Explanations for the Quality of Biodiversity Inputs to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Areas with High Biodiversity Value

Felicity Swanepoel (), Francois Retief, Alan Bond, Jenny Pope, Angus Morrison-Saunders, Morgan Houptfleisch () and Monica Fundingsland ()
Additional contact information
Felicity Swanepoel: Green-scene Environmental, Unit 4, 348 Voortrekker Road, Maitland, Cape Town, South Africa
Francois Retief: #x2020;Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University (Potchefstroom campus), South Africa
Alan Bond: #x2020;Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University (Potchefstroom campus), South Africa‡School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom
Jenny Pope: #x2020;Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University (Potchefstroom campus), South Africa§School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Angus Morrison-Saunders: #x2020;Research Unit for Environmental Science and Management, North West University (Potchefstroom campus), South Africa§School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Morgan Houptfleisch: #xA7;§Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Namibia
Monica Fundingsland: #xB6;¶Equinor, Norway

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), 2019, vol. 21, issue 02, 1-30

Abstract: Biodiversity is under significant threat globally and therefore the biodiversity input to environmental impact assessment (EIA) is important. The quality of biodiversity inputs needs to be high if biodiversity is to be protected, especially in areas with high biodiversity value. Here, we follow-up quality reviews of biodiversity inputs to EIA reports, through interviews with the biodiversity specialists who authored the biodiversity inputs, in order to find explanations for the quality results. This is the first quality review research to systematically engage with biodiversity specialists in this way. The biodiversity specialists highlighted professional registration as a key factor supporting strengths around professional conduct and gathering of baseline information. Weaknesses identified relate to review areas dealing with alternatives, public participation, prediction, as well as management actions and monitoring arrangements, which seem to be the result of a lack of understanding and/or agreement on the role of the biodiversity specialists in the EIA process. The research results suggest that ideally biodiversity inputs should not be seen as a one-off contribution but rather as an iterative contribution during different stages of the EIA process.

Keywords: Quality; biodiversity impact assessment; decision making; environmental impact assessment; review; follow-up; South Africa (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333219500091
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:s1464333219500091

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from

DOI: 10.1142/S1464333219500091

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 ().