Search

Abstract: The most common challenges and obstacles encountered by construction organizations during the process of implementing and using environmental management systems are related to the inherent peculiarities of the construction sector. Several studies have shown that one of the issues involving the greatest level of uncertainty is the identification and assessment of environmental impacts. In order to improve the identification of the significance of environmental impacts of construction projects and sites, which will lead to greater efficiency and robustness in environmental management systems, this paper extends the systematic approach for identifying and assessing potential adverse environmental impacts at the pre-construction stage presented in Gangolells et al. (2009) by introducing the assessment of the concerns of interested parties. By considering concerns amongst internal and external interested parties, one can assess the significance of environmental impacts taking into account not only the severity of the impacts but also local perceptions and international challenges, thereby ensuring that the determination of the impacts’ significance is appropriate to the particular socioeconomic and biophysical environments surrounding construction sites. In order to quantitatively measure concerns among internal and external interested parties for each of the 37 environmental impacts related to a construction project, we developed corresponding indicators and assessment scales with the help of a panel of experts. A series of χ 2 tests conducted over 76 new-start construction projects clearly revealed that the severity of environmental impacts is not correlated with the concerns of interested parties. The development of a formal quantitative method and the subsequent definition of a threshold make it possible to obtain advance knowledge of the significance – and, therefore, the acceptability – of each potential environmental impact for a particular construction project. A total score for each construction project alternative is also obtained, so the improved methodology provides a consistent basis for comparing construction companies and construction sites. Finally, two case studies are presented in order to demonstrate the benefits of the improved methodology. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Impact significance determination practice tends to be highly variable. Too often insufficient consideration is given to good practice insights. Also, impact significance determinations are frequently narrowly defined addressing, for example, only individual, negative impacts, focusing on bio-physical impacts, and not seeking to integrate either the Precautionary Principle or sustainability. This article seeks to extend the boundaries of impact significance determination practice by providing an overview of good general impact significance practices, together with stakeholder roles and potential methods for addressing significance determination challenges. Relevant thresholds, criteria, contextual considerations and support methods are also highlighted. The analysis is then extended to address how impact significance determination practices change for positive as compared with negative impacts, for cumulative as compared with individual impacts, for socio-economic as compared with bio-physical impacts, when the Precautionary Principle is integrated into the process, and when sustainability contributions drive the EIA process and related impact significance determinations. These refinements can assist EIA practitioners in ensuring that the scope and nature of impact significance determinations reflect the broadened scope of emerging EIA requirements and practices. Suggestions are included for further refining and testing of the proposed changes to impact significance determination practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Impact significance determination is widely recognized as a vital and critical EIA activity. But impact significance related concepts are poorly understood. And the quality of approaches for impact significance determination in EIA practice remains highly variable. This article seeks to help establish a sound and practical conceptual foundation for formulating and evaluating impact significance determination approaches. It addresses the nature (what is impact significance?), the core characteristics (what are the major properties of significance determination?), the rationale (why are impact significance determinations necessary?), the procedural and substantive objectives (what do impact significance determinations seek to achieve?), and the process for making impact significance judgments (how is impact significance determination conducted?). By identifying fundamental attributes and key distinctions associated with impact significance determinations, a basis is provided for designing and evaluating impact significance determination procedures at both the regulatory and applied levels. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The question of how best to go about determining the significance of impacts has, to date, only been addressed in a partial and preliminary way. The assumption tends to be made that it is either only necessary to provide explicit, justified reasons for a judgment about significance and/or to explicitly apply a prescribed procedure—a procedure usually involving the staged application of thresholds and/or criteria. The detailed attributes, strengths and limitations of such approaches and possible alternative approaches have yet to be explored systematically. This article addresses these deficiencies by analyzing the characteristics, specific methods and positive and negative tendencies of three general impact significance determination approaches—the technical approach, the collaborative approach and the reasoned argumentation approach. A range of potential composite approaches are also described. With an enhanced understanding of these approaches, together with potential combinations, EIA practitioners and other EIA participants can be in a better position to select an approach appropriate to their needs, to reinforce the positive tendencies and offset the negative tendencies of the selected approach and to combine the best qualities of more than one approach. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]