Environmental Impact

Assessment: Practical
Solutions to Recurrent
Problems, Part 1
These can be diffi- Both the EIA
cult times for envi- process and its out-
ronmental impact Coping with common process- comes are labeled as
assessment (EIA) unfair, unjust, and
practitioners! They related EIA difficulties inequitable. EIA
do their best to con- processes are de-
form to relevant leg- scribed as inflexi-
islation, regulations, ble, and EIA docu-
and guidelines; to ments are criticized
involve the community; to address the concerns for giving insufficient consideration to risks and
and preferences of proponents, review agencies, uncertainties.
and the community; and to reflect “good prac- Although these criticisms are not always ap-
tice” standards and legal precedents. Still, as Ex- propriate, they are far too common and too
hibit 1 illustrates, they often are assailed on often valid to be dismissed as the products of
multiple fronts by multiple stakeholders. unique local circumstances. EIA practitioners
Impact prediction and impact management need additional help to cope with these recur-
programs are said to be unscientific. Alternatives rent problems.
are viewed as too narrowly defined. Alternatives This need is addressed in considerable detail
evaluation and impact analyses are characterized in my book Environmental Impact Assessment—
as inconsistent, unsystematic, and nontraceable. Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, published
The EIA process and documents are faulted for by John Wiley & Sons (Lawrence, 2003). The
not adequately advancing environmental quality book provides detailed analyses of major recur-
and sustainability. EIA documents and processes rent problems that plague EIA practice. It also of-
are labeled as unfocused, too costly and time- fers practical solutions for application at both the
consuming, and of dubious quality and effective- regulatory and applied levels. This article offers
ness. The EIA process and related outcomes are prescriptive advice derived from the book.
described as reducing or inhibiting community
influence and control. Public involvement efforts
are depicted as tokenism and/or as manipulation. David P. Lawrence

© 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/tqem.20057 Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 39
 Exhibit 1. Demands on EIA Process Managers*
About This Article
This article focuses on major prescriptive
themes, concepts, distinctions, and advice for
ameliorating recurrent, process-related problems
in EIA practice.
Because of the large number of specific prob-
lems that need to be covered, this article has been
divided into two parts. Part I discusses how to make
EIAs more rigorous, rational, substantive, and prac-
40 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
tical. Part II, which will appear in the next issue of
this journal, deals with how to make EIAs more
democratic, collaborative, ethical, and adaptive.
General Approach of the Article
In this article, the general approach adopted
for meeting the challenges associated with recur-
rent EIA problems encompasses the following
components.
David P. Lawrence
Recurrent Problems Are the Point of
Departure
Each problem is thoroughly explored. Proce-
dures, frameworks, concepts, and methods appro-
priate for ameliorating each problem are dis-
cussed.
Discussion Encompasses the Range of Issues
Facing EIA Practitioners
Each topic discussion begins by outlining the
problem and the direction that needs to be taken
to move toward resolution. The discussion offers
insights from practice (with examples from actual
EIA processes) and from theory. It then proceeds
to suggestions for integrating solutions at the reg-
ulatory and applied level, and concludes with a
summary of both the positive and negative as-
pects of the solutions suggested.
Experiences in four jurisdictions (the United
States, Canada, Australia, and the European
Union) are integrated into the analysis.
The EIA Process Assumes a Central Role
EIA practitioners have considerable discre-
tion in EIA activity sequence, in subdividing
EIA activities, and in choosing activity inputs,
outputs, and interconnections. The EIA process
frames methods application, document prepa-
ration and review, decision making, and public
participation. It also is the primary bridge be-
tween EIA regulatory requirements and EIA
practice.
EIA practitioners can benefit from a suite of
EIA processes as they seek to meet multiple de-
mands and to match process and context.
A Concerted Effort Is Made to Bridge Theory
and Practice
The analysis seeks to narrow the gap between
theory and practice by:
• integrating practice-based stories,
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
• grounding the regulatory analysis by refer-
ence to requirements and guidelines in four
jurisdictions,
• evaluating each process with good practice
standards, and
• using summaries and checklists to facilitate
process application.
Conventional EIA Processes
The Problem and the Direction
Conventional characterizations of the EIA
process, as typically portrayed in EIA literature,
do not adequately reflect the choices available.
At the regulatory level
the tendency is to
focus on the details of
existing individual EIA practitioners can benefit from a
EIA systems, often for suite of EIA processes as they seek
only a single jurisdic- to meet multiple demands and to
tion. But EIA regula- match process and context.
tory systems are not
static. Also, there may
be significant flaws, gaps, and inconsistencies in
the system.
Simply assuming (or even refining or modify-
ing) the existing system may be insufficient. The
benchmark should be good regulatory practice.
The direction is to provide a sense of the choices
available for achieving good regulatory practice.
This entails both going back to first principles
and drawing upon the experiences of multiple ju-
risdictions.
At the applied level, EIA texts tend to simply
present a single EIA process. Exhibit 2 shows an
example of such a process. What is rarely por-
trayed is the considerable potential for altering the
sequence and interconnections among activities,
for subdividing or amalgamating activities, and for
changing inputs and outputs. Alternative
processes and process variations, moreover, are sel-
dom described, compared, or critically evaluated.
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 41
 Exhibit 2. Example of a Conventional EIA Process*

42 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management David P. Lawrence

 Occasionally, allowance is made for individ-
ual process variations. Usually, little importance
is attached to these variations. The EIA practi-
tioner is left in the difficult position of designing
and managing the EIA process without the bene-
fit of an array of readily accessible process guid-
ance choices that can be integrated, combined,
adapted, and applied to suit the circumstances.
The direction is to systematically present an
array of available EIA process design and man-
agement choices.
