Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Journal of ESSAY REVIEW

Applied Ecology
0887\ 24\
0Ð7
Scienti_c quality of tourism environmental impact
assessment
J[ WARNKEN and R[ BUCKLEY
International Centre for Ecotourism Research\ Grif_th University\ Gold Coast Qld 8615\ Australia

Summary
0[ The scienti_c quality of environmental impact assessment "EIA#\ as exempli_ed by
major tourism developments in Australia\ is very poor[
1[ Methods are inadequately speci_ed[
2[ Sampling is inadequately replicated in space or time[
3[ Signi_cant parameters are often ignored[
4[ Impact predictions are rarely quantitative or testable and frequently are inaccurate[
5[ Monitoring programmes generally are inadequate to detect likely impacts[
6[ As an exercise in applied science\ EIA fails to meet the most fundamental quality
criteria[
7[ As a tool in public decision!making\ EIA needs much better applied science[
Key!words] environmental impact assessment\ audit\ tourism[
Journal of Applied Ecology "0887# 24\ 0Ð7

con_dence[ Hence it should be possible to specify the


Introduction
baseline studies needed to achieve a given predictive
Environmental impact assessment "EIA# is a major power more accurately than in other industry sectors[
tool in development planning "US NEPA 0858^ EEC
0874^ WCED 0876^ UNCED 0881#[ The quality of
science in EIA has often been criticized "Schindler Methods
0865^ Beanlands + Duinker 0873^ Buckley 0876\ 0878\ All assessment and monitoring documents were
0886^ Treweek 0885# but rarely tested "Bisset 0874^ obtained for 069 of the 064 tourism developments
Culhane 0876^ Buckley 0880a\b\ 0884#[ Tests of scien! subject to EIA in Australia from 0868 to 0882[ We
ti_c quality have tended to focus almost exclusively carried out the study in two phases] a pilot!scan of a
on the accuracy of impact predictions[ This measure subset of projects\ and a full review[ Initially we had
alone is of limited applicability\ however\ as most EIA intended to conduct detailed analyses of sampling
documents make remarkably few testable predictions design\ statistical procedures and numerical modelling
and even fewer are actually tested through subsequent for each parameter measured in baseline studies and
monitoring programmes "Buckley 0880a\b\ 0884#[ monitoring programmes[ A pilot!scan of 29 projects\
This paper therefore evaluates the design and however\ soon revealed that the quality of scienti_c
execution of baseline studies and predictive modelling data provided in EIA!related documents was far lower
as a basis for prediction in EIA carried out for devel! than expected\ and only lent itself to quanti_cation at
opment projects associated with the tourism industry the most basic level[
in Australia[ The tourism sector was selected because For the full!scale review therefore we compiled data
in economic terms it is now the world|s largest indus! for each development proposal on the approaches
try sector[ In addition\ it involves a relatively large taken to sampling for terrestrial and marine biota\
proportion of similar developments with associated ground! and surface!water hydrology and chemistry\
Þ 0887 British impacts which are relatively well understood and soils and geology[ Aspects of sampling which were
Ecological Society should therefore be predictable with relative ease and reviewed included] spatial and temporal layout and

