Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

The EIA process provides the framework for structuring EIA activities, events, documents and methods. An overview of examples of design and management choices available to EIA process participants is presented. The choices pertain to (1) general EIA process design and management; (2) EIA process inputs, outputs and linkages; and (3) EIA process adaptations. The available choices are more extensive than are generally recognised in EIA process characterisations. EIA process participants can select the mix of choices that best suit proposal characteristics, environmental conditions, contextual factors and their interests and priorities. An awareness of the available choices is a good first step. EIA quality and effectiveness analyses could, with appropriate adaptations and refinements, help distinguish among blends of choices that are recurrently more and less effective.

Evidence is sought to identify barriers which may exist in the implementation of cumulative effects assessment (CEA). Cumulative effects may result from plans for the construction of clusters of large projects, or from gradual, piecemeal environmental change caused by numbers of individually small projects. Six CEA case studies are examined; the cases include windfarms, industrial developments, flood defence works and forestry projects. The study is based on documentary evidence plus interviews and survey involving all groups of interested stakeholders.

The study shows that barriers to CEA include lack of information and guidance, resource and skill shortages and uncertainty about where the responsibilities for such work may lie. There is a gap between the developer's legislated responsibility for information provision and the breadth of information on cumulative effects that may be useful to the competent authority. Measures to overcome these barriers are suggested, including guidance studies (by sector or type of environment) and a re-consideration of funding and responsibility. Factors motivating CEA work are also noted.

Considerable attention has been given to the role of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in policy, plan and program assessment; however, there is very little consensus on an appropriate methodology for SEA. Two basic perspectives on SEA methodology emerge from the literature: first, that appropriate SEA methodologies are readily available based on the application of project-level EIA approaches to strategic assessment questions and second, that SEA requires a different, more broad-brush approach than project-level EIA. If SEA is to advance in application and effectiveness, then appropriate SEA methodologies need to be established. Despite calls for SEA to develop more independently of project-level assessment, existing SEA methodologies tend to be based on project-level EIA principles. It is argued here that while SEA can perhaps utilise many of the existing methods from project-level EIA, it requires a different, more broad-brush, but structured methodological approach. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art of SEA methodology, and presents a generic SEA methodological framework and example based on the notion of the "best practicable environmental option".

Comprehensive indicators of sustainability need to be accessible, useful, and attractive to decision makers and the general public. To this end, we introduce a new aggregation, scaling, and presentation methodology. Called the "The Compass Index of Sustainability", it clusters indicators and assessment scores into four quadrants, based on the metaphor of the compass: N = Nature, E = Economy, S = Society, W = Well-being. The clusters are adapted from the theoretical work of Herman Daly ("Daly's Pyramid") as modified by Donella H. Meadows. In application, the Compass turns a complex indicator set into a series of four performance indices, one for each Compass Point, on a 0–100 scale. Normative decisions based on both scientific and social values determine the conversion formula for each indicator. The four indices can be superaggregated to produce an "Overall Sustainability Index". Once established, the scales provide clear signals about sustainability performance over time compared to an absolute or "ideal" target end-state, rather than the performance of other actors. First applied and publicly released in Orlando, Florida, USA, in July 2000, the compass proved a powerful media communications vehicle in that context, resulting in extensive regional news coverage; and it made a significant strategic impact on regional decision makers, specifically in philanthropy. Versions of the methodology are now being applied in several other US regions, cities, and communities, and other applications are being developed to assess and aggregate corporate sustainability performance as well. The authors believe the Compass Index can also be used as an interface or "add-on" to other indicator systems, such as the emerging Global Reporting Initiative; and as a management tool for comparing performance among variables, identifying priorities, and setting clear improvement targets.

This paper describes the theoretical foundations of the Compass Index; the implementation of the first prototype in Orlando, Florida; and the impact of that report on local media and decision makers. It also provides a discussion on problems and challenges associated with the model.

Note: The Compass Index of Sustainability, in format and methodology, is the intellectual property of AtKisson, Inc. All rights are reserved. Academic research is encouraged, but commercial use is restricted. Please contact the firm for licensing information.

This paper describes the development of a simple integrated approach to policy appraisal for use within the Environment Agency for England and Wales. The approach was developed by the Environment Agency's National Centre for Risk Analysis and Options Appraisal, and is intended as a first version of a tool to allow policy makers in the Agency to consider the possible environmental, social, economic and resource use impacts of the policy options available to manage risks, and to allow the monitoring of impacts of policy options selected.

The context within which the approach was developed is discussed — including existing literature on, and experience of, policy and integrated appraisal respectively, as well as the needs and resources of the Environment Agency with respect to policy appraisal. The paper provides a description of the approach developed before highlighting issues for further development.

The guidance summarised here is version 1, which is being rolled out for use by policy authors within the Agency in 2000 and 2001. The process will inevitably be iterative and it is intended over the next two years, following further application and road testing, that subsequent versions of the guidance will be produced.