Regulatory EIA Choices
Examples of choices available at the regula-
tory level include:
• EIA regulatory screening systems can be de-
signed to achieve one or more of the follow-
ing objectives: (1) incorporate environmental
considerations into proponent decision mak-
ing; (2) integrate environmental considera-
tions into action-related decisions; and (3)
protect and enhance the environment. Signif-
icance determination assumes a pivotal role
in any EIA screening system. Each screening
system type has positive and negative attri-
butes. EIA screening systems can be improved
by thoughtfully considering the attributes of
each screening system type and by integrating
good practice criteria for screening type(s)
and significance determination.
• EIA regulatory systems can be further en-
hanced by integrating good regulatory prac-
tices into the requirements and guidance for
the overall EIA process (e.g., objectives, mini-
mum requirements, general performance
standards, guidelines), and for individual EIA
activities (e.g., scoping, baseline analysis, al-
ternatives analysis, impact analysis, impact
management, documentation, participation).
• Designing and managing EIA regulatory sys-
tems necessitates close attention to integra-
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
tion and coordination functions. Integration
and coordination encompass interrelation-
ships among EIA activities (e.g., links, fre-
quency, sequence), integration and coordi-
nation with international EIA activities (e.g.,
development aid, global commons, neigh-
boring countries), vertical coordination (e.g.,
other government levels, other impact as-
sessment levels, government/nongovern-
ment), horizontal coordination (e.g., related
laws, related policies, plans and programs,
related projects and activities, actions by
other government departments and agen-
cies), and links to the knowledge base (e.g.,
applied environ-
mental and EIA re-
search, traditional
knowledge, envi- Designing and managing EIA
ronmental moni- regulatory systems necessitates
toring, interdisci- close attention to integration and
plinary analysis). coordination functions.
EIA regulatory sys-
tems can be more
effective when good practice criteria are in-
tegrated for each integration and coordina-
tion type.
Applied EIA Choices
Numerous choices are available to EIA process
managers when designing and managing EIA
processes, as noted in Exhibit 3. These choices
pertain, for example, to:
• activities and activity components (including
choices concerning activity sequence, form,
frequency, duration, and interaction);
• inputs to the process;
• outputs from the process;
• links between the EIA process and decision
making and related activities and fields;
• how to adapt the process for different EIA pro-
posal, proponent, effect, and setting types;
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 43
 Exhibit 3. Process Management Elements*

• how to match proposal- and effect-specific Closing the Loop

characteristics; and EIA practitioners (at both the regulatory and
• how to integrate insights and lessons from applied levels) can make effective use of these reg-
EIA quality and effectiveness analyses. ulatory and process design choices. But the avail-

44 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management David P. Lawrence

able choices do not directly address the recurrent
problems identified in this article (i.e., the need
for EIA practice to be more rigorous, rational, sub-
stantive, practical, democratic, collaborative, eth-
ical, and adaptive).
Although some choices may partially address
such concerns, there is no way of knowing which
regulatory or applied choices or combination of
choices are more or less effective in avoiding and
ameliorating the recurrent problems or problem
combinations. What is required then is:
• thorough exploration of each recurrent prob-
lem, together with preliminary identification
of a direction for change;
• integration of insights from practice;
• systematic review of relevant concepts and
frameworks;
• formulation of potential regulatory reforms
that directly address each recurrent problem;
• formulation of potential EIA process reforms
that directly address each recurrent problem;
• systematic, consistent, and explicit evaluation
of potential reforms; and
• assessment of various ways of connecting and
combining potential reforms to address situa-
tions characterized by multiple recurrent
problems.
Relevant regulatory and applied choices can
then be integrated into such analyses, as appro-
priate.
Making EIAs More Rigorous
The Problem and the Direction
The question of the appropriate role of sci-
ence in EIA practice is a controversial one. Some
argue that too limited a role for science in EIA
practice has resulted in ill-defined, biased, subjec-
tive, and excessively descriptive EIA processes,
documents, and methods.
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
Others suggest that a scientific EIA approach
is inappropriate (because of the value-full nature
of EIA) and impractical (because decision-making
needs are sacrificed in the quest to achieve unre-
alistic—in an applied field such as EIA—scientific
standards).
Still others maintain that analytical scientific
methods and standards can be selectively ap-
plied, adapted, tempered, and modified to be
consistent with the limits and properties of EIA
practice. Further complicating the issue is a
plethora of alternative
conceptions of the na-
ture and role of science
as it is and as it could These contextual analyses provide
be applied in planning the basis for regulatory and applied
and decision-making guidance for implementing a more
practice. scientific EIA process.
The direction to-
ward a more scientific
EIA process entails
identifying the assumptions and principles of
analytical science and exploring the debates, to-
gether with potential middle ground, surround-
ing if and how analytical science might be mod-
ified in general, and for applied fields such as
EIA. These contextual analyses provide the basis
for regulatory and applied guidance for imple-
menting a more scientific EIA process.
Insights from Practice
• A Hospital Redevelopment in London
An EIA was undertaken for a major hospital
redevelopment in London, England. The assess-
ment of cultural heritage effects, although com-
plying with regulatory requirements and adher-
ing to common practice, was found lacking by a
review body. Supplementary, more rigorous
analysis was required.
This example illustrates that administrators
often have considerable discretion in regulatory
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 45
 interpretation, and are also well aware of the
changing state of social and natural scientific
knowledge, methods, and practices.
Consequently, integrating contemporary sci-
entific knowledge and methods into EIA practice
can have considerable practical value. The in-
creasing stress being placed on cumulative effects
and sustainability contributions is likely to rein-
force the value to EIA practice of scientific per-
spectives and methods. (Example provided by
Alan Bond, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia.)
• A Marina in Glenelg, South Australia
An EIA for a marina in Glenelg, South Aus-
tralia, was heavily crit-
icized in public sub-
missions because of its
Integrating contemporary scientific failure to systemati-
knowledge and methods into EIA cally identify, predict,
practice can have considerable and interpret key ef-
practical value. fects and reasonable
options, and to con-
structively involve
stakeholders. In order
to break the deadlock between the proponent
and local opposition, an independent evaluation
was undertaken to differentiate between some
“facts” and “opinions.” This review provided the
basis for a decision by the state.
This example illustrates that sometimes a sys-
tematic and rigorous external and independent
evaluation (i.e., a scientific approach) can provide
a sound decision-making basis, even in highly
polarized situations. (Example provided by Nick
Harvey, Department of Geographical and Envi-
ronmental Studies, University of Adelaide.)
Insights from Theory
In order to establish a sound foundation for a
scientific EIA process, it is helpful to understand
key scientific terminology, recognize the charac-
46 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
teristics of analytical science, and appreciate the
nature of positions (and the middle ground be-
tween positions) associated with various scien-
tific debates. Examples of insights with implica-
tions for EIA practice include:
• Much thought has been given in science to
concepts and mechanisms for bridging the
gap between theory and applied practice
(e.g., applied theory, grounded theory, em-
piricism).
• Systematic procedures and principles have
been developed in science for moving from
the general to the particular (deduction),
and from the particular to the general (in-
duction).
• Some scientific characteristics closely parallel
those of EIA practice (e.g., collective, method-
ological, complex, pluralistic, heuristic).
• Some scientific characteristics appear appro-
priate for some EIA characteristics, such as im-
pact prediction and management (e.g., objec-
tive, independent, explanatory, verifiable),
but less appropriate for others, such as inter-
pretation and decision making.
• Certain scientific characteristics (e.g., re-
ducible, certain, natural science model)
seem either inappropriate or highly con-
strained in the uncertain and subjective
world of EIA practice.
• EIA, in common with applied science, seeks to
balance rigor and relevance, and to blend the
objective with the subjective, the espoused
with the applied, the explanatory with the
prescriptive, and analysis with synthesis. EIA,
also in common with applied science, at-
tempts (not always successfully) to be benefi-
cial to the environment, and to democracy.
Depending on the situation, a “predict and
control” or a “manage and adapt” approach
can be more appropriate in both EIA practice
and applied science.
David P. Lawrence
• Because of the importance of local circum-
stances, and of value and perspective differ-
ences, EIA practice seems to correspond
more closely to a pluralistic rather than a
unified scientific approach (i.e., competing
and overlapping integrative frameworks and
concepts).
Integrating Rigor at the Regulatory Level
Measures that can be introduced at the regu-
latory level to contribute to more rigorous EIA
practice include:
• Identify general science-related principles
for application in EIA practice (e.g., inter-
disciplinary, unbiased language, methods
accepted by scientific community, confi-
dence limits, determination of Type I and
Type II statistical errors, use of scientific no-
tations).
• Sponsor research to address knowledge and
methodological gaps.
• Undertake EIA quality and effectiveness
analyses to help build and test a core body of
good practice.
• Promote science-based and adaptive manage-
ment approaches.
• Accredit environmental professionals.
• Promote use of scientific panels and advisors.
• Formulate science-related methodological
guidance for specific EIA activities (e.g.,
forecasting), environments (e.g., ecological
processes), and effects (e.g., cumulative
effects).
• Establish interagency scientific task forces or
committees (e.g., to guide the assessment of
social or ecological effects, to prepare hand-
books, to facilitate the use of scientific meth-
ods, frameworks, or approaches).
• Prepare scientific research guidelines (e.g., in
environmentally sensitive areas, for involving
indigenous peoples).
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
Integrating Rigor at the Applied Level
Exhibit 4 offers an example of a scientific
EIA process. Major features include the following:
• The process treats EIA practice as an experiment.
• The process is structured by an experimental
design.
• The baseline analy-
sis applies multiple
and reliable envi-
ronmental criteria Undertake EIA quality and
or indicators to effectiveness analyses to help build
provide a dynamic and test a core body of good
picture of trends practice.
and patterns, and
to identify sensi-
tive and significant environmental compo-
nents, functions, and processes.
• Predictions are deduced from hypotheses and
alternatives.
• Models and theories trace causal connections.
• Hypotheses are tested by comparative, con-
trol, case, and pilot studies prior to approval,
and by monitoring and follow-up studies after
approval.
• Gaps, limits and uncertainties, and associ-
ated implications are explicitly considered.
• Interpretations are explicitly substantiated,
preferably by statistical analyses.
• Scientists and natural and social scientific
knowledge are central to the process.
Positive and Negative Aspects of Making EIAs
More Rigorous
On the plus side:
• A scientific EIA approach effectively inte-
grates scientific knowledge, methods, and
standards.
• It facilitates participation by scientists, builds
on the natural and social knowledge base, and
establishes links to the scientific community
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 47
 Exhibit 4. Example of a Scientific EIA Process*

through literature reviews, peer review proce- • Scientific practice tends to be focused, sys-
dures, and the circulation and publication of tematic, efficient, explicit, unbiased, iterative,
findings and methodological adaptations. interactive, and adaptive.

48 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management David P. Lawrence

 On the minus side:
• Scientific approaches are less suited to “value-
full” EIA activities (e.g., issue and option
analysis, option evaluation, significance inter-
pretation).
• They can be biased toward the readily meas-
urable. Sometimes limitations and uncertain-
ties are underestimated.
• Nonscientific knowledge tends to be dis-
counted. The public is often peripheral to the
process.
• Fairness, equity, and environmental justice is-
sues and perspectives are not directly ad-
dressed.
• Scientific EIA practice can stress the analytic
over the integrative and holistic.
Making EIAs More Rational
The Problem and the Direction
Rationality can either be a positive or a nega-
tive force in an EIA process, depending on one’s
perspective. To its proponents, the problem is the
failure of EIA practice to measure up against ra-
tionality ideals (e.g., being comprehensive, con-
sistent, explicit, traceable).
By contrast, critics argue that EIA practice is or
strives to be too rational. Rational processes are
characterized as politically naïve, impractical (in
terms of recognizing decision-making limita-
tions), inflexible, poorly equipped to deal with
uncertainty and subjectivity, and prone to tech-
nocratic and autocratic tendencies.
A third group of commentators suggests that
rationality can be appropriate if rationality stan-
dards are adapted and refined to match contex-
tual conditions, constraints, and uncertainties.
The direction involves applying valid ration-
ality strengths, minimizing legitimate rationality
deficiencies, drawing upon alternative rationality
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
definitions and applications, and integrating
these adaptations into EIA requirements and
processes.
Insights from Practice
• A Hazardous Waste Landfill near Sarnia,
Ontario
An EIA was prepared for the enlargement of a
private hazardous waste landfill near Sarnia, On-
tario, Canada. The EIA documentation used
largely qualitative (but
fully substantiated)
scaling procedures to
systematically, explic- Rationality can either be a positive
itly, and consistently or a negative force in an EIA
address the purpose of process, depending on one’s
the process and pro- perspective.
posal, reasonable alter-
natives, individual and
cumulative effects, im-
pact management measures, and public and
agency concerns and preferences.
The methods for conducting the alternatives
and site assessment analyses did not become is-
sues for either the public or for government re-
viewers. The public and agencies instead fo-
cused on the prediction and management of a
few key impacts. Both public and agency con-
cerns were resolved to the satisfaction of most
parties, and the project was approved without a
public hearing.
The systematic and traceable analysis of alter-
natives and impacts was not responsible for proj-
ect approval. But this analysis made it possible for
the interested and affected parties to focus on and
resolve a small number of manageable issues. (Ex-
ample provided by author.)
• Landfill Siting in Metropolitan Toronto
A special authority was established to locate
suitable landfill sites in three regions surrounding
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 49
 metropolitan Toronto. Highly technical and
largely quantitative evaluation procedures were
used to screen and compare areas and sites.
Heavy reliance was placed on expert judgment.
The role of the public was limited to reacting to
the consultant analyses and contributing to crite-
ria group and criteria rankings and weightings.
The process generated a storm of protest and
was eventually abandoned. The local public ques-
tioned the legitimacy of the assumptions, the
logic of the discipli-
nary distinctions, the
A rational EIA process should abstract ranking and
exhibit characteristics such as weighting procedures,
being purposeful, orderly, logical, and the failure to ef-
coherent, explicit, consistent, fectively integrate
reflective, and reasonable. local knowledge and
adequately tailor the
procedures to regional
characteristics.
A truly rational EIA process effectively inte-
grates local perspectives and knowledge and is ap-
propriate to the context. (Example provided by
author.)
Insights from Theory
Rational EIA processes can be more effec-
tively formulated when based upon a sound un-
derstanding of rationality attributes, forms, as-
sumptions, core characteristics, strengths,
limitations, and approaches for oversetting lim-
itations. Source materials suggest, for example,
that:
• A rational EIA process should exhibit charac-
teristics such as being purposeful, orderly, log-
ical, coherent, explicit, consistent, reflective,
and reasonable.
• Rationality attributes function best when sup-
ported by grounds (such as evidence, analysis,
and methods) and when key preconditions
(such as openness and trust) are satisfied.
50 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
• There are many rationality forms (e.g., instru-
mental, procedural, substantive, social,
bounded, communicative). These rationality
forms can help define, bound, focus, and
shape the treatment of rationality in the EIA
process.
• Rational processes tend to assume that prob-
lems are well defined, that the environment
and available choices are predictable and con-
trollable, that a uniform public interest can be
defined, and that decision makers are ra-
tional. There is some potential for relaxing
and adapting such assumptions.
• A rational EIA process clearly defines the
problem; explicitly identifies goals and ob-
jectives; consistently, explicitly, and system-
atically evaluates alternatives against goals
and objectives; integrates the process into
planning and decision making; and imple-
ments and monitors the preferred alterna-
tive. The process is supported by sound
technical analyses and judgments. Agencies
and the public provide inputs prior to major
decisions.
• Many strengths (e.g., being simple, explicit,
logical, systematic, adaptable) and limitations
(e.g., being unrealistic, ineffective, incom-
plete, inappropriate) have been attributed to
rational planning and decision making. These
strengths and limitations are tendencies that
can be offset or reinforced.
• Several responses to the limitations of rational
planning have been formulated (e.g.,
bounded rationality, strategic planning, effec-
tive planning, advocacy planning, commu-
nicative planning). These responses have
sought to make the process more realistic, ef-
fective, open, democratic, and substantive.
• EIA literature partially mirrors, and has par-
tially drawn upon, these larger rationality-
related debates. EIA practice could benefit
from a closer scrutiny of these debates.
David P. Lawrence
Integrating Rationality at the Regulatory
Level
Measures that can be introduced at the regu-
latory level to contribute to more rational EIA
practice include:
• Require the consideration of reasonable alter-
natives.
• Provide guidance for differentiating reason-
able from unreasonable alternatives (i.e.,
screening procedures and criteria).
• Require evaluation of the environmental con-
sequences of alternatives.
• Identify the types of alternatives that must,
should, and may (depending on the situation)
be considered.
• Include more requirements and recommenda-
tions regarding alternatives to be considered
in proposal- and location-specific require-
ments and guidelines.
• Require that the proposal purpose and need
be addressed. Require the linking of the pro-
posal purpose and goals to the purpose and
goals of the EIA legislation.
• Provide guidance for facilitating the system-
atic, explicit, and consistent identification,
evaluation, and management of alternatives
and impacts.
• Ensure that requirements and guidelines are
sufficiently flexible to retain and foster rea-
soning in EIA processes, without precluding
the potential contributions from variations of
and alternatives to rationality.
Integrating Rationality at the Applied Level
Exhibit 5 offers an example of a rational EIA
process. Major features of the process include:
• The problem or opportunity is clearly char-
acterized.
• The purpose, goals, objectives, and principles
are systematically determined.
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
• The process is bounded by scoping, and by ex-
plicitly considering internal and external con-
straints and opportunities.
• The proposed action is described, together
with potentially reasonable alternatives.
• Alternatives are first screened using exclusion-
ary criteria.
• Reasonable alternatives are compared against
objectives using evaluation methods, which
combine scaled effects with criteria rankings
and weightings.
• Uncertainties and value variations are ad-
dressed through sensitivity analyses.
• Baseline conditions are systematically charac-
terized.
• Individual and cu-
mulative impacts,
with and without Identify the types of alternatives
mitigation, are sys- that must, should, and may
tematically identi- (depending on the situation) be
fied, predicted, and considered.
interpreted. Impact
magnitude and sig-
nificance ratings are qualitatively or quantita-
tively scaled and amalgamated.
• A comprehensive impact management pro-
gram is formulated.
• The process is supported by technical studies,
reviews of comparable proposals and environ-
ments, peer reviews, and applied research.
• The public identifies concerns and suggestions
and responds to analyses and documents.
• Documents are expected to provide a clear,
unbiased, systematic, and accurate decision-
making basis.
Positive and Negative Aspects of Making EIAs
More Rational
On the plus side:
• Rational EIA processes tend to be consistent
and systematic. Options, effects, and manage-
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 51
 Exhibit 5. Example of a Rational EIA Process*
ment methods are systematically generated,
assessed, and applied.
• Relevant physical, biological, social, cultural,
and economic effects can be effectively incor-
porated into a rational EIA process.
52 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
• Rational EIA processes are supportive of the in-
tegration and application of scientific and
technical knowledge, methods, and standards.
• A clear and traceable decision-making basis is
generally provided.
David P. Lawrence
 On the minus side:
• Rational EIA processes tend not to be con-
ducive to holistic perspectives, can emphasize
process over substance, can discount non-
technical and extrarational environmental
knowledge and forms, and can sometimes
sacrifice practicality in the drive to be com-
prehensive.
• The emphasis on technical and scientific
knowledge, methods, and analysis can inhibit
local democratic control and collaborative ef-
forts, relegate equity and fairness to second-
ary concerns, and undermine boundary-
spanning efforts (e.g., among knowledge
forms, across varying perspectives and ideals,
and to other professions and environmental
management types).
• Rational EIA processes in practice can be in-
flexible, and often are poorly adapted to com-
plex and uncertain situations.
Making EIAs More Substantive
The Problem and the Direction
The relationships between process and sub-
stance in EIA practice can be approached from
many perspectives. These perspectives include
the following:
• process and substance should be kept separate
(because EIA wastes resources or reinforces the
status quo, or because substance is the role of
other tools and EIA should focus on process);
• the role of the EIA process in contributing to
substantive environmental improvements is
unknown (because decision-making, out-
come, and environmental characteristics are
unknown), and the priority should be on ac-
quiring such knowledge;
• minor refinements are needed (i.e., substance
can be readily integrated into conventional
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
processes, or only minor process refinements
are necessary);
• moderate adjustments are needed (i.e., by
adopting good practices and through greater
emphasis on positive substantive out-
comes); and
• major reforms are needed (e.g., redesign EIA
processes to facilitate the integration of sub-
stantive concerns, to reinforce environmen-
tal values, to overcome implementation
constraints and knowledge limits, and to
better link EIA to larger frameworks and
other methods).
The process-substance problem varies among
ecological, social, and
sustainability con-
cerns. Many un- It must be assumed that all problem
knowns remain re- perspectives and solutions,
garding process and depending on the circumstances
substance links and and to varying degrees, are valid.
the outcome effective-
ness of alternative EIA
processes.
Pending such knowledge, it must be assumed
that all problem perspectives and solutions, de-
pending on the circumstances and to varying de-
grees, are valid. The direction then is to explore
how EIA process management can better address
this constellation of interrelated problems and
solutions.
Insights from Practice
• A Waste Management Facility in Stryria,
Austria
An EIA was completed successfully for a waste
management facility in Stryria, Austria. The pro-
posed facility would employ mechanical and bio-
logical waste treatment methods. During the
process, several citizens founded a group to facil-
itate public participation. The group worked
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 53
 closely with the developer and the environmen-
tal authority. They thoroughly and critically re-
viewed the EIA documentation. They were able to
strongly influence the EIA decision-making
process and contributed to essential substantive
environmental changes.
This example demonstrates that a more sub-
stantive EIA process can result from enhanced
public participation and influence, which broad-
ens and reorients the process to better accommo-
date a wider range of substantive knowledge and
insights. (Example provided by Ralf Aschemann,
Austrian Institute for the Development of Envi-
ronmental Assessment.)
• A Marina Complex in Mandurah, Western
Australia
A major new marina complex was proposed
for the coastal and
holiday community of
An appreciation of substantive
Mandurah in Western
(ecological, social, sustainability)
Australia. As part of
concepts can aid in establishing a
the impact assessment
firm foundation for enhanced EIA
process, the regional
process management.
development commis-
sion hired a consult-
ant to undertake a so-
cial impact assessment (SIA) of the marina
proposal as it related to the permanent residents
of a caravan park.
The SIA drew heavily on the psychology and
sociology literature. The SIA was able to effec-
tively characterize and legitimize the perspectives
and perceptions of the park residents. It also
raised important issues, facilitated the explo-
ration of management options, and gave the
local residents a greater sense of control over
their destinies.
This example demonstrates that the appropri-
ate use of social scientific methods by qualified
SIA professionals can help integrate substantive
insights and constructive suggestions into the
54 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
EIA process. (Example provided by Jo Anne Beck-
with, Department of Resource Development,
Michigan State University.)
Insights from Theory
An appreciation of substantive (ecological, so-
cial, sustainability) concepts can aid in establish-
ing a firm foundation for enhanced EIA process
management. Examples of the implications for EIA
practice of these concepts include the following.
• Ecological concepts demonstrate the need:
◆ for an ecological systems perspective;
◆ for a place-based approach;
◆ to integrate sound ecological knowledge;
◆ to transcend disciplinary boundaries;
◆ to recognize ecological stresses and limits;
◆ to acknowledge limits on knowledge and
control;
◆ to manage impacts continuously and
adaptively; and
◆ for the process to be open, adaptive, cre-
ative, collaborative, iterative, selective,
and action-oriented.
• Social concepts illustrate the need to:
◆ recognize that people react in anticipa-
tion of, and adapt to, change;
◆ appreciate that social phenomena are
very difficult to forecast and influence in
predictable ways;
◆ be aware of the multiple potentially ap-
plicable (but partially overlapping and
conflicting) social models, theories, per-
spectives, and frameworks;
◆ offset the often peripheral position of
SIA in decision making;
◆ be cautious regarding preconceptions;
◆ appreciate the implications of the gulf
between the social sciences and applied
fields such as SIA;
◆ design and adapt the process to fit the
context;
David P. Lawrence
 ◆ see the world through the eyes of poten-
tially affected parties;
◆ socially construct the EIA process;
◆ explore social impacts at multiple levels
and from multiple perspectives;
◆ recognize that meaning and value are so-
cially determined; and
◆ facilitate a central role for dialogue and
social interaction in the process.
• Sustainability concepts underscore the need to:
◆ be aware of the varying perceptions of
the nature and purpose of sustainability;
◆ take into account that sustainability is
refined through sustainability forms and
ethical perspectives; directed by needs,
aspirations, and principles; applied
through instruments, procedures, and
processes; integrated by strategies, vi-
sions, and frameworks; and adapted to
contexts;
◆ integrate sustainability at conceptual,
regulatory, and applied levels; and
◆ ensure an effective role for sustainability
in interpreting significance; determining
environmental limits; integrating envi-
ronmental change measures; interpret-
ing present conditions; determining
plausible, planned, and desired futures;
managing environmental change; estab-
lishing links to other environmental
management instruments; and advanc-
ing substantive EIA aspirations.
• Substantive methods can aid in:
◆ addressing interrelationships;
◆ characterizing and interpreting past and
present conditions;
◆ identifying ecological and social limits;
◆ portraying plausible and desirable future
conditions;
◆ determining how to narrow the gaps be-
tween plausible and desirable future
conditions;
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
◆ managing uncertainty; and
◆ facilitating the involvement of interested
and potentially affected parties.
Integrating Substance at the Regulatory Level
Measures that can be introduced at the regu-
latory level to contribute to more substantive EIA
practice include:
• Ensure that social, ecological, and sustainabil-
ity goals and principles are incorporated into
EIA legislation and strategic environmental
assessment (SEA) requirements.
• Define the environment broadly, and require
consideration of di-
rect and indirect,
short- and long- Require that proposed actions be
term ecological, re- assessed in terms of the extent to
source, social, cul- which they contribute to or detract
tural, heritage, from the substantive goals of the
health, economic, EIA legislation.
transboundary (in-
cluding global com-
mons), and cumulative effects.
• Explicitly identify substantive priorities in EIA
legislation (e.g., matters of national environ-
mental significance). Provide detailed require-
ments and guidelines for addressing potential
impacts on each priority substantive concern.
• Require that proposed actions be assessed in
terms of the extent to which they contribute
to or detract from the substantive goals of the
EIA legislation.
• Use guidelines to address the treatment of
various types of substantive effects.
• Coordinate the treatment of substantive envi-
ronmental concerns with interagency com-
mittees, task forces, and procedural guidance,
and among government levels (e.g., tiering).
• Sponsor applied research on substantive envi-
ronmental issues and methods (e.g., ecologi-
cal management, SIA, adaptive management).
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 55
 • Place treatment of substantive concerns
through EIA requirements within the context
of broader (e.g., international, national, inter-
agency) substantive legislation, strategies,
plans, policies, frameworks, and monitoring
systems.
• Systematically assess the effectiveness of reg-
ulatory efforts to integrate EIA process and
substance.
Integrating Substance at the Applied Level
Exhibit 6 offers an example of a substantive
EIA process. Major features include the following:
•
The process operates within the context of
sustainability plans, strategies, constraints,
and opportunities.
• Models, scenarios, visions, and stories are
used to construct plausible and desired fu-
tures, recognizing alternative worldviews and
value positions.
• Gaps between plausible and desired futures are
determined. The gaps
provide the basis for
An EIA process focused on tangible first identifying sus-
environmental improvements is tainability principles,
consistent with a holistic scientific goals, objectives, and
approach. priorities, and then es-
tablishing specific sus-
tainability targets, cri-
teria, and thresholds.
• Alternatives for closing the gaps are identified.
Proposed actions and alternatives are refined
and treated as potential sustainability catalysts.
• Alternatives are evaluated against sustainabil-
ity thresholds, and in terms of the extent to
which they contribute to or undermine sus-
tainability objectives.
• The individual and cumulative effects of the
selected action are identified, predicted, inter-
preted, and managed, again with the empha-
sis on furthering sustainability.
56 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
• These analyses provide the basis for decision
making.
• Outcomes are monitored and linked to sus-
tainability and environmental indicators.
Positive and Negative Aspects of Making EIAs
More Substantive
On the plus side:
• An EIA process focused on tangible environ-
mental improvements is consistent with a ho-
listic scientific approach.
• It is conducive to achieving substantive ob-
jectives.
• It effectively addresses interrelationships.
• It can integrate multiple values, forms of
knowledge, perspectives, and ideals.
• It can facilitate local influence and procedural
and distributional fairness.
• It is usually collaborative, open, flexible, in-
terdisciplinary, and linked to related environ-
mental management and sustainability in-
struments.
On the minus side:
• Sometimes, inconsistencies arise in the com-
plex task of drawing together diverse methods
and perspectives.
• Such processes can be difficult to follow and
manage, and can be hampered by complexity,
a broad level of detail, political naïveté, and
insufficient attention to short-term require-
ments, institutional barriers, and regulatory
perspectives.
• The process can break down in highly polar-
ized situations or if expectations regarding
what can be practically achieved are raised to
unrealistic levels.
• Determining the appropriate contributions of
individual proposals to environmental and
sustainability targets can be problematic.
David P. Lawrence
 Exhibit 6. Example of a Substantive EIA Process*

Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1 Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 57
 Making EIAs More Practical
The Problem and the Direction
Practicality, in the EIA process, concerns
whether the process is focused, realistic (consistent
with how policy making and decision making take
place), feasible (with proposed and assumed ac-
tions that can be undertaken and implemented in
varying contexts), competent (consistent with
good practice performance standards), and effec-
tive (so that it realizes its potential).
The problem is that
EIA processes tend to
be unfocused, discon-
EIA processes tend to be unfocused, nected from reality,
disconnected from reality, weak on weak on implementa-
implementation, of variable quality, tion, of variable qual-
and slow to learn from experience ity, and slow to learn
and practice. from experience and
practice. The direction
is advancing toward
making the EIA process more focused, relevant,
feasible, competent, and effective.
Insights from Practice
• Management Plan for the Ulura Kata Tjuta
National Park in Central Australia
A social and cultural impact study was under-
taken as part of a management plan for the Ulura
Kata Tjuta National Park in Central Australia. The
SIA served to identify the impacts of tourism and
national park management on the local commu-
nity of indigenous traditional owners. The con-
sultant used a range of participative SIA methods
to derive practical strategies that addressed the
concerns and aspirations of traditional owners
and stakeholder groups.
These strategies were incorporated into the
five-year management plan. Many measures were
implemented immediately. A monitoring and
evaluation framework was also developed that
58 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
employed a system of indicators to measure “the
state of the culture.”
This example demonstrates that practicality
can be an outcome from a collaborative planning
process structured and managed to provide prac-
tical solutions to real stakeholder problems. (Ex-
ample provided by Annie Holden, ImpaxSIA
Consulting, Brisbane, Australia.)
• Oil Sands Development Projects in the
Fort McMurray Region, Alberta
Oil sands development projects in the Fort Mc-
Murray region of Alberta, Canada, have to meet
both provincial and federal EIA requirements. The
Terms of Reference (TORs) for each project have
tended to include lengthy lists of requirements, re-
sulting in costly and time-consuming EIA processes.
Shell Canada has developed a focused TOR
that, in combination with a strategic-level EIA ap-
proach, has resulted in much more focused (and
less time-consuming and costly) EIAs, without
sacrificing the integrity of the process or environ-
mental outcomes. Regulatory agency cooperation
was critical in this effort.
The process highlighted in this example ap-
plied a practical method (scoping) to counteract
engrained perspectives and behaviors, producing
a more efficient EIA process that did not jeopar-
dize either substantive environmental objectives
or stakeholder interests. (Example provided by
Roger Creasey, Shell Canada Ltd.)
• Class Screening under the CEAA
Most projects and activities that trigger an en-
vironmental assessment under the Canadian Envi-
ronmental Assessment Act (CEAA) are assessed
through self-directed screening. The CEAA provides
for a class screening mechanism to streamline and
simplify the regulatory review and approval process
for routine or repetitive projects or activities.
Class screening is expected to result in more
predictable, efficient, and certain EIA processes.
David P. Lawrence
Although the general trend in the use of class as-
sessments has been positive, outcomes in terms of
greater efficiency have been mixed or uncertain.
This example demonstrates that applying a
regulatory streamlining procedure, such as class
screening, does not necessarily create only bene-
fits; there also can be negative implications. Seri-
ous obstacles can be encountered. And the proce-
dure is only effective if cautiously applied,
thoughtfully adapted and refined to suit the situ-
ation, and monitored for effectiveness. (Example
provided by Lesley Matthews, Jacques Whitford
Environment Limited.)
Insights from Theory
Practical EIA processes are focused, realistic,
feasible, competent, and effective. Source materials
related to these themes suggest, for example, that:
• The EIA process should focus on what is im-
portant by applying scoping to EIA institu-
tional arrangements and documents, as well
as to EIA activities, inputs, and outputs. Scop-
ing is based on clear principles, concentrates
on what is important, defines clear roles, and
is adapted to context.
• A realistic EIA process is grounded in prac-
tice and experience. It is based on a sound
understanding of organizational structures
and procedures; how decisions are made;
how practitioners operate; how people be-
have in organizations; how power is exer-
cised; how resources are allocated; and how
actions are implemented, facilitated, inhib-
ited, and prevented.
• A practical EIA process is workable. It can be
undertaken and implemented. It is informed
by concepts; guided by strategies; aided by
tactics, tools, and methods; and merged with
implementation, management, and context.
It is linked to other decision-making levels, to
related instruments, and to other government
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
requirements. It cuts across disciplines and
professions.
• Practical EIA processes are competent. Partici-
pants are qualified. Roles are clearly defined
and well coordinated. Good practices are em-
ployed in the conduct of individual and joint
EIA activities. Recurrent competence-related
problems are avoided or minimized.
• Practical EIA processes are effective. Effective-
ness addresses how well the process works. It
concerns the quality of inputs and the effec-
tiveness of direct and indirect outputs. EIA
quality and effectiveness analyses raise the level
of EIA practice, distinguish between accept-
ability and performance levels, correct deficien-
cies, involve inter-
ested and affected
parties, substantiate Practical EIA processes are focused,
interpretations and realistic, feasible, competent, and
conclusions, and fa- effective.
cilitate the imple-
mentation of im-
provements.
Integrating Practicality at the Regulatory Level
Measures that can be introduced at the regu-
latory level to contribute to more practical EIA
practice include the following:
• Minimize EIA duplication and overlap among
government levels by:
◆ clearly defining environmental responsi-
bilities (e.g., matters of national environ-
mental significance);
◆ employing joint processes, documents,
and public hearings;
◆ using interagency and intergovernmental
agreements, committees, and task forces;
◆ sharing databases and coordinating review
procedures and review schedules;
◆ undertaking joint place-based planning
and management;
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 59
 ◆ employing accreditation, equivalency, del-
egation, or lead government systems; and
◆ defining minimum levels of good practice,
using tiering, and cross-referencing related
requirements.
• Ensure that EIA roles among government de-
partments and agencies are well coordinated by:
◆ specifying roles, requirements, and proce-
dures in legislation, regulations, and
guidelines;
◆ addressing joint triggering of EIA and
other requirements
with coordinated tim-
Focus on what is important and
ing, merged require-
minimize unnecessary costs and
ments, joint docu-
delays by using screening
ments, substitution
procedures to focus the system on
agreements, tiering,
significant proposals.
cross-referencing, in-
teragency offices and
agreements, and circu-
lation requirements;
◆ using coordinating agencies and EIA
process managers;
◆ undertaking training sessions and establish-
ing workshops, task forces, and committees;
◆ building coordination around a common
purpose or within the context of larger
policies or plans; and
◆ employing common databases, joint ap-
plied research, and shared or common fol-
low-up or auditing procedures.
• Focus on what is important and minimize un-
necessary costs and delays by:
◆ using screening procedures to focus the
system on significant proposals;
◆ providing for different types of assess-
ment, and for class and categorical assess-
ments to address degrees of significance;
◆ employing scoping and significance re-
quirements, procedures, and guidelines;
◆ reducing the likelihood of delays with
time limits, suggested timelines, docu-
60 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
ment circulation limits, quick-test triggers,
and accelerated project planning;
◆ accelerating the review process with
checklists, electronic registries, and clearly
defined standards and performance crite-
ria; and
◆ reducing paperwork with page limits,
combined documents, tiering, cross-
referencing, and document content, style,
summary, and appendix requirements.
• Ensure a minimum level of EIA competence,
and contribute to enhanced EIA practice, by:
◆ undertaking effectiveness reviews of the
EIA system;
◆ establishing EIA quality improvement
teams;
◆ providing for independent review of EIA
process management practices;
◆ undertaking effectiveness reviews of EIA
legislation, regulations, guidelines, and
procedures;
◆ undertaking quality reviews of EIA docu-
ments and processes;
◆ preparing annual reports on the imple-
mentation of EIA requirements;
◆ preparing quarterly reports on EIA lessons
learned;
◆ undertaking compliance monitoring;
◆ monitoring EIA contributions to better
project planning;
◆ monitoring the significant effects resulting
from implementation of proposed actions;
◆ monitoring the environmental record of
proponents;
◆ providing minimum requirements and
good practice guidance;
◆ enhancing competence levels through
sponsored and coordinated research, EIA
training, shared databases, and place-
based management;
◆ instituting a quality assurance program; and
◆ establishing EIA centers and institutes.
David P. Lawrence
Integrating Practicality at the Applied Level
Exhibit 7 offers an example of a practical
EIA process. Major features of the process include
the following:
• The process focuses from the outset on
regulatory requirements and stakeholder
issues.
Exhibit 7. Example of a Practical EIA Process*
Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to Recurrent Problems, Part 1
• It is conducive to stakeholder involvement
and is built around decisions.
• It involves debate, discussion, negotiation, re-
view, reflection, analysis, synthesis, compari-
son, and bargaining among interested and af-
fected parties.
• It integrates ends, means, constraints, analy-
ses, knowledge, methods, skills, experience,
Environmental Quality Management / Summer 2005 / 61
 uncertainties, requirements, perspectives, and
concerns.
• The process operates within available resources,
is iterative and incremental, defines roles and re-
sponsibilities, explores consequences and impli-
cations, provides a rationale for interpretations
and conclusions, and is adapted to context.
• The process is merged with approvals and im-
plementation and evaluates the effectiveness
of direct and indirect outputs.
• It is supported by experience and practice-
based knowledge and applies experiments,
pilot projects, feasibility analyses, and tar-
geted research to refine and test interpreta-
tions and conclusions.
• Close contact is maintained with interested
and affected parties, with the focus on issues
and perspectives directly bearing on decision
making and implementation.
Positive and Negative Aspects of Making EIAs
More Practical
On the plus side:
• Practical EIA processes are generally efficient
and effective in meeting decision-making and
implementation needs and requirements.
• The process is integrated with project plan-
ning, decision making, management, and im-
plementation.
• Regulatory, decision-making, and implementa-
tion concerns are addressed comprehensively.
• Practical EIA processes are generally open and
flexible.
• Scientific standards are maintained to the ex-
tent that they are identified in regulatory re-
quirements and in good practice standards.
• Environmental substance is integrated
David P. Lawrence, PhD, has been an EIA practitioner for more than 25 years, and is president of Lawrence Environmental
in Langley, British Columbia. He is also a member of the Planning Institute of British Columbia, the International Associa-
tion for Impact Assessment, and the National Association of Environmental Professionals.
62 / Summer 2005 / Environmental Quality Management
(though usually as a means and in response to
external pressures).
• Local influence, stakeholder collaboration,
and procedural and substantive fairness are
facilitated (though only when raised by stake-
holders).
On the minus side:
• Matters other than regulatory, decision-
making, and implementation concerns are
addressed selectively, if at all.
• Practical EIA processes tend not to be well
adapted to major changes with long-term im-
plications.
• Scientific standards are generally not main-
tained unless identified in regulatory require-
ments and in good practice standards.
• Environmental substance is integrated only as
a means and only in response to external
pressures.
• Local influence, stakeholder collaboration,
and procedural and substantive fairness are
facilitated only when raised by stakeholders.
• The narrow focus on decision making and im-
plementation can inhibit integration within
synthesis frameworks.
Next Time
In the next issue of this journal, Part 2 of this
article will address how to make EIAs more dem-
ocratic, collaborative, ethical, and adaptive.
References
Lawrence, D. P. (2001). Choices for EIA process design and
management. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy
and Management, 3(4), 437–464.
Lawrence, D. P. (2003). Environmental impact assessment—
Practical solutions to recurrent problems. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
David P. Lawrence