0
1 replication\ degree of sampling e}ort\ duration of Results for the 004 EIAs conducted between 0876
Scienti_c quality of sampling "number of seasons#\ sampling techniques and 0882 inclusive are summarized in Tables 1Ð4[ EIA
tourism EIA and analytical methods\ levels of precision\ and mea! was conducted only in a piecemeal manner for tourism
sures of con_dence or uncertainty[ We also recorded developments prior to that date\ and results are of
the types of data included for each sampling aspect[ even poorer scienti_c quality[ Of these 004 EIAs\ 096
For example\ for terrestrial and marine biota we re! were located in coastal\ near!coastal or marine areas\
corded whether EIA documents included data on] rich! and 8 in montane areas[ The proposed developments
ness and diversity^ abundance and biomass for par! occupied areas of up to 04 km1 and entailed provision
ticular species and overall^ rarity and conservation for accommodation of up to 09 999 people or marinas
status^ population size and community structure^ and providing up to 499 berths "Warnken + Buckley
introduced species[ In total\ 43 numerical and 048 0886#[ On average\ those on former agricultural land
categorical parameters were recorded for each devel! were largest^ those in urban and o}shore sites smallest^
opment "Table 0#[ We also recorded data on land and those on previously logged areas were inter!
tenure\ area occupied\ major development com! mediate in size[ Holiday accommodation was a sig!
ponents\ history and current development status] a ni_cant component of 47 EIAs^ residential accom!
further 28 parameters in all[ modation of 43^ marinas of 48\ and golf courses of 21
For monitoring programmes\ we _rst checked EIAs[ Of all the proposals\ 64) were approved for
whether the parameters monitored matched those for development but only 22) were actually developed[
which signi_cant impacts were predicted[ For each For resorts\ only 09) of proposals were developed[
parameter monitored we also checked] whether moni! Prior to 0878\ most proposed developments were on
toring programmes distinguished between construc! freehold land^ since then\ most have been on public
tion and operations^ whether the predevelopment lands "x1  02=6\ 5 d[f[\ P ³ 9=94#[ Over half of the
baseline established background variability ade! environmental impact statements "EISs# were sub!
quately^ whether seasonal patterns were described^ mitted during a 3!year boom period from 0877 to 0880
whether the monitoring programme included control inclusive[
as well as impacted sites^ whether sampling sites and
measurements were adequately replicated^ and
BIOLOGICAL BASELINES
whether a priori and:or a posteriori power analyses
were conducted[ With respect to biological parameters\ baseline data
were collected most frequently for terrestrial ~ora and
least frequently for marine biota[ For those devel!
Results
opments where information about that component
was relevant\ only 54) of EISs speci_ed sampling
THE PROJECTS
dates for ~ora\ 03) speci_ed sampling sites\ and 5)
The location of projects is shown in Fig[ 0[ As noted were sampled for more than one season[ For terrestrial
during the pilot trial\ the scienti_c quality of baseline fauna the proportions were 67\ 05 and 03)\ and for
studies and monitoring programmes for these 069 pro! marine biota 67\ 46 and 02)\ respectively[ For EISs
jects was so low that analyses of design and execution providing biological baseline data\ only 05) esti!
at the level which would be expected\ for example\ mated species richness or abundance for terrestrial
in refereeing a scienti_c publication\ was simply not plants\ 33) for terrestrial fauna\ and 41) for marine
possible[ The highest common denominator at which biota[
projects could be compared was very low indeed[ As one example\ the Laguna Quays project in

Table 0[ Number and types of parameter recorded in EISs for Australian tourism developments between 0868 and 0882

Number of variables and parameters recorded

Actual Logical\ category


number or alphanumerical Total

Characteristics of development 09 18 28
Terrestrial ~ora 7 14 22
Terrestrial fauna 09 22 32
Marine biota 09 28 38
Surface waters 5 08 14
Þ 0887 British Subsurface waters 09 03 13
Ecological Society\ Marine waters 3 07 11
Journal of Applied Geology and soils 1 5 7
Ecology\ 24\ Total 53 077 141
0Ð7
2
J[ Warnken +
R[ Buckley

Fig 0[ Location of Australian tourism EIS|s between 0876 and 0882[

Table 1[ Quality of baseline data relating to the physical environment in Australian tourism EISs between 0876 and 0882

Ground Surface Marine


Number of EISs with water water water

Component relevant\ overall 88 81 094


Component relevant but no data given 58 55 65
Component relevant and some data given 29 15 18
Sampling times speci_ed 18 07 16
Sampling sites speci_ed 17 12 17
Sampling replicated 9 7 9
Sampling in di}erent weather conditions 9 09 08
Sampling over all seasons 9 5 01
Sampling over ×0 year 9 1 7
Water table or drainage map 18 05 NA
Comparison with previous published data 07 19 18
Measures of physical parameters 15 11 17
Data on phosphates 09 02 14
Data on nitrates 00 02 14
Data on anions 7 2 2
Data on cations 7 1 3
Data on heavy metals 0 3 7
Data on organic compounds 0 3 6
Þ 0887 British Data on chlorophyll a NA 1 01
Ecological Society\ Data on bacteria 1 6 00
Journal of Applied
Ecology\ 24\  Temperature\ turbidity\ salinity\ oxygen\ pH\ ~ow velocity[
0Ð7 NA  Not available[
3 Table 2[ Quality of baseline data relating to the biological environment in Australian tourism EISs between 0876 and 0882
inclusive
Scienti_c quality of
tourism EIA Number of EISs with Flora Fauna Marine biota

