Abstract
Most of the research on environmental impact assessment quality has been focused on the quality of environmental impact statements (EIS), if they supplied important information about the components of the assessment process. This paper highlights some topical methodological issues concerning the two most widely used checklists — the Environmental Statement Review Package and the European Commission's EIS Review Checklist. Both were found to be neglecting several important aspects, such as quality of information, uncertainty and probability of predictions, consideration of alternatives, and public participation. This causes overvaluation of EISs that inadequately address these aspects. An empirical study of inter-individual variations in judgements of 41 evaluators revealed significant divergence at all stages of the review process. The frequency of two-grade differences in the evaluation outcomes was about 25%. Highlighted inadequacies in two popular tools, along with variation in application due to user subjectivity, indicate that these tools should be applied with considerable care and caution, especially for research and monitoring of EIS quality.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
