Evaluating Environmental Impact Assessment report quality in South African national parks

被引:21
作者
Sandham, Luke A. [1 ]
Huysamen, Carla [1 ]
Retief, Francois P. [2 ]
Morrison-Saunders, Angus [2 ,3 ]
Bond, Alan J. [2 ,4 ]
Pope, Jenny [2 ,5 ]
Alberts, Reece C. [2 ]
机构
[1] North West Univ, Fac Nat & Agr Sci, Sch Geo & Spatial Sci, Potchefstroom, South Africa
[2] North West Univ, Fac Nat & Agr Sci, Unit Environm Sci & Management, Potchefstroom, South Africa
[3] Edith Cowan Univ, Sch Sci, Ctr Ecosyst Management, Perth, WA, Australia
[4] Univ East Anglia, Fac Sci, Sch Environm Sci, Norwich, Norfolk, England
[5] Integral Sustainabil, Perth, WA, Australia
来源
KOEDOE | 2020年 / 62卷 / 01期
关键词
Environmental Impact Assessment; report quality; protected areas; national parks; South Africa; EIA REPORT QUALITY;
D O I
10.4102/koedoe.v62i1.1631
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
This research evaluates Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report quality for a selected sample of development projects in South African national parks. It applies an adapted version of an international EIA report quality review package to 24 developments within 10 national parks, across three EIA regimes. The results suggest good EIA report quality across all four quality review areas, with improvement over time, but also highlight particular weaknesses in terms of dealing with waste and, to a lesser extent, with significance and mitigation. To build on this research, the development of a sector-specific EIA report quality review package is recommended, with more emphasis on the strategic context, waste and water-related aspects. The conclusion is that EIA is well positioned to remain an important decision support instrument for developments within national parks. Conservation implications: The results show that EIA reports for developments in South African national parks are generally of sufficient quality for decision-making that benefits conservation. However, weaker performance regarding waste, significance determination, water-related impacts and a lack of consideration of strategic context requires a conservation-specific EIA report quality review package to improve report quality in the areas of weakness and thereby increase the value of EIA as an instrument for environmental governance and sustainable development in conservation areas.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:9
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]   Re-thinking the fundamentals of EIA through the identification of key assumptions for evaluation [J].
Alberts, R. C. ;
Retief, F. P. ;
Roos, C. ;
Cilliers, D. P. ;
Arakele, M. .
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL, 2020, 38 (03) :205-213
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, Case Study Research, Design and Methods
[3]  
[Anonymous], Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1999, 55 U MANCH EIA CTR D
[5]   ECONOMIC-GROWTH, CARRYING-CAPACITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT [J].
ARROW, K ;
BOLIN, B ;
COSTANZA, R ;
DASGUPTA, P ;
FOLKE, C ;
HOLLING, CS ;
JANSSON, BO ;
LEVIN, S ;
MALER, KG ;
PERRINGS, C ;
PIMENTEL, D .
SCIENCE, 1995, 268 (5210) :520-521
[6]   A critique of the performance of EIA within the offshore oil and gas sector [J].
Barker, Adam ;
Jones, Carys .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2013, 43 :31-39
[7]   A contribution to the conceptualisation of quality in impact assessment [J].
Bond, A. ;
Retief, F. ;
Cave, B. ;
Fundingsland, M. ;
Duinker, P. N. ;
Verheem, R. ;
Brown, A. L. .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2018, 68 :49-58
[8]   Explaining the political nature of environmental impact assessment (EIA): A neo-Gramscian perspective [J].
Bond, Alan ;
Pope, Jenny ;
Fundingsland, Monica ;
Morrison-Saunders, Angus ;
Retief, Francois ;
Hauptfleisch, Morgan .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 244
[9]   A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy? [J].
Bond, Alan ;
Pope, Jenny ;
Morrison-Saunders, Angus ;
Retief, Francois .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2016, 57 :187-194
[10]  
Boshoff Daniel S., 2019, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, V21, P1950014, DOI 10.1142/S1464333219500145