Component relevant\ overall 66 65 66


Component relevant but no baseline data 07 20 22
Component relevant and some data given 48 32 33
List of potential species "from literature# 31 24 24
Info[ on introduced species "from literature# 35 20 9
Info[ on conservation status "from literature# 37 39 13
Sampling times speci_ed 30 28 28
Sampling sites speci_ed 7 5 17
Sampling replicated 9 4 17
Sampling over all seasons 4 8 7
Sampling over ×0 year 1 3 2
Map of vegetation or habitat types 42 8 14
List of species recorded on site 31 31 17
Measure of species richness 8 09 08
Measure of species abundance 3 4 06
Measure of species diversity 9 9 6
Measure of species biomass 9 9 0
Info[ on population sizes 9 0 9
Info[ on community structure 9 9 9

Table 3[ Quality of impact predictions relative to the physical environment in Australian tourism EISs between 0876 and 0882
inclusive

Ground Surface Marine


Number of EISs with impact predictions water water water

Relevant for component concerned 30 60 63


Distinguishing construction and operation 6 21 42
Referring only to compliance with thresholds 9 5 09
Based on mathematical or physical modelling 3 08 02
Acknowledging the need for further study 6 00 09

Table 4[ Quality of impact predictions relating to the biological environment in Australian tourism EISs between 0876 and
0882 inclusive

Number of EISs with impact predictions Flora Fauna Marine biota

Relevant for component concerned 68 55 50


Distinguishing construction and operation 15 19 37
Mentioning habitat loss or gain 69 44 43
Specifying habitat area lost or gained 25 09 12
Acknowledging the need for further study 0 1 6

