Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T20:30:47.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement Techniques in Environmental Impact Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Margaret McCall Skutsch  and
Robin T. N. Flowerdew
Margaret McCall Skutsch
Affiliation:
Bureau of Resource Assessment and Land-use Planning, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Robin T. N. Flowerdew
Affiliation:
Department of American Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The environmental impact statement requirement under NEPA has resulted in a proliferation of techniques for environmental impact assessment. These may be classified according to their function into the three main categories of impact identification, impact valuation, and impact comparison. For each of these categories, some problems relating to measurement techniques are identified and discussed, and a few prominent examples of techniques in the category are reviewed. Impact identification techniques must consider how the issues should be organized, how the material is to be presented, what geographical and other boundaries should be fixed to keep the analysis at a manageable size, and what descriptive criteria should be included. Sorensen's system of ‘linear graphs’ and the Saratoga Associates' matrix approach are discussed with respect to these points.

Impact evaluation techniques, in addition to idenfying the impacts of a project, place a numerical value on their significance. For some impacts, a physical measurement scale may not be appropriate without modification; for others, no objective physical scale exists. In both cases, it is necessary to resort to subjective judgements to quantify the true seriousness of an impact. These judgements should be made systematically and, where possible, in such a manner that the resulting values form an interval- or ratio-scale rather than merely an ordinal scale. The matrix procedure devised by Leopold et al. (1971) is discussed as an example of impact evaluation techniques.

Impact comparison techniques, in addition to impact evaluation, weight the relative importance of each impact and combine the impacts for an overall assessment of the project and any alternatives to it. A major problem here is the lack of comparability between different types of impact; interdependence between impacts also makes the combination of factors difficult. Again, subjective judgements are needed, and proper use of scaling techniques can provide some basis for comparison. Techniques suggested by McHarg (1968), by Peterson et al. (1974), and by Dee (1972), are reviewed in this section.

Although EIS preparation raises several of the thorniest problems that occur in planning for decisionmaking, these are problems that must be faced, not evaded. Whereas the techniques suggested by no means solve all the problems that have been raised, they do provide partial answers. People involved in environmental impact assessment can only gain by thinking systematically about exactly what tasks are to be accomplished, and by making an appropriate choice of techniques for undertaking these tasks.

Information

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1976 , pp. 209 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, S. O. (1974). Concepts and methods of benefit–cost analysis. Pp. 89–105 in Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelines and Commentary (Ed. Dickert, T. G. with Domeny, K. R.). University Extension, University of California, Berkeley: xii + 238 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
ANON. (1972). Environmental Resources Management. Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board, CNYRPDB-RP-72-HUD-246–06, Syracuse, New York: 42 pp.Google Scholar
Boston Redevelopment Authority (1973). Park Plaza: Environmental Impact Assessment. Saratoga Associates, Boston, Massachusetts: 123 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Dee, N. (1972). Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resource Planning. Battelle Columbus Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio: 193 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Dickert, T. G. (1974). Methods for environmental impact assessment: a comparison. Pp. 127–43 in Environmental Impact Assessment: Guidelines and Commentary (Ed. Dickert, T. G. with Domeny, K. R.). University Extension, University of California, Berkeley: xii + 238 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Fabos, J. G. (1973). Model for Landscape Resource Assessment: Part I of the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (METLAND). College of Food and Natural Resources, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Research Bulletin 602, 141 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Institute Of Ecology, University Of Georgia (1971). Optimum Pathway Matrix Analysis Approach to the Environmental Decision Making Process. Test Case: Relative Impact of Proposed Highway Alternatives. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia: 36 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Krauskopf, T. M. & Bunde, D. C. (1972). Evaluation of environmental impact through a computer modelling processc. Pp. 107–25 in Environmental Impact Analysis: Philosophy and Methods (Ed. Ditton, R. B. & Goodale, T. L.). Sea Grant Publication, WIS-SG-72–111, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay: xii + 171 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Leopold, L. B., Clarke, F. E., Hanshaw, B. B. & Balsley, J. R. (1971). A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 645, Washington, D.C.: 13 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Mcharg, I. (1968). A comprehensive highway route selection method. Highway Research Record, 246, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Matthews, W. H. (1975). Objective and subjective judgements in environmental impact analysis. Environmental Conservation, 2(2), pp. 121–31, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. L., Manty, P. B., Cheney, J. L. & Rhuman, J. L. (1973). A Methodology for Evaluating Environmental Impact Statements on Proposed Manufacturing Developments in Delaware's Coastal Zone. Report to State of Delaware, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio: 321 pp.Google Scholar
Nasta, M. D. & Beddow, J. K. (1970). Mathematical models to facilitate design and management of an environmental system. Pp. 200–9 in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference (Ed. Archea, J. & Eastman, C.). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: ix + 399 pp.Google Scholar
Northern States Power Company (1972). Environmental Analysis System. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Michigan: 55 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Peterson, G. L., Gemmell, R. S. & Schofer, J. L. (1974). Assessment of environmental impacts: multidisciplinary judgements of large-scale projects. Ekistics, 218, pp. 23–30, illustr.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, B. & Daetz, D. (1973). A conceptual framework for applying environmental assessment matrix techniques. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 16, pp. 11–6.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, B. & Hughes, R. A. (1972). Environmental Assessment of Alternate Shipbuilding Sites. Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, California: 132 pp.Google Scholar
Sorensen, J. C. (1971). A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource Degradation and Conflict in the Multiple-use of a Coastal Zone. Unpublished Master's thesis, Landscape Architecture Department, University of California, Berkeley: xix + 31 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Stover, L. V. (1972). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Procedure. Sanders & Thomas, Miami, Florida: 25 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and Methods of Scaling. John Wiley & Sons, New York: xiv + 460 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (1973). Regulatory Guide 4.2: Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plants. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Washington, D.C.: 25 pp.Google Scholar
Warner, M. L. & Preston, E. H. (1974). A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.: vi + 27 pp.Google Scholar
Water Resources Center (1972). The Protection of Water Resources as a Basis for Planning in Development Areas. University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware: 199 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Wuensche, J. E. & Starrett, J. M. (1973). Landscape Compart-mentalization: An Ecological Approach to Land Use Planning. Water Resources Research Institute, University of North Carolina, Raleigh: 87 pp., illustr.Google Scholar