIA predictions were usually successful, whether the actual impacts were negative or positive. It is concluded that more systematic approach to EIA follow-up would enhance the possibilities to protect the environment.

Keywords:

• EIA follow-up
• monitoring
• impact evaluation

Introduction

According to Arts et al. (2001), the term environmental impact assessment (EIA) follow-up is often used as a generic umbrella term that refers to a large number of different activities that aim to follow up on the consequences of individual projects or plans. These activities may relate to several overlapping and loosely used terms, such as environmental monitoring, auditing, evaluation, post-decision analysis, and post-decision management.1 Thus, it is convenient to group these activities together under EIA follow-up (Arts et al. 2001, p. 176; Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004).

Similarly, in the Finnish setting, EIA follow-up is defined and understood very broadly. There is a requirement in the EIA Decree (713/2006) to include a proposal for a follow-up program in the environmental impact statement (EIS, the concluding report of an EIA) of a project. The Decree does not include any list of acceptable or desirable activities regarding the contents of the program proposal. These loose requirements (or lack of requirements) leave room for flexibility and case-by-case judgments in follow-up planning. In Finland, a follow-up that originates from these requirements can be called an EIA follow-up.2

A few years ago, follow-up was often considered to be the least well-performed element of EIA (see, e.g., Morgan 2001; Ramjeawon & Beedassy 2004; Hunsberger et al. 2005; Marshall et al. 2005; Petäjäjärvi 2005; Ahammed & Nixon 2006; Pölönen 2007). Arts et al. (2001) claim that theoretically, the idea of follow-up is rather well-understood, but in practice, its international implementation is either lacking or very fragmented. Pölönen (2007, p. 53; see also Pölönen et al. 2011) believes that the lack of systematic implementation of follow-up is a weakness in Finnish EIA. In a recent overall evaluation of Finnish EIA law (Jantunen & Hokkanen 2010; Hokkanen & Jantunen 2012), it was suggested that the performance of EIA follow-up varies case-by-case and also by project type. The evaluation suggested that follow-ups were most worthwhile in projects such as roads, railways, pipelines, and electric lines. Also, some Finnish EIA professionals suggest that the follow-up programs presented in EISs sometimes have no practical relevance later in the process (Jalava et al. 2010).

In this paper, we examine the relationship between the theoretical rationale for EIA follow-up and its implementation. The main objective is to analyze the potential benefits and usefulness of follow-up activities and evaluate the justification for follow-up planning in the context of EIA. For this purpose, we searched for Finnish EIA projects with realized follow-ups, typically road projects. The Finnish Road Administration (a part of Finnish Transport Agency), is also pressured to follow up on their projects’ impacts due to road legislation as well as EIA legislation. Section 32 of the Highways Act (503/2005), demands that ‘The road management authority shall systematically monitor the realization of the assessed and other impacts of the road undertaking, and utilize the results of monitoring in assessing the impacts of undertakings and choosing planning decisions.’ The Road Administration has also been active in developing their practices with EIA, for example, by publishing their own EIA guidance in 1992, two years before the EIA legislation was implemented in the country. Later, the guidance was renewed in 1997 and again in 2009 (Jantunen & Hokkanen 2010). It was assumed that road projects could serve as ‘a good example of practice’ if any project type could.

The core of this article is a description of the activities that were performed in the example cases to monitor the consequences of development, as well as the presentation of follow-up planning and reporting. The intention was to summarize the types of activities used for EIA follow-up and to identify the categories of impacts that were followed. Furthermore, this article considers whether the follow-up information was compared with the predictions presented in the EIAs, and it identifies the conditions under which the requirement to strengthen the systemic aspects of follow-up would add value to environmental management. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of the elements that either appear, or do not appear to be useful in order for an EIA to be environmentally effective.

The research approach

The rationale and basic elements of EIA follow-up

Theoretically, the rationale for EIA follow-up is well-documented and well-argued in literature and research reports. Follow-up is usually justified by its probable benefits. Glasson et al. (2012) state that follow-up should help in obtaining good environmental management over the life of a project. Successful follow-up produces information for forthcoming decision-making, such as updates for permit decisions. This enables learning from experience by establishing the real impacts of development. Follow-up information may be useful in many ways. For example, it may help in minimizing and preventing the negative consequences of a project and in recognizing possible surprises within impacts, as well as in managing risks and uncertainties; it can help in evaluating whether the predictions presented in EIAs were correct; it may enhance the use of appropriate mitigation measures when needed and enhance a project's positive effects. Follow-up information supports the achievement of the main goal of EIA itself, that is, to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts of development (Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004; Marshall et al. 2005; O'Faircheallaigh 2007). The benefits of a follow-up can occur on a project level, or in the evaluation and development of EIA procedures as a whole (Bisset & Thomlinson 1988; Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004). Follow-up should guarantee that EIA is not only a linear exercise aimed at making a one-time decision about a project's feasibility, but also a continuous learning process that aims to search for potential improvements as needed.