Queensland covers an area of 0799 ha\ including not examined until after the project had received
044 ha of coastal vine thickets and rain forest\ veg! development approval[ The same applies for the
etation types known to contain high plant and animal powerful owl Ninox strenura and for the various turtle
diversity[ Yet the EIA\ in 0877\ sampled this area species also listed as endangered or vulnerable\ even
on only one occasion\ on an unspeci_ed date[ The though turtles are known to feed along the coastline
proserpine rock wallaby Petrogale persephone\ listed in that region[ The EIS failed to _nd a single native
Þ 0887 British
Ecological Society\
as vulnerable under both State and Commonwealth amphibian species\ though many occur^ it recorded
Journal of Applied endangered!species legislation\ is known to occur in only the introduced cane toad Bufo marinus[ The 0889
Ecology\ 24\ the region\ but the EIA did not investigate whether it EIS for Woodwark Bay\ Queensland\ did not even
0Ð7 was present on the project site[ Indeed\ this issue was record Bufo marinus^ and also failed to determine the
4 presence or absence of the proserpine rock wallaby\ developments which were actually built[ Monitoring
J[ Warnken + even though this species had previously been recorded programmes were often not implemented fully and
R[ Buckley locally[ three of the 06 were informal[ Monitoring was most
detailed for the four major projects situated in or next
to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park "GBRMP#[
PHYSICAL BASELINES
Most developments monitored water quality^ none
Even fewer EISs contained baseline data on the physi! monitored terrestrial fauna or ~ora^ and only the four
cal environment[ Water quality parameters\ prin! reef projects and a ski resort in New South Wales
cipally pH and temperature and less so N and P\ were monitored aquatic biota[ Monitoring designs were
the most frequently sampled[ Groundwater was never rarely adequate to detect changes relative to baseline[
sampled more than once for any individual devel! In almost 49) of cases\ spatial layouts were altered
opment and EIA^ terrestrial surface waters were sam! partway through the programme[ Power analyses
pled 5=6 times on average\ and marine waters were were conducted for only three developments\ all in or
sampled 03=6 times[ These last were mostly in the State near the GBRMP\ and power was low[ In one case
of Western Australia[ The degree of quanti_cation power was based on arbitrarily de_ned limits of
increased from 0864 to 0876 but remained constant acceptable change which did not take account of sea!
from 0877 to 0881[ Legal thresholds for triggering sonal variations[
EIA di}er between states "Warnken + Buckley 0885# There were only 06 individual impact predictions
but there were no signi_cant di}erences in scienti_c which were testable using monitoring data[ Seven of
quality of those EIAs which were undertaken[ these proved accurate[ For six\ actual impacts were
For example\ Mount Hotham Alpine Village\ a less severe than predicted^ and for four they were more
3999!bed ski resort in Victoria\ planned to take its severe[ Inadequate design and inaccurate nutrient!~ux
water supply from two bore!holes in the Dargo River models were the most common causes of inaccuracy[
catchment\ and discharge secondary!treated sewerage
into its head waters[ Even though the Dargo River
Discussion
area is of high conservation value\ and even though
sewage pollution problems from a similar ski resort in By objective measures\ the overall quality of EIA and
New South Wales were already well known\ the monitoring for tourism development in Australia dur!
Mount Hotham EIS did not sample water quality\ in! ing the past 04 years has not been high[ In general\ the
stream habitats or aquatic ~ora or fauna[ Similarly\ best EIA and monitoring has been for projects within
the Wilpena Station Resort\ inside Flinders Ranges or adjacent to the GBRMP and hence falling under
National Park in South Australia\ planned to provide the jurisdiction of the federal "Commonwealth#
drinking water for a 0399!person resort and government[ There have been major and recent
campground from local ground water bore!holes\ and projects\ however\ for which EIA clearly needs sig!
to dispose of treated sewage by irrigation of a golf ni_cant improvement[ The value of EIA as a public
course and tree plantation attached to the site[ Despite information tool is not in doubt "Buckley 0886#[ As
this\ the 0877 EIS did not provide any data on the an exercise in applied science\ however\ EIA falls a
volume or quality of ground water\ the impacts of very long way short of the most basic standards[
bores and irrigation on plant species dependent on There are very few comparable data on the scienti_c
groundwater\ or water quality in local creeks\ which quality of EIA for other countries and sectors\ but no
drain into an inland lake system[ a priori reason to assume it is any better[ An analysis
of EIA documents for 26 roads in the UK found that
only one quanti_ed the area of land to be taken\ only
