TY - JOUR
T1 - How does stakeholder involvement affect environmental impact assessment?
AU - Ulibarri, Nicola
AU - Scott, Tyler A.
AU - Perez-Figueroa, Omar
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by UC Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative funded by the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) (Grant No. MR-15-328473). None.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by UC Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative funded by the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) (Grant No. MR-15-328473 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2019/11
Y1 - 2019/11
N2 - Environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes are grounded on the assumption that producing information about environmental impacts will yield better environmental decisions. Despite the ubiquity of EIA as a policy tool, there is scant evidence of its environmental, social, or economic impacts. Focusing on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared for water and energy-related projects under the US National Environmental Policy Act, this analysis addresses two questions: (1) What is the balance of environmental impacts associated with infrastructure decisions?; and (2) How does the content of stakeholder feedback received during the review phase differ from draft EIS content, and does this correspond to any changes in the final EIS? We demonstrate the use of automated text mining approaches to identify the distribution of impacts, measure the content of public comments, and observe whether values reflected in comments are associated with a shift in emphases between the draft and final EIS. EISs are shown to convey evenly distributed focus across multiple impact areas. However, we observe no substantive change in focal emphasis between draft and final issuances. This calls into question assumptions about the role that public participation plays in bringing new information to light or changing the course of action.
AB - Environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes are grounded on the assumption that producing information about environmental impacts will yield better environmental decisions. Despite the ubiquity of EIA as a policy tool, there is scant evidence of its environmental, social, or economic impacts. Focusing on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared for water and energy-related projects under the US National Environmental Policy Act, this analysis addresses two questions: (1) What is the balance of environmental impacts associated with infrastructure decisions?; and (2) How does the content of stakeholder feedback received during the review phase differ from draft EIS content, and does this correspond to any changes in the final EIS? We demonstrate the use of automated text mining approaches to identify the distribution of impacts, measure the content of public comments, and observe whether values reflected in comments are associated with a shift in emphases between the draft and final EIS. EISs are shown to convey evenly distributed focus across multiple impact areas. However, we observe no substantive change in focal emphasis between draft and final issuances. This calls into question assumptions about the role that public participation plays in bringing new information to light or changing the course of action.
KW - Energy infrastructure
KW - Environmental impact assessment
KW - National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
KW - Public participation
KW - Text mining
KW - Water infrastructure
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071846377&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071846377&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106309
DO - 10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106309
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85071846377
SN - 0195-9255
VL - 79
JO - Environmental Impact Assessment Review
JF - Environmental Impact Assessment Review
M1 - 106309
ER -