Explore the vast range of titles available.

Desde los años setenta del siglo pasado, el mundo desarrollado presentó la estrategia que permitiría salvar el planeta de la inminente destrucción a causa de la contaminación y la sobreexplotación de los recursos naturales. Pero los avances en materia ambiental han sido pocos y frecuentemente se nos informa sobre la urgencia de construir una relación equilibrada entre el hombre y su entorno. Mientras tanto, simultáneamente somos arrastrados por un modelo de crecimiento económico e impulsados por la fuerza coercitiva del mercado por su promoción del consumismo. Entonces, no aparenta ser tan claro el sentido de esta importante meta global: crecimiento y desarrollo parecen estar más lejos que cercanos de un posible equilibrio ambiental, entendiendo que vivimos en un planeta finito con recursos materialmente limitados. Sería bueno saber si existe un verdadero compromiso de países ricos por revertir, por ejemplo, el avance del cambio climático, y si el desarrollo sustentable se está convirtiendo en un edulcolorante discursivo para tratar de alinear determinados intereses globales.

This practical guide, written by a practitioner for practitioners, presents a coherent and straightforward 'how-to-do-it' approach to the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process. Part one provides an overview of the aims, principles, advantages and problems of SEA as well as looking at key SEA regulations and their requirements. Part two examines the SEA process in considerable detail including setting the policy context, describing the baseline, identifying alternatives, predicting and evaluating impacts and using the SEA information in decision-making. Part three is devoted to assuring SEA quality with a discussion of resources and capacity building. This new edition incorporates five years' worth of practical application of the SEA Directive and SEA practice more broadly. Additions and updates include: the findings of various reviews into SEA effectiveness and efficiency emerging approaches to identifying and comparing alternatives, cumulative impacts, the likely future baseline without the plan, documenting changes made to the plan in response to the SEA process, and environmental limits consideration of both the 'baseline-led' and the 'objectives-led' approach to SEA, and the two approaches' advantages and disadvantages SEA's links to 'appropriate assessment' of plans under the European Habitats Directive. Employing a host of real-life case studies and examples, each chapter presents a range of techniques and discusses what the final product should look like. Appendices provide a wealth of additional information including text of the SEA Directive and the UNECE Protocol on SEA, and a 'toolkit' of SEA techniques. The approach and techniques in Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action are useful for anyone carrying out or studying SEA at any level, from policy to programme, international to local, but particularly for practitioners responsible for implementing the

\"Environmental Impact Assessments and Mitigation examines various assessments for developmental projects in the housing, mining, energy, and waste management areas. As the world continues to shift toward concerns over climate change and environmental protection issues, developmental projects must have environmental impact assessments (EIA) conducted as well as environmental management plans (EMP). This book describes how all phases of a project, from planning, to operation, to post operation, must consider potential environmental impacts and their mitigation. Features : Presents numerous sustainable development considerations for key industries, discusses how environmental impact assessments are prepared for each stage of a project, describes different environmental management plans for established projects, offers mitigation plans for various potential environmental impacts , includes practical examples from the construction, manufacturing, transport, and mining industries. Useful for practicing professional engineers as well as upper-level students, this book covers all aspects of environmental impact assessments from start to finish\"-- Provided by publisher.

This book is about a subject that Michael Greenberg has worked on and lived with for almost forty years. He was brought up in the south Bronx at a time when his neighborhood suffered from terrible air and noise pollution, and domestic waste went untreated into the Hudson River. For him, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was a blessing. It included an ethical position about the environment, and the law required some level of accountability in the form of an environmental impact statement, or EIS. After forty years of thinking about and working with NEPA and the EIS process, Greenberg decided to conduct his own evaluation from the perspective of a person trained in science who focuses on environmental and environmental health policies. This book of carefully chosen real case studies goes beyond the familiar checklists of what to do, and shows students and practitioners alike what really happens during the creation and implementation of an EIS.

Developing countries introduced environmental impact assessment (EIA) systems in the 1970s and 1980s, but their weak implementation has been a major problem. This study suggests solutions for the enhancement of EIA systems in developing countries using a quantitative literature review. It clarifies the time-series changes of constraints and develops recommendations on EIA systems by applying quantitative text analysis to 128 documents published between 1983 and 2020. Before and after 2003, the ratio of the constraints embodied in law and administration significantly decreased, and that of environmental impact statements (EISs) significantly increased, while the ratio of recommendations for monitoring significantly increased. Based on these findings, the study proposes that countries should strive for better quality EIS and develop an EIS database to enhance EIA systems, because EIS quality determines the effectiveness of an EIA system and the database supports improvement of that quality. It is suggested that improving EIS quality will lead to the enhancement of EIA systems in developing countries.

