EIA scoping in England and Wales: Practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 221–241

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

EIA scoping in England and Wales:

Practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints

Graham WoodT, John Glasson, Julia Becker

Impacts Assessment Unit, Department of Planning, School of the Built Environment,

Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK

Received 1 September 2004; received in revised form 1 January 2005; accepted 1 February 2005

Available online 22 April 2005

Abstract

Scoping plays a critical role in shaping the nature and extent of the environmental information

subsequently contained in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), yet it has been identified as an

area of weakness in practice (Sadler, B., 1996) and remains a poorly understood and under-

researched component of EIA. This paper provides a detailed empirical investigation and

assessment of recent scoping activity in England and Wales, in the context of evolving European

Union (EU) regulations. Conceptual and contextual issues associated with scoping are outlined

prior to the presentation of key findings, including: approaches to scoping; the assessment of

significance; characteristics and influence of consultation; and perceived constraints to scoping. The

paper concludes with an overview of findings, possible explanatory factors, and recommendations for

future practice.

D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Scoping; Impact significance; Stakeholder involvement

1. Introduction

The scope of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the impacts and issues it

addresses. The scoping process involves deciding upon the significant issues that should

0195-9255/$ -

doi:10.1016/j.

T Correspon

E-mail add

see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

eiar.2005.02.001

ding author. Tel.: +44 1865 483942; fax: +44 1865 483559.

ress: [email protected] (G. Wood).

G. Wood et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 221–241222

be covered in the assessment, and consequently it plays a critical role in shaping the nature

and extent of the environmental information subsequently contained in an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS). For Weston (2000a), scoping can be regarded as the most

important stage in the EIA, whilst the UK Department of the Environment indicates that

bscoping is the key to a good quality environmental statementQ (DoE, 1995, p.13).Failure to adequately scope an EIA can lead to a situation where excessive resources are

expended on minor impacts, leading to voluminous EISs that cover an unnecessarily wide

range of impacts in far too much depth. EIA is not intended to produce an exhaustive,

encyclopaedic assessment of each and every potential impact, and the problem of bdeletinginconsequential or peripheral mattersQ has been identified as an issue internationally

(Sadler, 1996, p.113). In contrast, if too little attention is given to a potentially significant

impact then the perceived objectivity and legitimacy of the assessment may be reduced

and delays can ensue while the issue is subsequently addressed.

The interpretation and evaluation of the concept of dsignificant environmental effectsTexerts a major influence upon decision-making during scoping. In contrast to the idealised

notion of EIA as a rational, objective, systematic and value-free process, in practice the

interpretation of the significance of environmental effects is a highly contentious process

that occupies a bfluid boundary between science and politicsQ (Pritchard, 1993, p.11). Thepolitical dimension of decision-making during scoping introduces elements of dpowerT,dinfluenceT and dinterestsT into the equation. Scoping is thus to be considered an activity in

which there are underlying conflicting interests at stake, as well as varying perceptions of

the significance of environmental effects amongst a range of stakeholders potentially

involved in the process. Scoping therefore cannot be conceived as a rational and objective

dscientificT activity that can be replicated or verified, since the outcome of a scoping

exercise will vary according to how it is undertaken and by whom.

Ultimately the significance of environmental effects represents a subjective anthro-

pocentric judgement about the relative importance of a potential environmental impact,

contingent upon socially created environmental values that in turn will depend upon the

specific environmental and community context. However, the extent to which these values

are countenanced will depend upon the degree to which scoping is carried out as an dopenTprocess involving dialogue and exchange of ideas between stakeholders, or whether it is a

dclosedT exercise whereby the development proponents dominate the framing of the

subsequent assessment.

Sadler (1996) identified scoping as an area of weakness in EIA practice, and despite

widespread recognition of its importance, it remains a poorly understood and under-

researched aspect of EIA (Mulvihill, 2003). This paper provides a detailed empirical

investigation and assessment of recent scoping activity in England and Wales, in the

context of evolving European Union (EU) regulations. The principal aim of the paper is to

identify and explore the nature and characteristics of scoping practice carried out under the

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 1999. In particular, the paper will focus on how EIA practitioners (namely

Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), environmental consultants, and statutory consultees)

identify impacts and determine the significance of those impacts.

The paper starts by expanding upon some of the conceptual and contextual issues

associated with scoping, including the changing regulatory framework in the UK and the

G. Wood et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26 (2006) 221–241 223

EU. The research methodology is outlined and the paper then focuses on an analysis of

some key findings, including: practitioner engagement in scoping activity and the

ranking of important issues; approaches to impact identification; project-specific scoping

and methods used for the determination of significant impacts; characteristics of

consultation; and perceptions on the constraints to scoping. Some of the differences and

similarities between key practitioners are highlighted and current scoping practice is also

compared with the requirements of the 1999 EIA Regulations. The paper concludes with

an overview of findings, possible explanatory factors, and recommendations for future

practice.

The paper draws on the findings of a broader programme of research into significant

environmental effects in EIA decision-making, funded principally by the UK Economic

and Social Research Council (ESRC), with additional support from the EIA Unit at the

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

2. Scoping in context

2.1. Conceptual foundations

Researchers on scoping (Mulvihill, 2003; Wood, 2003; Weston, 2000a; Jones, 1999;

DoE, 1996; Sadler, 1996; Kennedy and Ross, 1992 and others) have identified an array

of features that could be seen to constitute the ideal nature and principles of scoping in

EIA:

! early application, but part of a cyclical process that continues throughout the EIA;

! engagement of key actors, and openness to public input;

! adequate treatment of alternative options for project siting and design;

! establishment of clear boundaries (spatial, temporal, biophysical, socio-economic etc.);

! focus upon key issues and on valued environmental components that are relevant to

decision-making; and

! identification of impacts to be monitored throughout the life of the project.

