Using of Indicators for Environmental Impact Assessment in Latvia and Necessity for Indicators Validation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/etr2011vol1.904Keywords:
environmental impact assessment, indicators, validationAbstract
The EIA procedure in Latvia as it`s known today was implemented by the law „On environmental impact assessment” in 1998. The quantity assessment of expected environmental impact is provided by indicators giving the highest impartiality in this process. The choice of indicators and their approval in EIA projects in Latvia have not received the right attention, the issue is left upon the EIA performers. The problematic issues on necessity of indicator selection and validation are dealt with in the article. 39 environmental indicators were selected for EIA of motor road projects, with the evaluation of their significance and essence, as well as the analysis f application of these indicators in 14 reports concerning EIA of motor road projects. The results revealed the existing problems of indicator application and proved the assumption that there is no common indicator system for the assessment of impact of similar economic projects, proving the necessity of indicator validation to ensure good quality of assessment.Downloads
References
Steinemann A., Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 21, Issue 1 [2001], Pages 3-21.
Androulidakis I., Karakassis I., Evaluation of the EIA system performance in Greece, using quality indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 [2006] p. 242– 256.
Discoli C.A., Urban environmental impact matrices development: assessment indices incorporation. Building and Environment 40 [2005] 915–928.
Wang Y.-M., Yang J.-B., Xu D.-L., Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. European Journal of Operational Research 174 [2006] 1885–1913.
Van der Werf H.M.G., Petit J., Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93 [2002] 131–145.
Garrido J., Requena I., Proposal of ontology for environmental impact assessment: An application with knowledge mobilization. Expert Systems with Applications 38 [2011] 2462–2472.
LR MK noteikumi Nr.175 "Noteikumi par nacionālajiem vides indikatoriem". 24.02.2009., ar grozījumiem 25.05.2010.
Latvijas vides indikatoru pārskats 2001. LR VARAM, Latvijas Vides aģentūra, 2001, 7.lpp.
Gupta A.K., Sinha R., Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability: an executive summary. Executive Summary of the Proceedings of the International Training Workshop, "Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability in Rural Development: A Natural Resource Perspective", March 11-13, 1999.
B. ten Brink, Biodiversity indicators for the OECD environmental outlook and strategy. A feasibility study. RIVM Report 402001014, 2000.
www.epa.gov/indicators/whatIndicator.html
Guidelines for Country Studies on Biological Diversity, UNEP, Nairobi [1993].
Niemeijer D., de Groot R.S., A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological indicators 8 [2008] 14-25.
Cloquell-Ballester V.A., Cloquell-Ballester V.A., Monterde-Diaz R., Santamarina-Siurana M.C., Indicators validation for the improvement of environmental and social impact quantitative assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 [2006] 79-105.
Joa˜o E., How scale affects environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22, 2002. p. 289–310.
Canter L.W., Interdisciplinary teams in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review11 [1991] 375-387.