Governments around the world rely on environmental impact assessment (EIA) to understand the environmental risks of proposed developments. To examine the basis for these appraisals, we examine the output of EIA processes in jurisdictions within seven countries, focusing on scope (spatial and temporal), mitigation actions and whether impacts were identified as ‘significant’. We find that the number of impacts characterized as significant is generally low. While this finding may indicate that EIA is successful at promoting environmentally sustainable development, it may also indicate that the methods used to assess impact are biased against findings of significance. To explore the methods used, we investigate the EIA process leading to significance determination. We find that EIA reports could be more transparent with regard to the spatial scale they use to assess impacts to wildlife. We also find that few reports on mining projects consider temporal scales that are precautionary with regard to the effects of mines on water resources. Across our sample of reports, we find that few EIAs meaningfully consider the different ways that cumulative impacts can interact. Across countries, we find that proposed mitigation measures are often characterized as effective without transparent justification, and sometimes are described in ways that render the mitigation measure proposal ambiguous. Across the reports in our sample, professional judgement is overwhelmingly the determinant of impact significance, with little transparency around the reasoning process involved or input by stakeholders. We argue that the credibility and accuracy of the EIA process could be improved by adopting more rigorous assessment methodologies and empowering regulators to enforce their use. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. Resumen Los gobiernos a nivel mundial cuentan con los estudios de impacto ambiental para comprender los riesgos ambientales de las propuestas de desarrollo. Para juzgar la fiabilidad de estas evaluaciones, evaluamos los resultados de los estudios de impacto ambiental en las jurisdicciones de siete países, enfocándonos en ámbitos (espaciales y temporales), las acciones de mitigación y si los impactos fueron identificados como \"significativos\". Descubrimos que el número de impactos adversos caracterizados como significativos fue generalmente bajo. Si bien este resultado puede indicar que la evaluación de impacto ambiental es exitosa en la promoción del desarrollo ambiental sostenible, también puede indicar que los métodos utilizados para evaluar el impacto están sesgados en contra de hallazgos de importancia. Para explorar los métodos utilizados, investigamos el proceso del estudio de impacto ambiental que conduce a la determinación de importancia del impacto. Descubrimos que los informes de evaluación de impacto ambiental podrían ser más transparentes con respecto a la escala espacial utilizada para evaluar los impactos en la vida silvestre. También encontramos que pocos informes sobre proyectos mineros consideran escalas temporales que son precautorias con respecto a los efectos de las minas sobre los recursos hídricos. En nuestra muestra de informes, encontramos que pocos estudios de impacto ambiental consideran de manera significativa las diferentes formas en que los impactos acumulativos pueden interactuar. En general encontramos que muchas de las medidas de mitigación propuestas se caracterizan como efectivas sin una justificación transparente y a veces se describen de manera que hacen que la propuesta de medida de mitigación sea ambigua. En los informes de nuestra muestra, el juicio profesional es abrumadoramente el determinante de la importancia del impacto, sin una explicación transparente de los procesos de razonamiento involucrados o aportes de las partes interesadas. Argumentamos que la credibilidad y precisión del proceso de evaluación de impacto ambiental podría mejorarse mediante la adopción de metodologías de evaluación más rigurosas y el empoderamiento de los reguladores para hacer cumplir su uso. Résumé Les gouvernements à travers le monde s'appuient sur les études d'impact environnemental pour comprendre les risques environnementaux des projets de développement. Pour comprendre la base de ces évaluations, nous évaluons les résultats des études d'impact environnemental des juridictions de sept pays en nous concentrant sur la portée (spatiale et temporelle), les mesures d'atténuation et si les impacts ont été identifiés comme significatifs. Nous constatons que le nombre d'impacts considérés comme significatifs est généralement faible. Bien que ce résultat puisse indiquer que l'étude d'impact environnemental est efficace pour promouvoir un développement durable sur le plan environnemental, elle peut également indiquer que les méthodes utilisées pour évaluer les impacts sont biaisées par rapport à la détermination de leurs ampleurs. Pour explorer les méthodes utilisées, nous étudions le processus d'études d'impact environnemental menant à la détermination de l'ampleur d'un impact. Nous constatons que les rapports des études d'impact environnemental pourraient être plus transparents en ce qui concerne l'échelle spatiale utilisée