An efficient and effective approach to scoping, incorporating the principles identified

above, is seen to bring several benefits. It will concentrate the assessment on the

significant impacts thus avoiding wasted time and resources, and by engaging with a wide

range of stakeholders it will help the EIA to capture knowledge and values in order to

generate better environmental information for decision-making. The US Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ, 1997) stresses the advantages of building cooperative

working relationships with decision-making and environmental authorities, with interest

groups such as local voluntary conservation groups, and with the local community

(communities). An open and cooperative approach can exert a strong influence on the

shape of the impact assessment, increasing the likelihood of realising a process that

satisfies stakeholders. This may be particularly appropriate for controversial projects with

a diverse range of stakeholders (Mulvihill and Jacobs, 1998) and where the legitimacy of

the EIA may be of particular concern.


However, as well as potential benefits, the ideal process brings problems and

challenges. A rigorous and open dialogue runs the risk of becoming lengthy, expensive

and getting dbogged downT in detail. Scoping also brings to the fore the values and

perspectives of stakeholders whose objectives and expectations regarding the EIA process

may conflict. For example, Jones (1999) notes the potential conflict between the client

(who wishes to minimise time and costs), consultant (who wishes to maximise work) and

the competent authority, consultees and the public (who wish to gain as much information

as possible).

The control of information for decision-making may influence the nature and

outcome of the process, and some stakeholders are likely to have more power and

influence in the process than others. Thus, the institutional context of EIA defines the

formal and informal rules or procedures within which scoping decision-making occurs

and this serves to determine the rights and responsibilities of stakeholders, which in turn

shapes the degree of influence that different parties can exert. Environmental

professionals may have the benefit of technical knowledge and understanding of the

relevant formal, or informal, processes, although as Sadler notes (Sadler, 1996) scoping

is often an undisciplined activity. Underpinning such problems is of course the highly

subjective nature of judgements regarding the significance of impacts in EIA (Weston,

2000b).

As such, the scoping process highlights a number of crucial issues. It raises for example

issues about the degree of openness or closure of the process; about its formal or informal

nature; about power, control and access to information; about different values and

perspectives of the participants; and about the resources implicit and available. One

approach is to see scoping in any one country/region as a point on a continuum between a

technical / rational, professional-dominated model and, at the other extreme, a participative

social model involving the collaboration and cooperation of a diverse range of

stakeholders.

In the following section the institutional context and regulatory frameworks that seek to

manage the scoping process are considered. The focus is on the Town and Country

Planning System in England and Wales, within an EU context, with reference to other

countries as appropriate.

2.2. Regulatory frameworks and institutional context

EIA regulations in the UK were formally introduced as a consequence of Directive 85/

337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC on the bassessment of the effects of certain

public and private projects on the environmentQ (EC, 1997). Article 5 (para 2) of the

Directive (as amended) provides for a formalised scoping procedure. The original EIA

Directive did not have such a requirement although most Member States applied forms of

scoping in their national systems. An important aim of introducing a scoping requirement

into the Directive was to initiate early contact between the developer and the competent

authority and to promote a certain amount of cooperation with regard to the information to

be provided on key issues.

The Directive provides for two cases. The first requires the competent authorities to

provide, if the developer so requests, an opinion on a list of information to be submitted in


an EIS. The second allows Member States to make this a mandatory procedure, i.e. the

competent authorities must provide a scoping opinion regardless of whether or not it is

requested by the developer. The Five-Year Report to the European Council and

Parliament on the application and effectiveness of the amended Directive (EC, 2003)

showed that seven of the then fifteen Member States had a mandatory scoping

procedure in place. In some countries the nature of mandatory scoping varied

according to type of project (e.g. industry, quarrying and certain agricultural projects),

and/or according to region within a country (as in Italy). Within the Member States,

guidance on the nature, content and process of scoping varies in rigour between countries

(Wood, 2003), although the EC has also provided an updated guidance document (EC,

2000).

The Five-Year review revealed mixed opinions between Member States as to whether

the introduction of the revised scoping procedures had brought improvements. For some

there was a perception that it had improved the quality of information provided to the

competent authority; for others there was a perceived potential for increasing the length of

time taken up by the EIA process (EC, 2003). Importantly, the review also showed barecognition in some Member States that public involvement at the scoping stage identifies

the issues that are dsignificantT to the people who will have to live with the project and not

just the dexpertsT who will notQ (EC, 2003, p.4). In Belgium (Brussels and Walloon

regions), Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, consultation with the public

is a legally required part of the process. In comparison, in Austria, Germany, Ireland and

the UK, when forming a scoping opinion it is up to the competent authority to decide

whether or not the public should be consulted on the scope, but the relevant environmental

authorities or agencies are consulted.

This article focuses upon an examination of scoping decision-making for develop-

ment projects in England and Wales that fall under the Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 SI No. 293. These Regulations

serve to implement the amended EIA Directive for development that occurs under the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which accounts for approximately 70% of all

EISs submitted in England and Wales. The Regulations came into effect on 14 March

1999 and are supported by government guidance in the form of Circular 02/99 (DETR,

1999). Under the 1999 Regulations, scoping has not been incorporated as a mandatory

activity in the UK, although in compliance with the Directive, developers have been

given the right to formally request a scoping opinion from the relevant Local Planning

Authority (LPA).

In the UK the responsibility for preparation of the EIS rests with the applicant, and

whilst the form of the EIS is not prescribed, the Regulations do introduce legally binding

minimum requirements with respect to the contents, which must now include: a

description of the development; a description of mitigation measures; the data required

to identify and assess the main effects of the project; an outline of the main alternatives

studied and the reasons why they were rejected; and a non-technical summary. Circular 02/

99 (DETR, 1999, p. 24) stresses that the emphasis in an EIS should be b. . .on the dmainT ordsignificantT environmental effects to which the development is likely to give rise. In many

cases, only a few of the effects will be significant and will need to be discussed in the EIS

in any great depthQ. The guidance also encourages a pragmatic approach to the production


of EISs, highlighting that bthey should be prepared on a realistic basis and without

unnecessary elaborationQ (DETR, 1999, p. 24).In seeking to understand the process by which significant effects are determined during

scoping, it is important to have an appreciation of the role of the key stakeholders and

hence the way in which power and influence can be exerted within the requirements

(confines) of the Regulations, thereby determining the nature and content of information

put forward in an EIS.