Baker (2004) has suggested a practical framework for EIA follow-up to guide the more specific design, and implementation of follow-up program and strategies. The framework puts forward the essential elements that should be considered in any case, regardless of project type, namely: (1) the determination of the need for follow-up; (2) the determination of the roles and responsibilities, the scope of issues to be addressed, and the selection of the methodology and tools that may be incorporated into the program; (3) follow-up implementation; (4) the evaluation of results and outcomes; (5) issue management and; (6) stakeholder communication. The framework is useful in clarifying the potential pitfalls in practical processes, and where a lack of focus may lead to follow-up failing to achieve its goals.

As noted in the introduction, the need for EIA follow-up in Finland is, to some extent, recognized and filtered into legislative requirements. The requirements should ensure that follow-up is considered and planned case-specifically in every EIA that is conducted. One practical challenge is that the definition of environmental impact in Finnish EIA legislation is very wide. According to the EIA Act, environmental impact means ‘the direct and indirect effects inside and outside Finnish territory of a project or operations on (a) human health, living conditions, and amenity; (b) soil, water, air, climate, organisms, and biological diversity; (c) the community structure, buildings, landscape, townscape and the cultural heritage; (d) utilization of natural resources; and; (e) interactions between the factors mentioned in items (a) to (d).’ This relates not only to EIA, but also to the planning of EIA follow-up – the range of possible receptors for a significant impact is wide, and ideally, a purposeful follow-up should recognize meaningful changes in all the above-mentioned aspects. Another challenge is that, in the planning phase, the options for realization should be open, and the consequences of these alternatives are also different.

The wide scope and holistic goals of EIA imposes a substantial requirement to involve individuals with various types of expertise in EIA processes. In this regard, Morrison-Saunders et al. (2003) state that institutional arrangements, resources, and capacities influence the success of follow-up. They argue that the interplay between three important stakeholder groups – developers, authorities and the public – affects the approaches and techniques used in the realization of follow-up and hence how it occurs. They also suggest that the project type, i.e., the characteristics of a project, is important in determining how to conduct EIA follow-up in a relevant manner. For example, the type of impact to be followed partially determines the appropriate techniques and methods; the size of project relates to the types of impacts and also with the resources available for planning and follow-up.

These notions strongly relate to Arts and Nooteboom's (1999) articulation of the key challenges of follow-up. First, they remind that EIA involves inherent uncertainty, both at the predictive stage and later during follow-up investigations: deficiencies and limited information will be present, and require management. Second, they note that the demand for financial resources will always be an issue; follow-up requires time, money and staff. Third, they state that legislative deficiencies cause problems, especially if they do not require follow-up. For instance, Pölönen (2007, p. 248) holds that, in Finland, especially for electric lines and gas pipelines, the follow-up may be totally omitted due to deficiencies in the regulations. Arts and Nooteboom also consider the lack of guidance to be a problem. Although, since 1999, a wealth of guidance has been published (for example, the handbook of EIA follow-up by Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004) and although this may help in procedural planning, this guidance cannot provide straightforward advice regarding unavoidable case-by-case judgments and context-dependent decisions.

Much like presentations of EIA predictions, EIA follow-up should take into account not only appropriate indicators of impacts and the causal factors underlying them, but also opinions regarding probable or detected impacts (Glasson et al. 2012). These impacts will vary and be experienced differently in different groups and locations, and they also have a temporal dimension; that is, impacts and their significance tend to change over time (Wathern 1988; Glasson et al. 2012). A practical requirement is that follow-up activity should focus on receptors that may experience a significant impact and/or parameters subject to great uncertainty (Glasson et al. 2012). Another traditional perspective is that the choice of receptors should be representative to verify the accuracy of predictions, and make it possible to determine the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate the adverse effects of a project (Noble & Storey 2005). However, experience has shown that predictions in EIAs are often vague – accurate predictions are exceptions rather than the rule (Beanlands & Duinker, 1983; Arts 1998; Glasson et al. 2012), and therefore it is often difficult or impossible to compare predictions and actual impacts in an unambiguous and measurable way (see, e.g., Noble & Storey 2005; Ahammed & Nixon 2006).

