No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
An assessment of socioeconomic assessments: Utility, accuracy, and policy considerations
Abstract
Reports the results of an analysis of the methodological adequacy and utility of a sample of environmental impact statements. The accuracy of a sample of population projections made as a part of the EIS process is assessed and the likely utility of such statements for local impact area decision makers is evaluated. The major inadequacies in each statement are established and recommendations for improving socioeconomic EISs formulated. The findings presented here should improve the ability of policy makers to formulate and to evaluate socioeconomic impact assessments.-from Authors
... The reasons for that situation are various. EIA needs to improve important aspects such as analyses quality (Buckley 1989; Lawrence 1993; Lee and Colley 1990; van der Staal and van Vught 1989) enforcement (Clark 1988; Kaplan-Widlmann and McBride 1992; Lambert and Wood 1990), post-development monitoring (Bailey and Hobbs 1990; Bisset 1984; Culhane 1987; Duinker 1985; Krawetz and Mac Donald 1986) and public participation (Kunreuther, Aarts, and Fitzgerald 1992; Schneidler and Sandman 1988); but even so, it is considered one of the most interesting tools for environmental management worldwide (Buxton 1990; Murdock et al. 1982; Wood and McDonic 1989). Its usefulness depends in a great deal of the social, economic, and political context (Bartlett 1989; Caldwell 1989; Concepcion 1993). ...
... ); but even so, it is considered one of the most interesting tools for environmental management worldwide (Buxton 1990; Murdock et al. 1982; Wood and McDonic 1989). Its usefulness depends in a great deal of the social, economic, and political context (Bartlett 1989; Caldwell 1989; Concepcion 1993). ...
This paper analyzes the situation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Spain since its inception in 1988. The analysis covers the general framework (the national and the autonomous communities' laws, the official guidebooks, the agencies' procedure), the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) issued by the environmental national agency, and a sample of Environmental Impact Studies of different type of projects. The results of this research show that (1) EIAs have been very general in their content, lacking a concrete analysis and without providing substantial solutions to the problems; (2) the socioeconomic analyses are frequently reduced to emphasizing the project's economic benefits while overlooking their potential harm; (3) especially serious is the acceptance of irregular EIA procedure by environmental agencies; and (4) public participation consists mainly in a bureaucratic process exhibiting the document for 30 days at the city hall. This paper concludes with a set of recommendations.
... However, where outcomes are predicted, numerous studies (e.g. Murdock et al. 1982;Canter 1983;Clark et al. 1987;Culhane et al. 1987;McCallum 1987;Buckley 1991;Locke and Storey 1997) serve to illustrate the difficulties of determining impact prediction accuracy. The main source of prediction data are project environmental impact statements (EIS), these are seen to be deficient insofar as they typically offer: i) vague, imprecise and untestable statements about potential outcomes, including little indication of when impacts are likely to occur; ii) non-existent, insufficient, inadequate or accessible monitoring data, both preproject baseline and during project implementation; iii) obsolete predictions resulting from changes in environmental conditions between the time that the predicted outcome was made and the monitoring activity, or changes in project design, schedules, etc., each of which can affect the relevance of project outcomes. ...
... Impact prediction is fundamental to EA (Therivel and Morris, 2001), and EA itself is designed with the intent to provide information of the changes that will occur in the environment if a particular proposed activity is implemented (De Jongh, 1988). However, where outcomes are predicted, numerous studies (e.g., Locke and Storey, 1997;Buckley, 1991;Culhane et al., 1987;McCallum, 1987;Canter, 1983;Murdock et al., 1982) serve to illustrate the difficulties of determining impact prediction accuracy. ...
The importance of follow-up in the EIA process is clearly recognized in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (Act) in which, where it is considered appropriate, the responsible authority for a project will design a follow-up program and ensure its implementation. The Act is also explicit in recommending that the results of follow-up programs be used to improve the quality of environmental assessments (EAs). The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the specific requirements for follow-up under the Act in fact provide the best opportunity for such quality improvements.The definition of follow-up under the Act requires the verification of the accuracy of the environmental assessment and determination of the effectiveness of measures taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of a project. We argue that the Act, generally, and the requirements for follow-up specifically, adopts a negative perspective towards project effects by focusing on the mitigation of adverse effects and discourages the follow-up of important social or economic effects which are independent of project-related changes to the biophysical environment. Secondly, we argue that verification of accuracy places an unwarranted emphasis on ‘what was expected’ rather than on ‘what was wanted’ in terms of environmental outcomes. Using examples from Canadian experience, we illustrate the limitations of the current approach to follow-up and suggest that greater utility would be achieved by focusing on whether the environmental objectives of the project in question have been achieved.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a procedure for predicting environmental impacts of projects prior to their development, while post-auditing seeks to assess the accuracy of such predictions. A literature review examines the need for post-auditing, highlighting several benefits to EIA performance that could arise if the results were effectively used. This reveals that, in practice, post-auditing activities are not widespread, and suggests reasons why this is so. An overview of post-audit findings from a survey of published studies is then presented, and it is concluded that there is much scope for raising the profile of post-auditing in EIA world-wide. Preliminary results from a recent UK post-auditing study based on eight projects are described. Information on impact predictions was gathered and compared with actual impacts. A total of 366 impact predictions were made of which 78% were qualitative in nature; 57% of the predictions were auditable and of these nearly three-quarters were accurate. Reasons for inauditability were ascertained including, for all cases, a lack of data or unsuitable information.
A post-project audit was conducted of 239 impacts forecast in an representative cross-section of 29 U.S. environmental impact statements. Results must be qualified because of the imprecision of EIS forecasts and the quality of data available to a retrospective evaluator. Relatively few forecasts were found to be inaccurate and even fewer unanticipated impacts were identified. However, only 30% of the impacts were unqualifiedly close to their forecasts, with almost as many rated accurate principally by virtue of the vagueness of the forecasts.
