IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3680-d175583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Desired but Neglected: Investigating the Consideration of Alternatives in Austrian EIA and SEA Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer

    (Department of Landscape, Spatial and Infrastructure Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Peter-Jordan Street 82, A-1190 Vienna, Austria)

  • Martin Bösch

    (Natura 2000 Management, Federal State Vorarlberg, Inatura, Jahngasse 9A-6850 Dornbirn, Austria
    Former staff of the ministry of the environment BNT/BMFLUW—in times of data collection.)

  • Ulrike Pröbstl-Haider

    (Department of Landscape, Spatial and Infrastructure Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Peter-Jordan Street 82, A-1190 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Although the consideration of alternatives is seen as a core element of impact assessments (IA) such as environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs), there are few scientific papers that have addressed this topic in depth based on a large empirical study. These studies, as well as the last evaluation of the application of the SEA Directive by the EC, have concluded that there is need for improvement regarding the consideration of alternatives. This paper presents a large quantitative appraisal of the consideration of alternatives in current EIA and SEA practice in Austria. Through a criteria-based evaluation of 100 environmental impact statements (EIAs) and 71 environmental reports (SEA), a quantitative and partly qualitative review was undertaken. The criteria embrace the aspects of “types of alternatives”, “combination of alternatives”, “environmental relevance”, “presentation/structure”, as well as the “consideration of the zero-alternative”. The deficiencies that were identified empirically point out the need for improvement. In particular, a strong need for improvement was identified for both instruments regarding the low environmental relevance of the alternative assessment that was presented, as well as the lack of linking the zero variant to the future development of the environmental issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer & Martin Bösch & Ulrike Pröbstl-Haider, 2018. "Desired but Neglected: Investigating the Consideration of Alternatives in Austrian EIA and SEA Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3680-:d:175583
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3680/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3680/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jos Arts & Hens A. C. Runhaar & Thomas B. Fischer & Urmila Jha-Thakur & Frank Van Laerhoven & Peter P. J. Driessen & Vincent Onyango, 2012. "The Effectiveness Of Eia As An Instrument For Environmental Governance: Reflecting On 25 Years Of Eia Practice In The Netherlands And The Uk," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(04), pages 1-40.
    2. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(8), pages 1035-1048, August.
    3. John Phylip-Jones & Thomas B. Fischer, 2013. "Eia For Wind Farms In The United Kingdom And Germany," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 1-30.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nigel Martin & John Rice, 2010. "Analysing emission intensive firms as regulatory stakeholders: a role for adaptable business strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 64-75, January.
    2. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    4. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    5. James Derbyshire, 2020. "Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(4), pages 710-727, June.
    6. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    7. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    8. Deserai A Crow & Elizabeth A Albright & Elizabeth Koebele, 2016. "Environmental rulemaking across states: Process, procedural access, and regulatory influence," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1222-1240, November.
    9. Badami, Madhav G., 2004. "Environmental policy-making in a difficult context: motorized two-wheeled vehicle emissions in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(16), pages 1861-1877, November.
    10. Schatz, Eva-Maria & Bovet, Jana & Lieder, Sebastian & Schroeter-Schlaack, Christoph & Strunz, Sebastian & Marquard, Elisabeth, 2021. "Land take in environmental assessments: Recent advances and persisting challenges in selected EU countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. Keeney, Ralph L., 1996. "Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 537-549, August.
    12. Kenneth C. Fletcher & Ali E. Abbas, 2018. "A Value Measure for Public‐Sector Enterprise Risk Management: A TSA Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 991-1008, May.
    13. Garrett, Vicki & Koontz, Tomas M., 2008. "Breaking the cycle: Producer and consumer perspectives on the non-adoption of passive solar housing in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1551-1566, April.
    14. Vignola, Raffaele & McDaniels, Tim L. & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Negotiation analysis for mechanisms to deliver ecosystem services: The case of soil conservation in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 22-31.
    15. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.
    16. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    18. George E. Apostolakis & Susan E. Pickett, 1998. "Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 621-634, October.
    19. Sarah Kusumastuti & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Characterizing Conflicting User Values for Cyber Authentication Using a Virtual Public Values Forum," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 157-171, September.
    20. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3680-:d:175583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.