Distilling and Applying Criteria for Best Practice EIA Follow-Up

Elise Pinto (), Angus Morrison-Saunders, Alan Bond, Jenny Pope and Francois Retief ()
Additional contact information
Elise Pinto: Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
Angus Morrison-Saunders: Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia†Centre for Ecosystem Management, School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Australia‡Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University, South Africa
Alan Bond: #x2021;Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University, South Africa§School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
Jenny Pope: #x2020;Centre for Ecosystem Management, School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Australia¶Integral Sustainability, PO Box 79, South Fremantle, WA 6162, Australia
Francois Retief: #x2021;Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University, South Africa

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), 2019, vol. 21, issue 02, 1-32

Abstract: Follow-up is an essential component of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if the success of EIA in improving the sustainability of a project once implemented is to be determined. This paper aims to establish universally-applicable criteria for EIA follow-up to evaluate project performance once assessed and underway. A suite of 24 criteria is derived from EIA follow-up best practice principles published by the International Association for Impact Assessment. The criteria are categorized according to the five dimensions of EIA follow-up: monitoring, evaluation, management, communication and governance. Posed as questions, the criteria support qualitative assessments of EIA follow-up performance for a project. Through application of the criteria to a case study currently under construction (the Shell Cove Marina project in eastern Australia), we found they provided an effective basis for a document review process delivering a short but informative account of the follow-up performance of the case study. The more robust evaluation of some of the criteria, particularly in the governance category, would require supplementary techniques such as interviews.

Keywords: EIA follow-up; best practice; monitoring; evaluation; management; communication; environmental performance; governance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S146433321950008X
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:21:y:2019:i:02:n:s146433321950008x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S146433321950008X

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM) is currently edited by Thomas Fischer

More articles in Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM) from World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Tai Tone Lim ().