The project proponent is under no formal obligation to consult with either the

competent authority or the public in defining the scope of the EIA. Regardless of

whether such consultation occurs, the requirement that ultimately the applicant supply

environmental information for project authorisation decision-making imparts consid-

erable power to the developer and their appointed consultants. Nonetheless, under the

Regulations a developer does have the right to obtain a formal scoping opinion from the

LPA. The scoping opinion must then be given within a 5-week period and the LPA

bmust consult the consultation bodies and the developer before adopting its scoping

opinionQ (DETR, 1999, p. 25). The LPA is under no obligation to involve the public,

although once it has formulated the scoping opinion it must be placed on the planning

register and kept available to the public for a period of 2 years. Thus, in developing a

scoping opinion the LPA does have the potential opportunity to exert a degree of

influence over the shape of the EIA and the information that must be included in the

EIS. Importantly, the Regulations also give LPAs the right to request further information

from the developer after completion of the EIS (even in situations where it has complied

with the original scoping opinion), and so in this way the competent authority ultimately

retains de facto authority for determining the scope of the EIA. The Regulations make

no provisions for disagreement between LPA and applicant with regards to the scope of

the EIA.

3. Scoping in practice: research approach

In order to investigate the nature of scoping practice under the 1999 EIA Regulations, a

questionnaire survey was distributed to LPAs in England and Wales, to statutory

consultees, and to environmental consultancies. Statutory consultees include for example

the Environment Agency, which has developed its own very useful guidance on scoping in

EIA (Environment Agency, 2002), the Countryside Agency and English Nature (where the

development is in England), the Countryside Council for Wales (where the development is

in Wales), plus a wide array of other bodies dependent on the nature and/or siting of the

development proposal.

The questionnaire included a variety of yes/no, multiple response (including likert

scale-type questions), and free response questions designed to establish:

! basic facts (e.g. involvement in scoping);

! procedures and approaches used for scoping (e.g. approaches to identifying impacts and

determining significant effects; consultation); and

! perceived constraints to scoping.


To encourage questionnaire responses that provide a realistic characterisation of the true

nature of scoping decision-making, respondents were asked to consider the questions in

relation to the most recent project for which they were actively involved in scoping.

A total of 408 LPAs, 510 environmental consultancies with an EIA capacity, and 171

statutory consultee offices were sent questionnaires relevant to their organisation. The

overall response rate for the survey was 27%. The response rate for LPAs was 26%,

environmental consultancies 30%, and 23% for statutory consultees, and served to capture

a cross-section of practitioners in terms of location, size of organisation, and EIA

experience. With respect to the statutory consultees that reported experience of

involvement in scoping, the proportion of responses to the survey according to

organisation was as follows: Environment Agency 39%; English Nature 29%; Countryside

Agency/Countryside Council for Wales 14%; English Heritage and British Waterways 7%;

and the Health and Safety Executive 4%.

The questionnaire responses correspond to a diverse range of projects, both in terms of

the scale and type of development, including scoping activity relating to proposals for the

following general sectors: agriculture, energy, extraction, industrial development, leisure,

transport (including roads), urban development (including retail), waste management, and

flood relief schemes. The data analysis focuses on identifying the general pattern of

responses from the three practitioner groupings, and explores differences and similarities

in their approach in order to provide a detailed dsnapshotT of scoping activity and decision-

making processes in England and Wales.

4. Analysis of research findings

4.1. Practitioner engagement in scoping and the ranking of important issues

Approximately 70% of LPAs and statutory consultees stated that they had been involved

in preparing a scoping opinion since the implementation of the 1999 Regulations, while just

over 60% of consultants had been involved with the production of a scoping report. The

consultancies that indicated no experience in EIA scoping can in almost all cases be

characterised as smaller dnicheT companies, whose involvement in EIA is principally

limited to acting as subcontractors offering specialist expertise, e.g. in noise assessment.

In terms of the time spent on scoping, the consultants averaged approximately 31–40 h,

compared with the much shorter 6–10 h for the LPAs and the statutory consultees. Over

one third of LPAs, and approximately 25% of statutory consultees spent less than 5 h on

the task. The projects that took the longest time included extraction and urban

development (for LPAs); transport and urban development (for consultants); and transport,

urban development and wind farms (for statutory consultees).

Survey respondents were provided with a list of 21 general issues1 relevant to scoping

and were asked to identify the importance they placed upon each of them using a five-

1 Covering spatial and temporal aspects, other impact dimensions (e.g. magnitude, cumulative, reversibility,

etc.), assessment methods, consideration of significance, alternatives uncertainty, risk, mitigation, consultation,

post-development environmental management.


point scale from dnot importantT through to dvery importantT. Responses were then collated

and Table 1 provides a summary of (a) the top five issues considered to be most important

and (b) the five issues considered least important for the three respondent groups. In

general there is considerable similarity in the ranking of the most important issues, with all

three practitioner groups showing a strong interest in context-specific issues. Consid-

eration of site characteristics was rated highly by all three groups with 90% of consultants,

83% of LPAs and 93% of statutory consultees rating the issue as dimportantT or dveryimportantT in decision-making. Similarly, all three organisations rated geographical issues

as dvery importantT or dimportantT. These findings are perhaps not surprising given that it isa requirement under the 1999 Regulations to include information about the characteristics

and location of the development in an environmental statement. The majority of

respondents within all three groups also rated impact magnitude highly and placed it in

the top three issues.