IMPACT PREDICTIONS AND MONITORING
24) included results of _eld surveys and none
Impact predictions were generally vague and unquan! included repeated surveys "Treweek et al[ 0882^
ti_ed\ even for recent Environmental Impact State! Treweek 0885#[ For 068 British environmental state!
ments[ There were some di}erences between EISs pro! ments produced between 0877 and 0882\ only 34)
duced in di}erent states[ For example\ EISs produced based their _ndings on new ecological survey infor!
in Queensland were more likely to di}erentiate be! mation\ only 8) attempted to quantify potential eco!
tween construction impacts and operations\ especially logical impacts\ and only 12) described mitigation
for marine biota and marine water quality[ EISs in measures in any detail "Thompson\ Treweek + Thur!
general referred at least to habitat loss\ except for ling 0886^ Treweek + Thompson 0886#[
those produced in Victoria[ Mathematical models A detailed analysis of impact predictions in
were used to predict water quality and hydrology in approximately 0999 Australian EIA documents in
some EISs\ especially in Victoria\ but never to predict 0878 "Buckley 0880a\b# is not directly comparable
Þ 0887 British
Ecological Society\
biological impacts[ Groundwater predictions were because it focused only on quantitative testable pre!
Journal of Applied more precise in South Australia and Western Aus! dictions matched by adequate monitoring data\ and
Ecology\ 24\ tralia[ did not attempt to quantify the overall scienti_c qual!
0Ð7 Monitoring was conducted for 06 of the 65 tourism ity of baseline studies and monitoring programmes[
5 Most of the projects were in the mining\ mineral pro! as this publication goes to press\ a large new coastal
Scienti_c quality of cessing and manufacturing sectors[ Two points of tourism development in Queensland has been
tourism EIA comparison with the present study\ however\ are wor! approved after protracted legal wrangling[ A few days
thy of note[ From approximately 0999 projects\ the after approval was granted\ objectors claimed that the
0878 study found 070 testable predictions^ many project would entail destruction of critical habitat for
linked into mutually dependent sets[ In this study we the mahogany glider Petaurus gracilis a species which
found 06 testable predictions from 069 projects] a is not only endangered but is the subject of a special
similar proportion[ The majority of the 070 pre! joint Commonwealth:State management programme[
dictions in the 0878 study related to air and water How can the scienti_c quality of EIA\ in tourism
quality and emissions\ and most were based on quan! and indeed other sectors\ be improved< In some cases
titative models[ there are technical di.culties in making accurate
In the current study\ the scienti_c quality of baseline impact predictions\ even with the best intentions and
studies\ impact predictions and monitoring pro! expertise[ While there may be a di}erential in skill
grammes was generally better for physical parameters between ecologists employed in research and those
than biological\ and for marine waters and ground! operating as consultants\ and a lag in the dis!
waters than for terrestrial surface waters[ Clearly\ semination of new skills from research to industry\
there is no fundamental scienti_c barrier to better this study demonstrates that the quality of science
baseline biological or surface!water studies[ The practised in EIA is not even remotely close to the
reasons for these patterns therefore appear to be poli! technical limits of ecological science[ This is despite
tical rather than technical[ The simple explanation is the fact that there is no shortage of well!trained ecol!
that project proponents\ or their lead environmental ogists and environmental scientists who are eminently
consultants\ typically use specialist consultants to capable of describing and analysing environmental
study water quality and marine biota\ and give them baselines\ and predicting and monitoring environ!
su.cient resources to do at least a minimally e}ective mental impacts\ considerably better than currently
job[ Specialist consultants for terrestrial ~ora and occurs in practice[
fauna are equally available and equally skilled\ but Solutions must hence necessarily be economic\ legal
are either not used\ or given woefully inadequate and political\ rather than technical[ Shortcomings in
resources[ But why< existing institutional frameworks for EIA have been
A number of possible hypotheses may be advanced\ analysed on many occasions "e[g[ Buckley 0886# and
but to distinguish between them was beyond the scope need not be reiterated[ In most jurisdictions\ little if
of this study[ On the basis of personal experience and any attempt has been made to overcome such short!
anecdotal evidence\ however\ one likely reason is that comings[ Industry proponents have no incentive\ and
most of these developments were coastal\ so that poli! governments apparently no inclination\ to do so[ Cost