pour évaluer les impacts sur la faune. Nous constatons également que peu de rapports sur les projets miniers considèrent des échelles temporelles qui sont préventives en ce qui concerne les effets des mines sur les ressources hydriques. Dans notre échantillon de rapports, nous constatons que peu d'évaluations d'impact environnemental prennent en compte de façon significative les différentes manières par lesquelles les impacts cumulatifs peuvent interagir. À travers les pays, nous constatons que les mesures d'atténuation proposées sont souvent caractérisées comme efficaces sans justification transparente et sont parfois décrites de manière à rendre la proposition de mesure d'atténuation ambiguë. Dans les rapports de notre échantillon, le jugement professionnel est en grande partie le déterminant de l'ampleur d'un impact, sans divulguer de façon transparente les processus de raisonnement employés ou sans une contribution des parties prenantes. Nous soutenons que la crédibilité et l'exactitude des études d'impact environnemental pourraient être améliorées par l'adoption de méthodologies d'évaluation plus rigoureuses et en habilitant les régulateurs à faire respecter leurs utilisations. Resumo Instituições governamentais ao redor do mundo se baseiam e confiam nas avaliações de impacto ambiental como forma de se entender os riscos ambientais dos projetos submetidos ao licenciamento. Para examinar os fundamentos dessas avaliações, investigamos os estudos de impacto ambiental em jurisdições em sete países diferentes, com foco no escopo espaço‐temporal, medidas de mitigação e a significância dos impactos. Concluímos que o número de impactos caracterizados como significativos é geralmente baixo. Embora essa descoberta possa indicar que a avaliação de impacto ambiental é bem sucedida na promoção do ambiente sustentável, ela também pode indicar que os métodos utilizados para avaliar impactos podem ser tendenciosos no que tange a determinação da significância. Concluímos que a escala espacial utilizada para avaliar os impactos à vida silvestre em estudos de impacto ambiental devem ter critérios de delimitação mais transparentes. Também concluímos que poucos estudos de empreendimentos de mineração consideram escalas temporais conservadoras em relação aos seus impactos em recursos hídricos. Ainda, em nossa amostra, descobrimos que poucos estudos de impacto ambiental consideram as diferentes maneiras pelas quais os impactos cumulativos podem interagir entre si. Em todos os países, descobrimos que as medidas de mitigação propostas são frequentemente caracterizadas como eficazes sem justificativa evidente e, que são descritas de forma ambígua. Em nossa amostra, a significância de impactos foi predominantemente determinada por julgamento profissional, com pouca transparência no processo do raciocínio envolvido nessa determinação ou na consideração das contribuições de stakeholders. Argumentamos que a credibilidade e o rigor do processo de avaliação de impacto ambiental podem ser melhorados através da adoção de metodologias mais rigorosas e capacitação dos agentes do governo a exigir o cumprimento das mesmas. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of proposed federal actions. NEPA thus affects delivery of a wide range of infrastructure projects. NEPA requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for environmentally impactful federal actions. For infrastructure projects this can entail significant delays. A typical EIS now takes about four and one-half years and is over 600 pages long. Some EIS’s take over a decade to complete. We provide the first detailed analysis of project approval times under NEPA by examining 1269 EIS permitting processes. We analyze empirically the well-defined interval from Notice of Intent to file to Record of Decision (ROD). We use a Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the impact of several factors on EIS duration. Factors include permits featuring major construction, those including private investment, those for projects located in states with restrictive environmental laws, those using the federal permitting “dashboard,” and those publishing a Supplemental EIS prior to the ROD. We find that privately financed projects receive faster permitting, while projects involving major construction, those undertaken in restrictive states, and those utilizing the federal permitting dashboard, face slower permitting times. We also explore links between EIS page counts and permitting time. Greater EIS page counts are associated with longer permitting times. We conclude by examining EIS completion during economic stimulus programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), as well as the frequency of EIS completion by the federal government.

In this book, thirteen systems of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (TEIA) are assessed that exist or are in development in different parts of the world. Although TEIA is generally associated with EIA between territorial states, this book takes a broader approach and is divided into three sub-parts: Transboundary EIA between states, EIA for activities in international and shared areas, and EIA required by international financial institutions.