Table 1

Relative importance of issues in formulating the scoping opinion/report

Rank LPAs Consultants Statutory Consultees

(a) Top five (most important) issues

1 Preliminary assessment of

characteristics of the site

Preliminary assessment

of characteristics of the site

Geographical issues

(the area of distribution

of impacts)

2 Technical issues

(dmeasurableT impacts,

e.g. noise or groundwater

conditions)

Impact magnitude Preliminary assessment

of characteristics of the site

3 Impact magnitude Consideration of mitigation Impact magnitude

4 Consideration of mitigation Determining the significance

of different impacts

Technical issues

(dmeasurableT impacts,

e.g. noise or groundwater

conditions)

5 Geographical issues

(the area of distribution of

impacts)

Geographical issues

(the area of distribution

of impacts)

Consideration of mitigation

(b) Bottom five (least important) issues

17 Accounting for uncertainty Risk of accidents Qualitative issues (impacts

based on ideas, thoughts,

feelings, etc)

18 Risk of accidents Consulting past case

studies

Consulting past case studies

19 Identification of possible

predictive techniques

Accounting for uncertainty Risk of accidents

20 Consideration of project

alternatives

Provisions for post-

development environmental

management (e.g. EMS)

Reversibility of impacts

21 Consideration of methods that

will be used for specific

impacts in the EIS itself

Identification of possible


Identification of possible



In formulating scoping decisions LPAs, consultants and statutory consultees all

expressed a general preference for quantitative analysis over qualitative. Over three-

quarters of respondents from all three organisations rated technical, quantitative impacts as

being dimportantT or dvery importantT issues during scoping. In contrast, less than 45% of

LPAs, statutory consultees and consultants thought that qualitative issues were dimportantTor dvery importantT.

Whilst not appearing in the top five issues, cumulative impacts were identified as

relatively important across all three groups. This is surprising, as recent research has

established that there is a lack of early identification of potential cumulative problems in

EIA, and that scoping exercises often do not specifically address cumulative impacts or

only do so in a limited way (Baxter et al., 2001; Piper, 2001). It is therefore a positive sign

that cumulative effects now appear to be recognised by practitioners, particularly as the

1999 EIA Regulations indicate that they are an issue for consideration.

The survey findings indicate that consultants and statutory consultees are more likely to

recognise the importance of what may be considered more complex scoping issues (e.g.

temporary impacts, uncertainty, impact inter-relationships and EIA methods) than is the

case for LPAs. Similarly the consideration of alternatives is given less attention by LPAs

than might have been anticipated, particularly given that the 1999 Regulations require a

developer to address alternatives in an EIA. In fact, 44% of LPAs regarded the

consideration of alternatives as dof littleT or dno importanceT in formulating the scoping

opinion. Mitigation measures are given serious consideration by all three organisations,

but again a higher proportion of consultants and statutory consultees (50%) consider them

dvery importantT than is the case for LPAs (37%).

It is possible that consultants and statutory consultees show a higher concern for these

more complex issues because of the nature of their involvement in scoping. In drafting a

scoping report, consultants will typically consider the specific details of impacts (including

following any requirements of the 1999 Regulations) and will dmap-outT the structure of

the EIA and the assessment approach in some detail. Statutory consultees are more likely

to be concerned with specific aspects of the environment that are relevant to their

organisation and the work they do (for example, English Nature will be particularly

concerned with the more detailed impacts on ecology). In contrast, it appears that LPAs are

potentially more concerned with the identification of impacts, rather than prescribing

specific fine details of the EIA content or methodology.

Risk of accidents does not appear to be a major issue for any of the three practitioner

groups at the scoping stage with 59% of LPAs, 43% of consultants and 32% of statutory

consultees rating it dof littleT or dno importanceT. However, some caution must be exercised

when looking at these figures, as the type of project will influence the degree of

importance that is placed on risk of accidents. Further research is required before

conclusions can be drawn on the degree of attention that practitioners give to risk of

accidents.

4.2. Approaches to impact identification

The next phase of the research focused on the actual approaches and tools used by

practitioners during scoping. In the first instance, the survey asked participants to specify


what methods they used to identify impacts in the last project they were involved in

scoping (Table 2).

Professional judgement is by far the most commonly used approach with over 90% of

respondents from each group specifying that they use this method. There are similar high

proportions for each group with regard to consultation within their own organisation, and

for LPA and consultant consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees. In stark

contrast to this high uptake of internal and external professional consultation, community

consultation appears to have very limited use as an approach to impact identification in

scoping, particularly in the case of statutory consultees (4%). Only 15% of LPAs and

approximately a third of consultancies report using community consultation at this stage,

thus limiting community involvement in the EIA process at the impact identification stage

of scoping.

Only a quarter of LPAs and statutory consultees were likely to consult other examples

of similar projects, while nearly 60% of consultants acknowledged that this was a method

used. Weston (2000b) recommends reviewing similar existing environmental statements or

cases to assist in scoping and as an aid in determining significant impacts. Similarly, for

Mulvihill and Baker (2001) process development (i.e. continual improvement in EA

practice) is important. They acknowledge, however, that there is relatively little sharing of

lessons from one case to another, that there are few mechanisms available to promote the

exchange of experience, and that the black of lesson transfer amongst EA processes can

erode public and stakeholder trust in institutionsQ (Mulvihill and Baker, 2001, p. 383).

Over 70% of consultancies identified that they used existing plans and policy guidance

as a tool for identifying impacts, in comparison to 43% for statutory consultees and only

18% for LPAs. Overall there appeared to be a very limited uptake of actual formal impact

identification techniques. Checklists are recommended as a tool to assist scoping by a

number of authors (e.g. Glasson et al., 1999; Environment Agency, 2002; Weston 2000b),

Table 2

Methods used by different practitioner groups to identify impactsa

Approach LPA %

(N=78)

Consultant %

(N=98)

Statutory

consultees %

(N=28)

Consultation within own organisation 80 83 86

Consultation between different statutory

and non-statutory consultees

80 91 61

Community consultation 15 34 4

Followed guidance from plans or policies 18 70 43

Legal regulations and thresholds 63 76 39

Consulted other examples of similar projects 26 57 25

Used professional judgement and experience 91 96 93

Used a checklist to identify possible impacts 30 50 32

Used other formal technique (please specify) 1 15 4

Based decision on an appraisal of the likely

controversy of the proposal

19 15 4

Other 5 8 4

a This question was multi-response therefore the % figure for each approach is a proportion of the total number

of respondents from each organisation. Figures are rounded to nearest whole number.


and they were the most popular formal technique used as an aid to impact identification,

with 30% of LPAs, 50% of consultancies, and 32% of statutory consultees.