tical concerns over marine impacts\ and hence the is the reason usually advanced^ but though this must
degree of attention devoted to these impacts by assess! certainly be a contributing factor\ it does not seem
ment agencies\ was higher than for terrestrial impacts[ that it can be the complete answer\ since the marginal
The second reason may be that most of the bio! costs of better science in EIA are small compared to
logical impacts are associated with vegetation dis! the basic cost of conducting any EIA\ even of low
turbance during construction[ It is in the interest of scienti_c quality[ Rather\ it seems that political factors
the proponents to play down these impacts in order may be more signi_cant[
to obtain development consent\ since once the project Although it has been shown that good EIA is not in
is operational\ they are no longer held accountable for fact any barrier to development "Warnken + Buckley
construction impacts[ Impacts on water quality\ in 0885#\ proponents of private development projects
contrast\ are more commonly associated with oper! commonly believe that it will be^ and it seems that
ational waste discharges which are likely to be subject they have had greater political weight to date\ in
to licensing requirements[ It is hence in the pro! in~uencing how well or badly government assessment
ponents| interests to obtain relatively accurate esti! agencies manage the EIA process\ than people whose
mates of these[ Similarly\ many of the projects plan to primary motivation is to protect public environmental
use groundwater directly^ or if they do not\ local water interests[ We draw this conclusion not from any per!
supply authorities may do so^ so ground water receives sonal political prejudices\ but from long!term obser!
more intensive study in these cases[ vation of EIA and environmental politics in practice[
Does this mean that maximum scienti_c e}ort is For the projects reviewed in the 0878 study\ the
being devoted to the most critical issues ecologically< number and detail of quanti_ed and testable impact
Not necessarily^ just to the most critical issues from an predictions was far greater for the few projects which
economic and political standpoint[ As noted earlier\ had been subject to a public Commission of Inquiry
Þ 0887 British
Ecological Society\
there are many examples where projects are likely to than for those which were subject only to routine EIA[
Journal of Applied have signi_cant impacts on populations of endangered In the former\ there was strong public concern over
Ecology\ 24\ plant and animal species in both coastal and montane the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
0Ð7 areas\ yet EIAs have failed to consider these[ Indeed\ developments\ as well as a strong public perception
6 that routine EIA "including government assessment cal environmental issues are social rather than eco!
J[ Warnken + as well as proponent documentation# was far from logical\ and could perhaps be better addressed by
R[ Buckley adequate to support an informed decision[ Where pro! establishing community consultative groups at an
jects are referred to a public Commission of Inquiry early stage in project planning\ with su.cient auth!
the EIA process then becomes a key part of the devel! ority for the proponent to take their recommendations
opment approval process\ rather than merely a hurdle seriously[ For development proposals where eco!
to be crossed[ As a consequence\ proponents and the logical impacts are likely to be signi_cant\ and full
government are more likely to invest su.cient EIA triggered\ proponents could be required to]
resources to improve the scienti_c quality of EIA[ demonstrate that all their environmental consultants
A full public Commission of Inquiry\ however\ is hold appropriate specialist quali_cations^ require each
neither likely nor necessary for every development consultant to submit a statement as to whether the
proposal[ Indeed\ one of the features of an e.cient level of study funded was in their view appropriate to
EIA system should be the ability to trigger di}erent the likely signi_cance and impacts^ and require each
levels of EIA at di}erent thresholds of likely impact specialist consultant to submit their contribution to
"Warnken + Buckley 0885#[ Realistically therefore for independent peer review\ with the reviewers| reports
all save the largest development proposals\ there is forwarded independently to the assessment agency[
generally a resource!limited choice between poor! Depending on funding mechanisms\ of course\ this
quality baseline studies and impact prediction for all might increase either the paid or unpaid workload for
environmental parameters\ or higher quality for a few applied ecologists and environmental scientists[ But
selected parameters[ If the latter\ then clearly a pre! currently\ the only options for expert ecologists to
liminary step is required to determine which par! be involved in EIA processes are either to become a
ameters should be investigated in detail[ Many juris! consultant\ with the attendant di.culties in remaining