English
In spite of its manifest policy importance, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been the focus of very few explicit attempts at theoretical understanding. Writing about EIA has been guided by assumptions and models that have been implicitly assumed rather than explicitly and systematically explored, formulated, or articulated. How EIA is understood to work, how much policy significance is attributed to it, and the meaning it has in the politics of the environment is determined largely by which of these implicit models constitutes a frame of reference. As a first step in developing a theory of EIA, we identify six categories of implicit models based on our survey of scholarly and practitioner literature. We locate and specify each of these models in terms of debates over EIA, analysing implications for a theory of EIA, both operational and normative.
The field of socioeconomic impact analysis ha developed rapidly since the early 1970s. Despit extensive development, the field is facing a crisi with the public's environmental concern, the numbe of researchers devoting primary attention to impac analysis, and the financial support essential to th area's future productivity declining. It is thu appropriate to assess the present state of knowledg in socioeconomic impact analysis, to evaluate it conceptual and methodological limitations and t examine the likely future of the area as both a academic and a policy-relevant field of analysis This article assesses the current state of knowledg related to the economic, demographic, public servic and fiscal, and social impacts of large-scale deve lopments, discusses conceptual and methodologica limitations in the field and outlines three possibl scenarios for its future development. Its future i seen as dependent on extensive conceptual and metho dological developments and on increased sensitivit to policy-making requirements.
This paper presents the findings of a post-auditing study which compares the actual and predicted socio-economic impacts (including traffic) of a major power station construction project in the UK. An attempt is made to determine the accuracy of the predictions presented at the public inquiry into the development, drawing on the results of a developer-funded monitoring exercise undertaken for the duration of the eight-year construction programme. The study found that a very high proportion of testable predictions prepared prior to the inquiry could be audited; of these, 60% were either within predicted ranges or accurate to within 20% of predicted values. However, one in seven predictions had errors of more than 50%. The study revealed no consistent bias towards either under- or over-estimation of impacts. The paper explores the reasons for the predictive errors identified in the study; these include a range of project-specific and more generic factors, several of which are likely to be applicable to other large-scale construction projects. The study is particularly useful in the field of EIA because it relates to several weak areas in current practice: the assessment of socio-economic impacts, construction effects, and monitoring and auditing.
Population projections for subcounty areas often are made by extrapolating past population trends. Although more sophisticated methods exist and population extrapolations long have been criticized for their weak theoretical foundations, they remain an extremely popular planning tool in part because constraints of data, time, funds, and expertise make the more sophisticated methods infeasible. The objective of this research was to document the level of accuracy of a number of commonly used extrapolative methods and, thereby, to offer suggestions for their use. For example, exponential extrapolation was found to be most accurate for rapidly growing or declining areas, whereas linear extrapolation was most accurate for moderately growing areas. More than thirty-five hundred simulated population projections for 1960 and 1970 were made for most of the methods being tested. Then the simulated projections were compared to the actual populations to measure percentage errors and tendencies to over- or underestimate. The results indicate that extrapolative methods may yield sufficiently accurate projections for many planning purposes.
given the state of the art, socioeco-nomic assessments should include a range of projections for each de-velopment alternative (including the no-action alternative) These ba-sic recommendations have often been made by ourselves
- Finally
Finally, we suggest that, given the state of the art, socioeco-nomic assessments should include a range of projections for each de-velopment alternative (including the no-action alternative). These ba-sic recommendations have often been made by ourselves (Murdock and Leistritz 1979; Leistritz and Murdock 1981) and by numerous References Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. 102 Monitor (De-cember).
So-cial Assessment Manual: A Guide to the Preparation of the So-cial Well-Being Account The Accuracy of Population Pro-jections for Subcounty Areas
- S J Fitzsimmons
- L I Stuart
- C P Wolf
Fitzsimmons, S. J., Stuart, L. I., and Wolf, C. P, 1975. So-cial Assessment Manual: A Guide to the Preparation of the So-cial Well-Being Account. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Isserrnan, A. M. 1977. The Accuracy of Population Pro-jections for Subcounty Areas. Journal of the American Insti-tute of Planners 43: 247-259.
Energy Develop-ment in the H'estem United States: Impact on Rural Areas Estimating Populations and Income of Small Areas
- S H Murdock
- F L Leistritz
Murdock, S. H., and Leistritz, F. L. 1979. Energy Develop-ment in the H'estem United States: Impact on Rural Areas. New York: Praeger Publishers. National Academy of Sciences. 1980. Estimating Populations and Income of Small Areas. Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press. National Environmental Policy Act. 1970. Public Law, PL-190.
Projecting State and Local Populations The Methods and Ma-ierials of Demography
- D Pittenger
- H S Shryock
- J S Siegel
Pittenger, D. 1976. Projecting State and Local Populations. Cambridge, Mass. : Ballinger Publishing Company. Shryock, H. S. and Siegel, J. S. 1980. The Methods and Ma-ierials of Demography. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, u.s.G.p.a.
Postcensal E.sti-mates of Population. A Paper delivered at the 1980 An-nual Meeting of the American Assocation for the Ad-vancement of Science, Session on the 1980 Census
- M Zitter
- F J Cavanaugh
Zitter, M. and Cavanaugh, F. J. 1980. Postcensal E.sti-mates of Population. A Paper delivered at the 1980 An-nual Meeting of the American Assocation for the Ad-vancement of Science, Session on the 1980 Census. Jan-uary 5. 350 EIA REVIEW 3/4
Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plant Developments on Nonmetropolitan Communities
- Krannich
Postcensal Estimates of Population
- Zitter