4.3. Relative concern of specific impacts

For the last project that they were involved in scoping, respondents were asked about

their relative concern with respect to different impact themes. The survey responses relate

to a diverse range of development types and receiving environments that precludes any

detailed disaggregation (e.g. by project sector), and so the responses were collated and

examined across the practitioner groups. Whilst recognising that this approach loses the

context specific detail of scoping considerations, it is felt to be useful in providing a

dsnapshotT of the emphasis attributed to different impacts when current EIA practice in

England and Wales is considered as a whole.

Landscape and visual impacts were found to be by far the most important impact for

LPAs, with 60% identifying these impacts as being of dhigh concernT (Fig. 1). Other

impacts of high concern are: traffic/transport, flora/fauna, noise/vibration, water resources

and air quality. Like LPAs, consultancies also consider landscape and visual impacts to be

most important (57%), followed by traffic and transportation, noise and vibration, flora/

fauna, water resources and other emissions (Fig. 2).

The diverse range of statutory consultee organisations combined with the limited

number of total responses, prevents generalization with respect to the relative concern of

impacts. Nevertheless it is of note that all English Nature respondents identified impacts

upon flora and fauna as being of dhigh concernT (reflecting the ecological remit of the

organisation), whilst waste disposal and impacts upon water resources were identified as

being of dhigh concernT by the great majority of Environment Agency responses.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Soc

ial I

ssue

s

Cul

ture

/ Her

itage

Eco

nom

ic Is

sues

Flo

ra /

Fau

na Soi

l

Air

Qua

lity

Noi

se &

Vib

ratio

n

Oth

er E

mis

sion

s

Clim

atic

Fac

tors

Was

te D

ispo

sal

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Geo

-tec

hnic

al Is

sues

Land

scap

e / V

isua

l

Tra

ffic

/ Tra

nspo

rt

Ris

k of

Acc

iden

ts

Inte

r-re

latio

nshi

ps

High Moderate Minor No Concern

Fig. 1. LPAs: relative concern of impact.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%S

ocia

l Iss

ues

Cul

ture

/ Her

itage

Eco

nom

ic Is

sues

Flo

ra /

Fau

na Soi

l

Air

Qua

lity

Noi

se &

Vib

ratio

n

Oth

er E

mis

sion

s

Clim

atic

Fac

tors

Was

te D

ispo

sal

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Geo

-tec

hnic

al Is

sues

Land

scap

e / V

isua

l

Tra

ffic

/ Tra

nspo

rt

Ris

k of

Acc

iden

ts

Inte

r-re

latio

nshi

ps

High Moderate Minor No Concern

Fig. 2. Consultancies: relative concern of impacts.


The impact types that in aggregate appear to be of least concern amongst practitioners

were risk of accidents and climatic factors. Risk of accidents was generally considered of

dno concernT or only a dminorT concern for all three groups. The majority of LPAs consider

climatic factors to be of dminorT or dno concernT (82%) while a similar (but slightly less)

percentage of consultants and statutory consultees think the same. This limited concern

may change over the next few years—for risk, partly reflecting its more explicit inclusion

in the amended EIA Directive, and for climate change reflecting the rising profile of the

issue nationally and internationally, and increasing government and non-government

guidance on the implications for development planning.

The figures also show a low level of concern for social issues, especially from the LPAs

and statutory consultees. Chadwick (2002) suggests that the ambiguity as to whether such

issues should be in EIA combined with the difficulty of their quantification may partly

explain their dpoor relationT status. With the exception of landscape and visual impacts, the

impacts of most concern are characterised by a strong quantitative component, and are

supported by standards and guidelines.

Overall, the survey findings suggest that, although scoping often results in a catch-all,

play-safe approach with a wide array of impacts identified (Weston, 2000a), practitioners

are in fact able to discriminate and identify which impacts they consider to be of most

concern.

4.4. Methods employed for the determination of significant impacts

The significance of impacts will differ depending on the context and the individuals

involved in decision-making, and because of this there is no general definition of what

constitutes significance (DETR, 2000). The assessment of significance is both an objective


exercise, with quantifiable tests, but is also a subjective exercise involving value

judgement. The questionnaire asked participants to indicate which particular methods they

used for determining the significance of the impacts identified during scoping the last

project they were involved in. Table 3 shows the findings for the three groups across a

range of methods.

The higher proportion of consultants using quantitative, and/or semi-quantitative

techniques is noticeable. Just over 50% of consultants indicated that they measure data

against pre-determined standards or guidelines when putting together their scoping reports.

The use of a dsliding scaleT to give each impact a rating (e.g. major–minor, high

significance–low significance) is also a popular approach for consultants. In addition,

matrices, overlay maps, computer modelling, attaching numerical scores to dweightT thesignificance of impacts, and field experiments are all methods used more often by

consultants than by the other two practitioner groups. Again this may be indicative of

different scoping styles in that when producing scoping reports (both for the client and for

broader circulation) consultancies undertake preliminary assessment work that feeds into

structuring the subsequent approach and detail of the EIA, in contrast to LPAs and

statutory consultees, where impact identification takes primacy.

While there are many recommended tools for determining significance, past research

has found that even amongst consultants the uptake of such tools is fairly limited. Weston

Table 3

Methods used to determine significant impactsa

Method LPA %

(N=78)

Consultants %

(N=98)

Statutory

consultees %

(N=28)

Did not use any particular method 30 9 29

Created a simple checklist of impacts 36 36 29

Attached numerical scores to dweightT the significance 1 14 0

Examined each issue on case by case basis 33 67 21

Measured data against pre-determined standards or guidelines 14 51 11

Created own standards/guidelines to determine impact significance 12 20 36

Created criteria to define what impacts would be significant 4 18 7

Using a sliding scale to give each impact a rating

(e.g. high significance–low significance)

3 48 7

Used matrices 0 15 4

Used overlay maps 3 16 14

Used computer modelling 1 18 4

Used GIS systems 9 7 36

Consultation 55 55 29

Flow charts, value trees/decision trees 0 3 0

Cost–benefit analysis 0 8 0

Messages from community dstoriesT used as criteria or guidelines 3 6 0

Field experiments 1 15 4

Preliminary impacts prediction and extrapolation 9 20 7

Professional judgement and experience 74 78 79

Other 4 9 7

a This question was multi-response therefore the % figure for each approach is a proportion of the total number

of respondents from each practitioner group.