Noble and Storey (2005) argue that while relatively few unambiguous predictive statements are made in EIAs, the focus of follow-ups should not be confirming these predictions. Instead, follow-ups should be designed to support the achievement of the environmental objectives of a project (Bailey et al. 1992; Morrison-Saunders & Bailey 1999). In practice, this would mean that these project objectives are identified during the planning phase, and that the follow-up program should be designed to reflect these. Follow-ups should not be seen solely as a research or a scientific exercise, but as a tool to increase the understanding of the net effects and experiences of the project in question. Among those who are concerned about the project and are impacted by it, this would create a feeling that project management is committed to seeking out improvements, rather than simply reacting to adverse effects. In this line of thinking, EIA and follow-up programs are not only about the feasibility and acceptance of a project, but also about procedures for learning and improvement. Hence, the ultimate questions in follow-up should be not only, ‘what are the impacts?’ but also ‘are we satisfied with what we are achieving?’ (Bailey et al. 1992; Morrison-Saunders & Arts 2004; Noble & Storey 2005).

The above-described theoretical rationale and conceptual and contextual elements for EIA follow-up form the basis for the analytical reasoning in this paper (explained more elaborately in the next section). Figure 1 summarizes the main elements of the framework.

Figure 1 What, why, how? The theoretical rationale and contextual factors for Finnish EIA follow-up summarized.

The research material and methodology

After choosing the task of investigating follow-up practices in road projects due to reasons clarified in the introduction, all the plans for road projects requiring EIA in Finland were identified from the Road Administration. The time limit was set from the implementation of EIA system, in 1994, to the end of 2007. The projects that had been completed, and for, which some reported EIA follow-up had occurred were chosen for analysis in more detail. The initial goal was to describe the implementation and progress of EIA follow-up throughout the various stages of the planning and construction process.

At this stage, the focus was set to be on the main documents relating to follow-up emerging from the EIA processes. Four types of documents include (or should include) relevant information about the follow-up practices in EIAs, and thus, would be a sufficient proof about the practices for the purpose of the study. The documents were3:

• The Environmental Impact Statements, which should include the proposals for follow-up programs;

• The competent authorities' statements about EISs;4

• The actual follow-up programs; and

• The reports resulting from the realized follow-ups.

An empirical analysis was conducted for these documents, as follows. First, the documents were expected to tell a story. It was believed that, based on the documents, we could outline the practical tasks taken in follow-ups in the cases. These empirical findings are here reported chronologically, starting with the follow-up proposals from EISs and ending with the actual follow-up reports (as listed above).

Second, as the intention was to describe the reality and as there are no strict requirements for the contents, no exact preset theoretical typology was utilized to organize the findings. Instead, the impact categorization that is presented in the Findings section represents the categorization that was discerned from the documents – the classification did not exist before reading the documents, but it was constructed during the analysis. The intention was that this descriptiveness would serve also in understanding whether similar terminology and approaches are used in different cases. Eventually, to organize the findings, both quantitative and qualitative elements were utilized.

To describe the follow-up implementation:

• Is follow-up considered, and if yes;

• How was the need and objectives for follow-up seen and argued for?

• What types of impacts were suggested to be followed, and then followed?

• What follow-up techniques were suggested and then used?

• What were the responsibilities and how was the follow-up organized?

• How was the follow-up information reported and used?

• What kind of follow-up information was gained?

To understand whether follow-up practice was useful and worthwhile:

• Did the reporting of follow-up practices and information show evidence that follow-up helped to protect the environment?

• Did the reporting show evidence of other benefits of follow-up?

According to the theoretical framework outlined in previous section, the analytical questions did not necessarily have desired answers, but were posed to increase understanding of the practices taken under loose requirements, and in different planning situations and conditions of the given cases. Quantification was used especially to outline the focus and extensiveness of follow-ups.

Findings

The Finnish Road Administration managed 50 projects requiring EIA based on the law between 1994 and the end of 2007. Of these 50 projects, 46 had progressed to a stage in which an EIS was completed. In 43 of these, a proposal for follow-up was introduced in the EIS. In 2008, 13 of the projects were at least partly completed and open for traffic. In seven of these, EIA follow-up had begun. In addition, one project had been through a so-called ‘pilot-EIA’ before the EIA was actually implemented in Finland in 1994. In this Raippaluoto project, follow-up was also realized.

Altogether, the requirement to include a follow-up program in an EIS was fulfilled quite well by the Finnish Road Administration. The figures show that not all plans came to fruition, and that the time span between the EIA and road project implementation could be years or even decades. Eventually, for the purpose of this study, eight road projects that had gone through EIA and follow-up were investigated in more detail (cases are introduced in Table 1). In the following sections, we will describe the follow-up content found in the documents chronologically, starting with the EISs and ending with follow-up results reports.

