Ainhoa González

Technology-aided participative methods in environmental assessment : An international perspective

Provisions for citizen involvement in the assessment of potential environmental effects of certain plans, programmes and projects are present in current legislation. An international survey revealed that public participation is common practice in European and some other countries worldwide. However, a number of issues are observed to affect public involvement in EIA/SEA processes and expert opinion differs when evaluating the effectiveness of existing participative methods. Results suggest that technology-aided methods can improve traditional participation processes. In particular, GIS has the potential to increase community knowledge and enhance involvement by communicating information more effectively. Variable accessibility to technology and data quality remain issues. Combining technology with more conventional ways of gathering, evaluating and presenting data are seen as offering a solution to the need to promote the integration of public perceptions in environmental assessment procedures. Recommendations to improve current public participation methods and measures for making GIS available to the general public are provided.

Community Of Practice Approach To Developing Urban Sustainability Indicators

In the urban context the quest to enhance economic growth and social well-being is challenged by the need to protect and manage natural resources. In order to promote sustainable urban planning, sustainability objectives are commonly embedded into planning policies, and the associated indicators used to evaluate planning interventions and monitor implementation of such objectives. The applicability of indicators is commonly tied in to their ability to address context-specific issues and monitor progress towards definite goals set at the local level. This paper presents the findings of a participative methodology applied in five European cities to develop a set of sustainability indicators with the aim of optimising their applicability for assessing planning alternatives affecting urban metabolism (i.e. the exchange of materials and energy within cities). The results indicate that engagement of researchers and practitioners through Communities of Practice (CoP) helped bridge the gap between science and practice, and facilitated the selection of consistent and meaningful indicators to be used as a tool for decision-making. However, the results also revealed that planning priorities can significantly shape the extent and scope of sustainability indicators, and that a CoP approach may not always be sufficient to guarantee continuity of collaboration.

Current practice in biodiversity impact assessment and prospects for developing an integrated process

Irish guidance for Integrated Biodiversity Impact Assessment provides a methodological approach for integrating impact assessment requirements, with regard to biodiversity, under EU and Irish legislation. Preparation of the guidance was supported by extensive consultation, including international and national surveys. These offered insights into the issues affecting the treatment of biodiversity in impact assessment practice as well as expert opinion on factors affecting and supporting the development of a more integrated and adaptive approach. This paper contrasts the international literature with the consultation feedback. Among other aspects, the results highlight the requirement for an improved application of evidence-based assessment techniques, continuity in monitoring, enhanced information exchange between scientists, assessors and proponents, as well as increased awareness amongst stakeholders for inclusion of appropriate biodiversity protection objectives and mitigation in final planning decisions. Comparative analysis of results indicates that current practice is characterized by limited information exchange and the use of in-house databases in assessments. A central spatial data repository is identified as key for quantitatively assessing (cumulative) effects through Geographic Information Systems, and thus supporting evidence-informed decision-making towards biodiversity conservation.

Evaluating Ireland's IBIA as an approach to improving the quality and effectiveness of biodiversity impact assessment

The assessment of potential impacts of plans, programmes and projects on biodiversity is required under various legislative remits (including the European Unions Habitats, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives). The objective of such assessments is to ensure that potential negative impacts on both protected nature conservation sites and species and wider biodiversity are efficiently identified in a timely manner, quantified and subsequently avoided or mitigated, while enhancing positive effects. The procedural requirements of these legal obligations vary and, as a result, differing methodological steps, data gathering and analysis methods, and impact assessment techniques are commonly applied under each individual process, often leading to uncoordinated assessment efforts and results (in terms, for example, of scope, scale and assessment detail). In order to address these issues and improve current practice, an Integrated Biodiversity Impact Assessment (IBIA) methodology has been developed in Ireland with the overall aim of providing a holistic and systematic approach to biodiversity impact assessment. The IBIA framework seeks to ensure that relevant procedures are effectively integrated, time and resource efficiencies are optimised, and unnecessary duplication avoided. Particular emphasis is given to compliance with legal requirements, integration and communication of scientific knowledge, spatial assessment and biodiversity data considerations, and integration of biodiversity aspects with a variety of other concerns during the plan-making process. This paper presents the IBIA methodology and critically examines current key issues in biodiversity impact assessment that can be potentially addressed through IBIA, as well as remaining challenges. In addition, and in order to support the examination of the anticipated benefits of using this new methodological framework (such as biodiversity-inclusive planning through improved communication and coordinated assessment), two contrasting case studies are used, one pre-dating the development of IBIA and a second where elements of IBIA have been implemented.