(2000b) found that only 12% of environmental consultants used any form of drationalTtechniques for scoping EIAs. This is mostly supported by the results here, which indicate

that in general only between 15% and 20% of consultants would use drationalT techniquesfor scoping. The only exception is checklists, which are used by over a third of consultants

to assist in the determination of significant impacts, in contrast to a figure of 50% during

impact identification phase.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis is one approach used to a reasonably

high degree by county LPAs with over 44% indicating that they used this technique, along

with 36% of statutory consultees. In contrast less than 6% of district and unitary authorities

and only 7% of consultants do the same. In the case of consultancies this may reflect the

data acquisition and staffing costs involved in setting up a dedicated project specific GIS

that could become redundant on completion of the EIA. For district and unitary LPAs, it is

possible that corporate GIS with relevant spatial data exists, but there may be a lack of

awareness or resources and expertise may be in short supply.

For all three practitioner groups, consultation appears to have been important in

assisting decisions on impact significance during scoping, and it is considered in more

detail in the following section.

4.5. Characteristics of consultation

In best-practice scoping all stakeholders (including the public) should be identified and

consultation with these groups should take place in order to identify the key issues early in

the process, as well as the opportunities, constraints and information needs for an effective

EIA. The advantages of stakeholder consultation in scoping are neatly summarised in the

good practice guidance from the Environment Agency (2002, p. 16) which states that:

bThe early involvement of stakeholders in the EIA has benefits for the developer in

terms of good public relations and obtaining the information about the local area.

Moreover by addressing concerns at the outset there is less likelihood of the project

being delayed, for example by the decision stage because important information has

been overlooked. By seeking to accommodate the concerns of the stakeholders, the

developer is more likely to gain the confidence of the local people, rather than

risking suspicion and mistrust that may be generated by new developments Q.

During scoping, LPAs and statutory consultees generally consulted between one and

five other parties when constructing a scoping opinion. Consultants tended to consult

slightly more widely, most typically consulting between six and ten parties. Table 4 sets

out responses on the form of consultation used by the three groups during scoping. For

LPAs, official written communications are the most popular form of consultation, followed

by informal conversations both internally and externally. Consultants use a mix of

approaches including official letters, informal conversations, formal requests for scoping

opinions from the LPA, and public meetings. Statutory consultees appear to rely most on

informal conversations with other organisations. A small proportion of LPAs indicated

that, contrary to the requirements of the 1999 Regulations, they did not consult at all with

the Environment Agency and other statutory consultees.

Table 4

Nature and mode of consultation during scopinga

No

answer

Did not

consult with

Informal

conversation

Advertisement Public

meeting

Official

letters/emails

Scoping opinion

requested

Workshop Public

display

Other

(please specify)

Mix of

approaches

LPAs % (N=78)

LPA/County Council 33 13 13 0 3 24 8 1 0 0 5

Developer 33 13 14 1 3 15 10 1 0 1 8

Environmental Consultancy 55 33 4 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0

Environment Agency 22 8 5 1 6 40 8 1 0 0 9

Other statutory consultees 22 10 4 0 5 4 8 1 0 0 8

Community 47 35 1 5 3 4 0 0 1 0 4

Interest groups/representatives 40 27 9 3 3 12 1 0 0 0 6

Secretary of State 51 37 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 3

Other (please specify) 85 6 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 1

Consultants % (N=98)

LPA/County Council 2 1 12 0 5 9 36 0 0 3 32

Developer 21 3 2 0 9 13 0 3 0 5 17

Environmental consultancy 39 26 8 0 4 8 2 0 0 4 9

Environment agency 6 6 11 0 6 37 12 0 0 0 21


Community 17 26 5 3 13 6 0 1 11 2 15


Secretary of state 27 57 0 0 1 8 4 0 0 0 3


Statutory consultees % (N=28)

LPA/County council 43 0 25 0 4 7 4 0 0 4 14

Developer 50 14 4 0 7 11 7 0 0 4 4

Environmental consultancy 61 11 11 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 7

Environment agencyb 53 23 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0


Community 71 18 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0


Secretary of State 71 21 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0


aThis question was multi-response, therefore the % figure for each group/method is a proportion of the total number of respondents from each organisation.

bFigures for this row exclude Environment Agency responses.

G.Woodet

al./Enviro

nmentalIm

pact

Assessm

entReview

26(2006)221–241

235


It is clear from the findings that there is very limited active community consultation in

scoping, reflecting the lack of any regulatory requirement. Yet public participation and

consultation are important in scoping and can allow those with local knowledge to provide

inputs that will aid the identification of dsignificantT impacts. A lack of such inputs means

that community members will have little say about what the key impacts are at an early

stage and have less opportunity to shape the EIA so that it addresses their concerns. Several

authors (Glasson et al., 1999; Palerm, 2000; Weston, 2000b; Mulvihill, 2003) stress the

importance of public involvement, but identify reasons for its limited use in practice,

including: consultation fatigue; community scepticism; developer reluctance; resource

constraints and inappropriate methods.

The survey revealed largely dtraditionalT methods of public engagement where they

were used at all e.g. public meetings, displays and sometimes advertisements. Many of

these methods have their place, and indeed advertisements are a statutory requirement in

EIA, although Mulvihill (2003) suggests a twin-track approach including such conven-

tional methods, plus more open and speculative public consultation. As noted by McNab

(in Weston, 1997), opening up the process may be regarded as unnecessarily risky by

developers. Furthermore, whatever the consultation process, it is important to consider

local socio-economic characteristics; communities with limited skills for participation plus

limited resources will need different styles and approaches.

The questionnaire asked participants to report the degree to which consultation

changed their opinion on scoping issues for the last project they were involved in. For

LPAs the views of statutory consultees appeared to have the greatest influence, changing

LPA scoping opinions significantly in approximately 40% of cases. For consultancies, it

was the LPAs which had a similar degree of influence. In contrast, statutory consultees

did not seem to be influenced in a major way by any one organisation, reflecting their

independent nature and their advisory role in the process. For both LPAs and

consultancies, where community consultation has occurred, it does not appear to have

resulted in any notable change in the scoping decisions. Indeed, nearly 25% of LPAs

and 20% of consultancies indicated that consultation with the community did not change

their scoping opinion in any way at all. Further research is required to understand why

this is the case, but possible explanatory factors may be: perceived limited value of

community inputs; inappropriate, superficial and cosmetic consultation practice; and

LPA and consultant effectiveness in identifying impacts and issues that will be of

concern to the community.

4.6. Resources and constraints in the scoping process

Partly reflecting the different roles in the scoping process, LPAs and statutory

consultees tend to use one person or a number of dindividualsT to make decisions on the

significance of impacts. In contrast consultancies prefer a team-based approach.

Interactions between the three groups may involve a number of steps to assemble the

necessary information. Our findings show that the LPA officers request additional

information from the applicant in approximately 40% of cases; for statutory consultees

46% acknowledge the need to request further information. It is interesting to note that a

high proportion (77%) of those LPAs that seek additional information are actually asking


the applicant for further inputs regarding what the potential impacts may be. Their

second most common request is for information on the characteristics of the

development (53%). For statutory consultees the most common requests are for more

information on the nature of the environment and more information on potential impacts

(both 69%).

The resource implications and constraints that arise due to the various demands

of the scoping process constituted the final question in the survey. Table 5 clearly

illustrates LPA concerns about the lack of resources to undertake the tasks

involved. This is symptomatic of the increasing pressure on the limited resources of

the UK planning system, as revealed in many other contemporary studies (see for

example, ODPM/LGA, 2004). Lack of resources was also a concern for statutory

consultees.

Time-frame constraints are seen as a serious issue by all three groups, and this may

explain why LPAs seem to spend only a relatively short period of time preparing scoping

opinions. Jennings and Wattam (1998) suggest that a reduced time-span for making a

decision will decrease the consideration given to that decision. This in turn increases the

risk of making an inappropriate decision about significant impacts. Weston (2000b)

suggests coming to an agreement with the developer about extending the five weeks in

which the scoping opinion is required if LPAs feel that the time frame for making an initial

decision is too short.

Uncertainty and lack of clarity over aspects of scoping also contributed to a number of

comments about constraints. Lack of understanding of the process is seen as a fairly

significant constraint by LPAs (22%), consultants (37%) and statutory consultees (50%).

Lack of clarity regarding government guidelines is considered a constraint for over one

quarter of LPAs. Statutory consultees and consultants felt that uncertainty over baseline

data and other elements (46%) were additional significant constraints.

Table 5

Constraints on scopinga

Constraint LPA %

(N=78)

Consultants %

(N=98)

Statutory consultees

% (N=28)

No Answer 6 2 4

There are no constraints 5 5 7

Lack of resources to do scoping study 68 13 43

Lack of commitment by different parties 18 19 11

Lack of understanding of the process 22 37 50

Time-frame constraints 44 49 46

Policy and development plan constraints 0 4 4

Lack of clarity re: regulations/gov. guidance 27 13 7

Consultation requirements with other groups 23 24 4

Uncertainty over baseline data, project

description/specification etc.

17 46 46

Other 10 9 14

a For this question respondents could choose up to three constraints therefore the % figure for each constraint is

a proportion of the total number of respondents from each organisation.


5. Conclusions and recommendations

From the analysis of the questionnaire data, a number of conclusions can be drawn about

the nature of current scoping practice as performed by different organisations under the

1999 EIA Regulations. The LPAs, consultants and statutory consultees have different, but

interacting, roles in the process. They also have different perspectives and types of

influence. The LPAs are the competent authorities with the power of regulation, but they are

often under-resourced and lacking in experience of EIA activity. This is particularly the case

for non-metropolitan district councils which may receive very few requests for scoping

opinions each year. In general, LPAs appear to focus on impact identification rather than the

prescription of the specific fine details of EIA content and approach. They also rely largely

on professional judgement and consultation with other professionals to identify impacts and

to determine their significance.

In contrast, consultants show a greater concern for more complex issues than LPAs

(e.g. uncertainty and impact inter-relationships) and use more quantitative techniques—

although professional judgement is still the predominant scoping method. Consultants

typically bring more technical knowledge and expertise to the process and spend a

longer period of time on scoping than the LPAs. This probably reflects the nature of

their involvement in the scoping process, with consultants taking a lead role in terms of

drafting out the more detailed boundaries of the EIA, including issues such as the extent

of baseline survey work, predictive techniques, and the overall assessment approach to

be employed. Statutory consultees also bring considerable expertise, but this is most

likely to be for specific aspects of the environment that are relevant to the remit of their

organisation.

Although the three groups have different roles, powers and expertise, there is also

considerable interdependence between them. A high degree of consultation exists

between the three types of organisation, although a small proportion of LPAs are failing

to consult with statutory consultees. This is of some concern given that it appears that

such consultees can exert considerable influence on the LPA scoping opinion and in turn

LPAs influence consultants. In contrast to the high degree of consultation between the

parties, community consultation by all three parties appears to be limited. As such, the

scoping exercise may lack the benefit of local knowledge about the receiving

environment, and also community members will have less opportunity to shape the

EIA so that it addresses their concerns. Scoping practice in England and Wales can

therefore be characterised as being a professionally inclusive, technically oriented activity,

far removed from the notions of a participative social model. Indeed, even where

community consultation has occurred it does not appear to have had much of an impact

upon the scoping outcome. Possible explanatory factors may be, as discussed: perceived

limited value of community inputs; cosmetic consultation practice; or alternatively the

LPA/consultant may in fact be acting effectively in identifying impacts of concern to the

community. The research method employed in this study has enabled a macro analysis of

overall patterns of scoping practice, but detailed case study research is required to explore

these hypotheses further.