Table 1 The example cases.

Case	Type	EIS published	Follow-up started
1. Road 7 Koskenkylä-Loviisa	Road improvement 14,5 km	1994	1995
2. Road Kehä III Vantaankoski-Tikkurila	Road improvement 9 km	1996	2002
3. Road 1 Lohja-Salo	New motorway 63 km	1996	2002
4. Road 7 Porvoo-Koskenkylä	New lanes beside existing road (new motorway) 25 km	1996	2000
5. Road 4 Lahti-Heinola	New lanes beside existing road (new motorway) 28 km	2001	2004
6. Road 4 and 21 Tornio-Kemi	New motorway 19 km	1996	Not clear. The first follow-up report that included a follow-up program was published in 2004 – it included a summary from earlier investigations of road impacts conducted by the Road Administration
7. Raippaluoto Bridge	New bridge (no earlier bridge)	1993 (pilot EIA)	1996
8. Vuosaari harbour traffic connections	New road connections to a cargo harbour	1995	Joint follow-up relating to harbour construction had already started in the 1990s; follow-up related to road connections began in the early 2000s, when connection construction started

Follow-up proposals presented in EISs

All eight EISs5 included proposals for follow-up, and they were clearly called proposals for ‘follow-up’6. Though the proposals had similarities, their contents varied. Generally, the needs, objectives, and responsibilities of follow-up were considered in the proposals, but not in every case. For example, six out of eight proposals included information about follow-up responsibilities and preliminary information about planned co-operation between stakeholders. In five cases, objectives for follow-up were defined generally, i.e. to verify the actual impacts and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures. In only two cases the objectives were linked to the planned project actions and locations. The need for follow-up was considered in four of the cases; typically, if there was no consideration of objectives, there was no consideration of needs either. In these cases, objectives were seen as an argument for needs.

Five cases included a preliminary description of planned follow-up methods, but typically, the intention was to specify the follow-up later. In all of the cases, some impact categories were introduced that were to be included in the follow-up program. presents the proposed impact categories. Altogether, the list is quite broad, but in seven cases, only two or three categories were introduced ().

Table 2 The categories of impacts proposed for follow-up in EISs.

Impact on	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Seen in
Flora	x		x	x		x	x	x	6 cases
Fauna						x		x	2 cases
Surface water			x		x	x	x	x	5 cases
Ground water	x				x	x			3 cases
Nature (not specified)	x		x						2 cases
Landscape		x							1 case
Noise (humans)		x		x	x	x			4 cases
Community/ies						x			1 case
Land use						x			1 case
Effects of construction on employment		x							1 case
Conditions and connections						x			1 case
Road safety						x			1 case

Notes: (1) Road 7 Koskenkylä-Loviisa; (2) Road Kehä III Vantaankoski-Tikkurila; (3) Road 1 Lohja-Salo; (4) Road 7 Porvoo-Koskenkylä; (5) Road 4 Lahti-Heinola; (6) Road 4 and 21 Tornio-Kemi; (7) Raippaluoto Bridge; (8) Vuosaari harbour traffic connections.

Table

1.

The competent authorities' statements about EISs

Of the eight competent authorities' statements regarding the projects EISs, six did not comment on follow-up in any way. The two cases in which a competent authority commented on the issue were Roads 4 and 21 in Tornio-Kemi and the Kehä III road.

In the case of Kehä III, the competent authority suggested that the EIS did not include a satisfactory plan for impact monitoring, and that, instead, it was only a listing of the objectives of follow-up and possible monitoring targets. The competent authority suggested that, at the very least, emissions released during the construction and use of the road, noise, landscape changes, and traffic amounts should be monitored. The follow-up proposals of other projects () suggested at least a few types of impacts for follow-up, but in Kehä III, no impacts on the natural environment were suggested.

In the Tornio-Kemi case, the competent authority did not comment on the actual choice of follow-up targets, but it did demand that a separate and more detailed follow-up program be compiled later.

The competent authorities did not express any strict requirements for developers in dealing with EIA follow-up, and they did not emphasize or argue for the importance of follow-up.

Follow-up programs and realized follow-up

Follow-up programs were established for all eight projects, but at this stage, the implementation took different forms. Three of the projects (Road 7 Koskenkylä-Loviisa, Raippaluoto and Vuosaari traffic connections) had more than one follow-up program published (these were not combined into a single document or report). In these cases, suggestions for follow-up on certain impacts were divided into separate entities. In the Raippaluoto and Vuosaari cases, the follow-up responsibility was shared. For example, in the Raippaluoto case, the responsibility for follow-up on social impacts was assigned to the Road Administration, as was follow-up on the effects on hydrological systems and fishing in the City of Vaasa. In the Vuosaari case, a separate project organization was formed to build the traffic (road, railway, fairway) connections, and this organization also followed up on the consequences of the construction. In addition, several other organizations are involved with follow-up in the Vuosaari district, especially the City of Helsinki. The rest of the cases had clearer single-project-based follow-up programs that were published by the road developer.

Much like the proposals presented in EISs, the actual follow-up programs emphasized the impacts on the natural environment (Table 3). However, compared to the EIS proposals, the follow-up programs were more specific and broader in scope. The Raippaluoto case had a strong emphasis on the follow-up of social and economic impacts.

Table 3 The categories of impacts included in follow-up programs and the actual categories of impacts followed (presented in the table: x/x = program/follow-up).

Case no:									Altogether in
Impact to	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	program/Follow-up
Natural components of environment
Flora	x/x		x/x	x/x	x/x	− /x	x/x	x/x	6 cases/ 7 cases
Fauna	x/x			x/x	x/x	− /x		x/x	4 cases/ 5 cases
Surface water		x/x	x/x		x/x		x/x	x/x	5 cases/ 5 cases
Ground water			x/x		x/x	− /x		x/x	3 cases/ 4 cases
Air		x/x	x/x			− /x			2 cases/ 2 cases
Soil			x/ −					x/x	2 cases/ 1 cases
Nature (as a whole)	x/ −								1 case/ −
Environment with built components
Landscape		x/x	x/x		x/x		x/x		4 cases/ 4 cases
Real estates								− /x	0 cases/ 1 case
Social aspects
Noise (humans)		x/x	x/ −	x/x	x/x	− /x		− /x	4 cases/ 5 cases
Vibration								− /x	−  / 1 case
Experience of environment							− /x		−  / 1 case
Community/ies							x/x		1 case/ 1 case
Recreation					x/x		− /x		1 case/ 2 cases
Living conditions						− /x	− /x	− /x	−  / 3 cases
Demography							x/x		1 case/ 1 case
Economic aspects
Services						− /x	x/x		1 case/ 2 cases
Land use						− /x	x/x		1 case/ 2 cases
History of land use				x/x				x/ −	2 cases/ 1 case
Commercial fishing						− /x	x/x		1 case/ 2 cases
Road maintenance costs							− /x		−  / 1 case
Traffic aspects
Road conditions and connections		x/x				− /x	x/x		2 cases/ 3 cases
Road safety		− /x	− /x			− /x	− /x		−  / 4 cases
Achievability						− /x	x/x		1 case/ 2 cases

The findings (Table 3) show that the follow-up programs were realized as planned in most cases. In the Road 4 and 21 project at Tornio-Kemi, the follow-up program was described only briefly and approximately in the first result report – the description lacked information about what impacts follow-up was originally planned for and how this was to be accomplished (case 6 in Table 3).

There were differences between the cases in terms of how follow-up was organized. In most cases, the developer took or was given the main responsibility for organizing follow-up actions. Typically, the developers used consultants to carry out follow-up monitoring for the selected impact indicators, and occasionally, several interest groups were involved. The biggest difference was that in some cases (especially cases 7 Raippaluoto and 8 Vuosaari), the responsibility was clearly shared and there were several organizations involved with follow-up, while in other cases, the developer was solely in charge of practical actions.

The second distinctive feature was that the follow-up often consisted of separate ‘research projects or programs’ that were established to evaluate certain effects, rather than a single monitoring program. For example, in case 1 (Road 7 Koskenkylä-Loviisa), a research program was launched to evaluate the ecological effects of the project; in case 4 (Road 7 Porvoo-Koskenkylä), the entire follow-up focused on bird inventories in a valuable habitat and in case 3 (Road 1 Lohja-Salo), a long-term follow-up of an endangered flying squirrel was begun. Usually, this type of treatment appeared to guarantee follow-up actions for the planned period. However, in case 1, when the funding for the program ended after six years in 2001, the follow-up also ended. In fact, in six out of eight cases, the follow-up was considered to be concluded in the ‘final report,’ in two of those cases, plans for further follow-up were suggested, but they were not realized, due to a lack of funding. In case 3 (Road 1 Lohja-Salo), the follow-up is planned to continue until at least 2029, and in case 8 (Vuosaari), the joint follow-up can be considered continuous, though in this case, it is clear that it does not originate solely from the traffic connections' EIA, but also from the other activities in the area.

Content-wise, the follow-up reports showed diversity in the choice of impact indicators and the methods used in impact evaluation. The natural environment and ecological impacts were monitored in all of the cases. These effects were evaluated using various ecological and environmental research methods, typically, flora and fauna species inventories and soil, ground- and surface water sample examinations were conducted.

The fauna species inventories were realized in several ways depending on the indicator species. Common indicator species were birds, moose and other game. Birds were often observed by calculating nesting couples. Moose and game were observed using, for example, trace calculations and surveillance cameras. Observations were made both from the ground and the air. In many cases, inventories were conducted in close co-operation with local hunting clubs and game associations. Other observed fauna species included, for example, American beaver, flying squirrel, otter, hare, fox, raccoon dog, pine marten, weasel, ermine, badger, and lynx. In some cases, invertebrates were followed, usually beetles, butterflies, and benthos. Effects on fish were evaluated using both surveys of fishermen and observations of stock changes, both by diving and sampling with catching.

Changes in flora were followed at various spatial scales, combining several evaluation methods; usually, field inventories and aerial photos were used. The focus was often on changes in species richness and abundance in the chosen study areas. In some cases, indicator species were chosen. Compensation was also used: endangered species were moved to a botanical garden or to a new habitat, where their survival was followed. For both fauna and flora, evaluations were mainly based on potential changes in population sizes for selected indicator species.

The main focus of the follow-up on the quality of ground and surface waters was the analysis of sequential samples. Typically, for example, pH, temperature, conductivity, obscurity, COD, color, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrate, and solid particles were reported. In addition, surface levels were often measured as well as the stream volumes. While, it was apparent that the planners recognized temporal repetition as important in all follow-ups, in these cases, it was the water sampling that appeared to be especially planned in this sense.

The evaluation of effects on air quality was usually based on calculations of traffic quantities. Effects on landscape were usually presented with photographs, and effects on real estate were in evaluated via physical inspections of buildings in some cases.

Social and economic impacts were also examined in a variety of ways. Surveys, interviews, and existing statistical data were utilized in the analysis of the experiences of individuals, enterprises, and communities in affected areas. In addition, measurements of noise and vibration were performed. Statistical data were used, especially in the evaluation of property prices and land use changes. In the Vuosaari case, a GIS-based follow-up information system was created to serve in the evaluation of social impacts. However, social and economic factors did not receive much attention in over half of the cases.

The evaluation of changes in traffic was mainly based on calculations of traffic quantities and accident numbers. In addition, surveys and interviews were used to gain information from route users and authorities.

Predictions compared to follow-up results

The follow-up reports did not usually compare the follow-up results against the predictions presented in the EISs – in this sense, they were not used for verifying the predictions. In fact, the predictions presented in the EISs often did not precisely describe an impact, but rather predicted whether a receptor or a group of receptors would experience a negative or positive impact.

Table 4 lists the categories of impacts developers considered first in EISs and later in the follow-up stage. Based on this comparison, it is clear that when predictions were made and the impacts were followed, the predictions were often successful, whether the impact was considered positive or negative (lighter shading in Table 4). In one case, it was assumed that the development would cause locally negative effects on the community, but the follow-up conclusion was that the actual impact was experienced as positive (box and bold italics in Table 4). The darker shading in Table 4 shows examples in which it was concluded at the follow-up stage that there was neither a positive, nor a negative impact experienced or that there was no impact at all in certain categories. Often, in these cases, a negative impact was expected in the predictive stage.

Table 4 Predictions presented in EISs compared to findings reported in follow-ups.

	Road 7K		Kehä III		Road 1		Road 7P		Road 4		Road 4/21		Raippal		Vuos
Effects on	EIS	F	EIS	F	EIS	F	EIS	F	EIS	F	EIS	F	EIS	F	EIS	F
Fauna	–	?			–	–	–	+/ −		?	–	?	–	0	–	0/–
Flora	–	–	–	?	–		–	0		?	–	?	–		–	0
Surface water			0	0/–	–	0			–	?	0		+/ −	–	0	0
Ground water	+/ −		–		0	0	0		–	0	0	?			0	0
Air quality	+		0	?	0		+		–		0	?			–	?
Soil															0	0
Nature (not specified)					–		–		–				–
Landscape	–		–	–	–	?	–		–	0	–		–		–
Cultural landscape
	0		–	–	–		–		0		0/–
Town scenery			0		+/ −						+		–
Gravel, quarrying	0		0		–						0/–		0
Land mass	0		0		0						–		0
Land mass mounding	0		0		–		0
Other abiotic natural resources													0
Other biotic resources													0
Estates																?
Noise	+		+	0	+/ −		+	+	+/ −	?	+	?			–	?
Vibration			–						–							?
Experience of environment													–	+
Communities	+		–										+/ −	+
Recreation	0/–		–		–		0		–	?			+/ −	+	0
Living comfort					+/ −		–		+/ −		+/ −	+	+/ −	+		?
Population structure					+		0				+		+/ −	0/+
Economic life and services	–		0		+/ −		+		+		+	+	+	+
Tourism														+
Land use			+/ −		+		0		+		+	+	0	+
Commercial fishing												?		0
Farming					–						–
Forestry					–
Hunting	–
Costs of road maintenance												–
Road conditions	+		+	+	+				+		+	+		+	+
Public transportation			+	?	+/ −
Pedestrians and cyclists			+	?
Road safety		+		?	+		+		+		+	?		0/–	+
Achievability					+		+					+	+	+

Notes: Lighter shading indicates successful prediction, darker shading indicates a conclusion of no impact when an impact was expected; bold italics indicates a conclusion of an opposite impact as compared to the predicted impact. The symbol “–“ indicates a negative impact; “+” indicates a positive impact; “0” indicates no impact; “?” refers to the handling of an issue with no clear conclusion being presented.

The judgments included opinions based on both quantitative and qualitative follow-up results. They showed that monitoring accuracy was not always needed to increase the understanding of the consequences. For example, a debatable issue, effects on the landscape, was considered in the case of Kehä III, these being found to be negative in both the prediction and follow-up stages. This information does not need to be accurate, but it can cause project management to analyze the situation in more detail and consider whether ways to improve the situation can be found. In the case of Road 4, the landscape effects were considered to be negative at the prediction stage, but in follow-up reports, the experience was reported as being neutral. The other cases lacked follow-up information on the subject.

Case 7, Raippaluoto, shows an example of how, at the prediction stage, some impact categories were predicted to be both negative and positive (see Table 4). In reality, this is not uncommon, and even a single impact on a single receptor can be judged either negative or positive depending on the valuation. At the follow-up stage, the impacts in these categories were deemed positive. The results in Table 4 concerning case 8, Vuosaari, represent the results discerned from the documents related to road connections.

Discussion

The aim of this article was to analyze the relationship between the theoretical rationale for EIA follow-up and its implementation in Finnish road projects. The description of the actual practices provides an opportunity to analyze the criticism and expectations expressed regarding EIA follow-up.

Internationally, one of the concerns expressed has been the lack of EIA follow-up implementation and poorly performed practices (Morgan 2001; Ramjeawon & Beedassy 2004; Hunsberger et al. 2005; Marshall et al. 2005; Petäjäjärvi 2005; Ahammed & Nixon 2006). Research also suggests that implementation is generally fragmented in Finland (Pölönen 2007; Jantunen & Hokkanen 2010). In this study, the road projects served as an example of realized follow-up. The findings show that the implementation had large variations between the cases in many respects. From the theoretical perspective, this is no surprise because the legal requirements do not specify the actions to be taken and obviously each case is unique. However, should there be a more systematic approach?

Considered chronologically, the findings showed that follow-up questions were already considered in the EIA stage. However, road projects appear to be a project type in which the delay between planning and construction is often prolonged, and some of the projects were not realized at all. The need for follow-up was usually argued for by using the general objectives of follow-up, and it was rare that follow-up needs were linked to exact plans. Thus, the findings could be interpreted as suggesting that at the EIA stage, the proposed follow-up program met the requirements of the legislation rather than the actual context-dependent needs. The competent authorities also did not emphasize the need for follow-up in their statements. The findings seem to indicate a belief in the practical irrelevance of EIA follow-up programs, as expressed by some of the EIA professionals (Jalava et al. 2010). Based on the quantitative findings, it seems reasonable to ask how many recourses should be used in the planning of follow-up when alternatives and realization options are open, particularly given the low proportion of realization for this particular project type.

When the processes progressed, the actual EIA follow-up programs were more detailed, and later, they were usually implemented as planned. In this regard, it can be seen that, as Morrison-Saunders et al. (2003) had noted, the institutional arrangements, capacities and resources obviously affect the success of follow-up. The realization showed no constant procedure regarding follow-up organization. Wide variation between the cases was apparent not only because of the different scoping results, but also because of the different capacities and resources developed and how the responsibilities were divided. One distinctive feature was that many of the follow-up actions were funded on a project basis, and they rarely covered impact monitoring broadly and continuously.

The findings showed that much of the focus was placed on the natural environment and ecological effects – to some extent these were followed up in all the cases. Despite the wide definition of environmental impact in the EIA act, follow-up on social impacts was much rarer. In addition, as earlier research suggested (Arts 1998; Noble and Storey 2005; Beanlands and Duinker 1983), the impact predictions in EISs appeared vague, and usually, the follow-up results could not be straightforwardly compared to them. But despite lack of precise predictions, they were generally in line with the experienced and reported impacts. This is a similar type of notion that has been earlier reported by Culhane et al. (1987) and Bailey et al. (1992). In this sense it could be argued that both the predictions and follow-up results showed value as information.

In this study, we did not aim to evaluate the appropriateness or quality of the chosen follow-up methodologies or tools. However, it was apparent that, regardless of the chosen methodology, the description of the actual impacts was often difficult. It was apparent that monitoring data was collected as evidence of possible changes in the environment, as well as changes in attitudes and opinions, to be used in evaluation later. However, in this regard, there was no common mechanism between the cases regarding how the evaluation was conducted. The appearance of separate ‘follow-up projects,’ that often had a narrower focus than the holistic objectives of the EIA also meant that often, the evaluation focused on these results. In addition, there were differences in the ways in which follow-up data were reported and interpreted. However, it appeared that when practical actions for follow-up were shared with organizations apart from the developer, more follow-up results were achieved than in the cases in which follow-up was approached as a single task.

Hence, the mechanisms and scopes of follow-ups varied, and the findings support the criticism expressed regarding the lack of systemacy in Finnish EIA follow-up. From the environmental protection point of view, it is not easy to judge whether this variation is meaningful. Certainly the idea of holistic follow-up is lost when the practice is split, and at least theoretically, this has an effect on how follow-up objectives can be reached. Managing uncertainties and risks has an element of surprise, and when the focus narrows, it may take longer to notice unexpected changes. In these cases the diversity of reporting methods also made it difficult to gather data. Some of the reports were internal – it may be that from an environmental point of view, not all relevant reports were included in our study – and this may hinder the actual environmental management tasks if information is not easily available.

Though, the results show that follow-up practices in these cases did not usually provide unambiguous impact information and that the practices are inconsistent, another conclusion is that this information is much better than no information at all. The studied cases showed that, when performed, follow-up practices can provide useful and versatile information to help in the consideration of whether the environment is protected. In a bigger picture, it could be argued that if a more systematic approach is required, the focus should be on enhancing the procedural requirements for follow-up within individual processes rather than generally requiring specific follow-up tasks. This could require (see Baker 2004), for example, more systematic consideration of follow-up needs, roles and, responsibilities; issue scoping; evaluation of possible methodology and tools; implementation; evaluation of results; issue management; and stakeholder communication. Then it could be that we would better know if we are achieving what we are hoping for.

Acknowledgements

Some of the findings were introduced at the IAIA’09 conference. The authors are grateful for all the advice received there, and would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript for their valuable comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [project no. 107880], Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation [project no. 2009287] and the Finnish Transport Agency (A-MH).

Notes

^1. Arts and Nooteboom (1999), cited by Arts et al. (2001, p. 176), offer one definition for these terms. In brief, monitoring refers to the measuring and collection of data; auditing refers to objective evaluation with pre-defined criteria; evaluation is a term used for a generic process involving value judgments (often policy-oriented) for the gathering, structuring, analysing and appraising of information. Post-decision analysis and management are generic terms that refer to activities or the planning of activities to be conducted after the decision to implement a project and the implementation of that project.

^2. However, the EIA Decree is not the only legislation that sets requirements for follow-up. For example, the Environmental Protection Act (86/2000) demands the monitoring of certain actions. In practice, the objectives of follow-up are essentially the same, regardless of what piece of legislation requires that follow-up.

^3. A detailed list of documents can be found from Anne-Mari Haakana's (2008a) Master's thesis and from the Road Administration report based on the thesis (Haakana, 2008b).

^4. The competent authority is the authority who guides the EIA process. In Finland, the EIA procedure ends when a competent authority provides its statement about project's environmental impact statement. In his/her statement the competent authority evaluates the adequacy and sufficiency of EIS.

^5. The pilot-EIA in the Raippaluoto case did not have a single EIS, but rather three separate reports dealing with (1) socio-economical impacts, (2) impacts on land use and landscape and (3) ecological impacts.

^6. Or consistently ’seuranta’ in Finnish.