Decision support algorithm for efficient environmental impact assessments: Focusing on aquatic environment assessment in South Korea

被引:3
作者
An, Junyeong [1 ]
Lee, Jinhee [1 ]
Lee, Byung Kwon [1 ]
Salama, El-Sayed [2 ]
Lee, Minpa [3 ]
Ji, Min-Kyu [1 ]
机构
[1] Korea Environm Inst, 370 Sicheong Daero, Sejong 30147, South Korea
[2] Lanzhou Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Occupat & Environm Hlth, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu, Peoples R China
[3] MangoSystem Inc, 126 Beolmal Ro, Anyang Si 14057, South Korea
关键词
Environmental impact assessment; Decision support; Algorithm; Aquatic environment; Stakeholders; UNCERTAINTY; VULNERABILITY; INFORMATION; MANAGEMENT; LESSONS; EIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107067
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This study aimed to design an algorithm that could support the decision-making of agencies and operators responsible for environmental impact assessment (EIA) of aquatic environments in South Korea. The study provided background information on the basics of assessment, including the review standards of review agencies and review opinions for major project requiring improvements. Thus, the algorithm was designed according to the aquatic environment status survey, impact prediction and reduction measures during construction and operation, and post-environmental impact survey plan. Among the issues continuously raised in the review opinions, this study presented specific algorithms focused on soil runoff reduction plans during construction and wastewater treatment plans during operation. The algorithm was designed in a program called Workflow, with the entire procedure serving as the main algorithm and each implemented algorithm consisting of subroutines. Research on algorithms for EIA can support assessment decision-making and serve as a basis for future digital EIAs, as well as help secure the objectivity of EIAs and build trust with stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2014, SCI TECHNOL ARTS RES
[2]   An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries [J].
Barker, A ;
Wood, C .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 1999, 19 (04) :387-404
[3]   Stakeholder perceptions of Environmental Management Plans as an environmental protection tool for major developments in the UK [J].
Bennett, Sophie ;
Kemp, Simon ;
Hudson, Malcolm D. .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2016, 56 :60-71
[4]   Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking [J].
Berkes, Fikret .
NATURAL HAZARDS, 2007, 41 (02) :283-295
[5]  
Bieser J.C.T., 2018, PROGR IS, DOI [10.1007/978-3, DOI 10.1007/978-3]
[6]  
Bond Alan, 2015, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, V17, P1550006, DOI 10.1142/S1464333215500064
[7]   An integrated method for environmental assessment and ecodesign of ICT-based optimization services [J].
Bonvoisin, Jeremy ;
Lelah, Alan ;
Mathieux, Fabrice ;
Brissaud, Daniel .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 68 :144-154
[8]   Fuzzy-based computational intelligence to support screening decision in environmental impact assessment: A complementary tool for a case-by-case project appraisal [J].
Bressane, Adriano ;
da Silva, Pedro Modanez ;
Fiore, Fabiana Alves ;
Carra, Thales Andres ;
Ewbank, Henrique ;
De-Carli, Bruno Paes ;
da Mota, Mauricio Tavares .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2020, 85
[9]   Exploring pluralism - Different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) [J].
Cape, Lydia ;
Retief, Francois ;
Lochner, Paul ;
Fischer, Thomas ;
Bond, Alan .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2018, 69 :32-41
[10]   Effectiveness of environmental impact statement methods: A Colombian case study [J].
Caro-Gonzalez, Ana L. ;
Toro, Javier ;
Zamorano, Montserrat .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2021, 300