The findings are to some extent reassuring with regard to some aspects of scoping

previously perceived as problematic. For example there is concern in the literature that


scoping can become a broadbrush exercise whereby all impacts are identified rather than

focusing upon significant impacts (Weston, 2000b). The research results suggest that even

if the emphasis in scoping opinions/reports is not restricted simply to the most significant

impacts, practitioners are certainly able to prioritise and identify those impacts they

consider to be of most concern (and thus potentially more significant) for the projects they

are involved in. However, the extent to which this is made transparent in documented

scoping opinions and reports requires further investigation. Impact inter-relationships were

also considered to be of high concern during scoping, yet such impacts are generally given

little attention in EISs. This may reflect the difficulty of assessing and communicating

inter-relationships adequately in EISs.

Professional judgement clearly plays a key role in scoping. In general, consultants make

good use of prior experience and consult on other examples of similar projects. This is less

common amongst statutory consultees and LPAs, and further work is needed to establish

appropriate mechanisms for sharing experience amongst these bodies, while avoiding the

evolution of a dcut and pasteT culture of scoping opinion formation. Of course, resource

constraints and uncertainty/lack of clarity can hinder effective scoping. This is particularly

apparent for LPAs who spend the least amount of time on preparing scoping opinions.

Promoting the use of checklists, perhaps involving a small team of LPA officers, would be

one way of assisting scoping in a way that is not prohibitively time-consuming, and the use

of the Environment Agency guidelines (even at o95!) could be encouraged.

Other recommendations include LPAs giving more emphasis to the role of alternatives

in scoping and to specifying parameters for the consideration of mitigation, although again

a lack of knowledge/capacity and resources is likely to limit this. The UK could perhaps

also improve the process by having a mandatory scoping procedure in place—as with

several other EU Member States. As highlighted earlier, some Member States also legally

require consultation with the public as a part of the scoping process. Such changes could

improve the quality of, and access to, information, but will undoubtedly have time/

resource implications. They could also shift the nature of relationships between the

stakeholders, and strengthen the role of the currently weak fourth party—the public. Issues

such as this may need to be addressed over the next few years by the UK Government with

the next stage in the adaptive evolution of EU and UK EIA regulations and procedures.

Acknowledgements

The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (Award R000239676) and

the EIA unit at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is gratefully acknowledged.

Thanks are also due to all the busy LPA officers, consultants and statutory consultees

around England and Wales who took part in the research, and to the peer reviewers for

their helpful comments.

References

Baxter W, Ross WA, Spaling H. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact

Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19(4):253–62.


Chadwick A. Socio-economic impacts: are they still the poor relations in UK EISs? J Environ Plan Manag

2002;45(1):3–24.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental

Policy Act. Washington DC, USA7 CEQ; 1997.

Department of the Environment (DoE). Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that

Require Environmental Assessment—A Good Practice Guide. London, UK7 HMSO; 1995.

Department of the Environment (DoE). Changes in the Quality of Environmental Statements for Planning

Projects: Research Report. London, UK7 HMSO; 1996.

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR). Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact

Assessment. London, UK7 HMSO; 1999.

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR). Environmental Impact Assessment:

Guide to Procedures; 2000. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/

odpm_plan_026667.hcsp (last accessed January 14th, 2005).

Environment Agency. A Handbook for Scoping Projects. Bristol, UK7 Environment Agency; 2002.

European Commission (EC). Council directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending directive 85/337/EEC on the

assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Off J Eur Communities, L

1997;73:5–15.

European Commission (EC). Guidance on EIA Scoping. Luxembourg7 Office for Official Publications of the

European Commission; 2000.

European Commission (EC). Report From the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the

Application and Effectiveness of the EIA Directive; 2003. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/

report_en.pdf (last accessed January 14th, 2005).

Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Second ed. London, UK7

UCL Press; 1999.

Jennings D, Wattam S. Decision Making: An Integrated Approach. Second ed. Harlow, UK7 Pearson Education

Limited; 1998.

Jones C. Screening, scoping and consideration of alternatives. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of Environmental

Impact Aassessment. Oxford, UK7 Blackwell Scientific; 1999. p. 201–24.

Kennedy AJ, Ross WA. An approach to integrate impact scoping with environmental impact assessment. Environ

Manage 1992;16(4):475–84.

McNab A. Scoping and public participation. In: Weston J, editor. Planning and Environmental Impact Assessment

in Practice. Harlow, UK7 Longman; 1997. p. 60–77.

Mulvihill PR. Expanding the scoping community. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2003;23:39–49.

Mulvihill PR, Baker CB. Ambitious and restrictive scoping: case studies from Northern Canada. Environ Impact

Asses Rev 2001;21:363–84.

Mulvihill PR, Jacobs P. Using scoping as a design process. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1998;18(4):

351–69.

Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)/Local Government Association (LGA). The Skills Base in the UK

Planning System, vol. 1, 2. London, UK7 LGA; 2004.

Palerm JR. An empirical–theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact

assessment. J Environ Plan Manag 2000;43(5):581–600.

Piper JM. Assessing the cumulative effects of project clusters: a comparison of process and methods in four UK

cases. J Environ Plan Manag 2001;44(3):357–75.

Pritchard D. Towards sustainability in the planning process: the role of EIA. ECOS (Br Assoc Nat Conserv)

1993;14(3,4):10–5.

Sadler B. Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Final

Report of the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency/IAIA. Canada7 Ministry of Supply and Services; 1996.

Weston J. EIA, decision-making theory and screening and scoping in UK practice. J Environ Plan Manag

2000a;43(2):185–203.

Weston J. Screening, Scoping and ES Review Under the 1999 EIA Regulations. Working Paper No. 184. Oxford

Brookes University, Oxford, UK; 2000b.

Wood C. Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review. Second ed. London, UK7 Prentice Hall; 2003.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_026667.hcsp

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/report_en.pdf


Graham Wood is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Assessment and Management, based in the Impacts

Assessment Unit at the School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University.

John Glasson is Professor in the Impacts Assessment Unit and Associate Dean (Research and Consultancy) at the

School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University.

Julia Becker is a Social Scientist at the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences in New Zealand, and was

formerly a Research Associate in the Impacts Assessment Unit, Oxford Brookes University.

Documents

EIA scoping in England and Wales: Practitioner approaches, perspectives and constraints