dictions do already have provisions for scoping\ independent^ or to comment on EIA documents as
di}erent levels of formal EIA\ and multistage EIA[ a member of the public or as a "generally unpaid#
Some even have provision for the establishment of consultant to environmental groups\ with the attend!
community consultative committees to oversee moni! ant di.culty in being heard[
toring programmes[ It appears\ however\ that such
provisions are not being used as often or as e}ectively
as they should be[
Overall\ therefore\ it seems that there is nothing References
fundamentally wrong with EIA processes^ they are
Beanlands\ G[E[ + Duinker\ P[N[ "0873# An ecological
simply not being used e}ectively[ Are there any further framework for environmental impact assessment[ Journal
practical steps which might be taken to improve the of Environmental Management\ 07\ 156Ð166[
scienti_c quality of EIA< Bisset\ R[ "0874# Post!development audits to investigate the
One obvious option is independent peer review[ In accuracy of environmental impact predictions[ Zeitschrift
theory\ the scienti_c quality of Australian EISs is ref! fur Umweltpolitik\ 73\ 352Ð73[
Buckley\ R[C[ "0876# Critical problems in environmental
ereed by government assessors[ In practice\ assessors planning and management[ Environmental and Planning
are not always skilled in all necessary subject areas^ Law Journal\ 4\ 195Ð114[
they may not be scientists^ they are often too short! Buckley\ R[C[ "0878# What|s wrong with EIA< Search\ 19\
sta}ed to referee all EISs thoroughly^ views expressed 035Ð036[
by individual assessors may not be incorporated in Buckley\ R[C[ "0880a# Auditing the precision and accuracy
of environmental impact predictions in Australia[ Environ!
o.cial departmental reports^ and the assessing mental Monitoring and Assessment\ 07\ 0Ð12[
department may not be independent\ if it is under Buckley\ R[C[ "0880b# How accurate are environmental
threat of budget cuts unless it produces a favourable impact predictions< Ambio\ 19\ 050Ð051[
report[ These di.culties could be overcome if EISs Buckley\ R[C[ "0884# Environmental audit\ environmental
were also refereed by independent scienti_c assessors\ and social impact assessment "eds F[ Vanclay + D[ A[
Bronstein#\ pp[ 172Ð290[ Wiley\ Chichester[
employed as consultants by the assessing agency[ Buckley\ R[C[ "0887# Improving the quality of EISs[ Environ!
These experts could be paid from a rolling trust fund\ mental Methods Review "eds A[ Porter + R[ Fittipaldi#\ in
replenished by a levy on those submitting EIA docu! press[ AEPI\ Tampa\ Florida[
ments[ Independent assessors have been used in this Culhane\ P[J[ "0876# The precision and accuracy of US
way by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority environmental impact statements[ Environmental Moni!
toring and Assessment\ 7\ 106Ð127[
for a number of years with considerable success[ EEC "0874# Environmental assessment[ Directive 74:226:
Indeed\ the better EISs reviewed in this study were EEC[ Brussels[
those assessed by GBRMPA[ We have recommended Schindler\ D[W[ "0865# The impact statement boondoggle[
wider adoption of this model on a number of previous Science\ 081\ 498[
Þ 0887 British Thompson\ S[\ Treweek\ J[R[ + Thurling\ D[J[ "0886# The
Ecological Society\
occasions\ but with little response[
ecological component of environmental impact assess!
Journal of Applied Another possible approach would be to re_ne scop! ment] a critical review of British environmental statements[
Ecology\ 24\ ing and multilevel EIA provisions\ recognizing that Journal of Environmental Planning and Management\ 39\
0Ð7 for some of the smaller development proposals\ criti! 046Ð060[
7 Treweek\ J[R[ "0885# Ecology and impact assessment[ Jour! Warnken\ J[ + Buckley\ R[C[ "0885# Coastal tourism devel!
nal of Applied Ecology\ 22\ 080Ð088[ opment as a testbed for EIA triggers] outcomes under
Scienti_c quality of
Treweek\ J[R[ + Thompson\ S[ "0886# A review of ecological mandatory and discretionary EIA frameworks[ Environ!
tourism EIA mitigation measures in UK environmental statements with mental Planning and Law Journal\ 02\ 128Ð134[
respect to sustainable development[ Journal of Sustainable Warnken\ J[ + Buckley\ R[C[ "0886# Major tourism 0876Ð82
Development and World Ecology\ 3\ 39Ð49[ proposals in Australia[ Annals of Tourism Research\ 13\
Treweek\ J[R[\ Thompson\ S[\ Veitch\ N[ + Japp\ C[ "0882# 863Ð867[
Ecological assessment of proposed road developments] a World Commission on Development and Environment
review of environmental statements[ Journal of Environ! "WCED# "0876# Our Common Future[ Oxford University
mental Planning and Management\ 25\ 184Ð296[ Press\ Oxford[
UNCED "0881# United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development\ Agenda 10[ UNEP\ Rio de Janeiro[
US NEPA "0858# National Environmental Policy Act[ Received 16 November 0885^ revision received 07 November
Government Press\ Washington D[C[ 0886

Þ 0887 British
Ecological Society\
Journal of Applied
Ecology\ 24\
0Ð7

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen