IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i2d10.1007_s10668-020-00686-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision factors and benchmarks of EIA report quality for Japan’s cooperation projects

Author

Listed:
  • Tetsuya Kamijo

    (Japan International Cooperation Agency)

  • Guangwei Huang

    (Sophia University)

Abstract

The quality of environmental impact assessment (EIA) reports is fundamental to making good decisions, but the low quality of EIA reports is a constraint in developing countries. Previous studies pointed out many factors influencing report quality based on professional perspectives. However, the decision factors of report quality are not well known. The purposes of this study are to identify the decision factors and benchmarks of the overall quality of EIA reports for Japan’s cooperation projects and to verify the effects of the decision factors on report quality. The study reviewed the quality of 160 reports from 2001 to 2016 and examined potential factors influencing the overall quality of reports using statistical tests, cluster analysis, decision tree analysis, and covariance structure analysis. The study identified the alternatives and public involvement as the decision factors among potential factors, and their linkage affected the quality of reports. The study concluded that the just satisfactory grade of alternatives and public involvement at scoping and draft reporting stages were the benchmarks for satisfactory EIA reports. Further verification through comparative studies and case studies is needed to confirm how two processes have an effect on the quality of reports.

Suggested Citation

  • Tetsuya Kamijo & Guangwei Huang, 2021. "Decision factors and benchmarks of EIA report quality for Japan’s cooperation projects," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2552-2569, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00686-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-00686-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-020-00686-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-020-00686-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S.M.Zobaidul Kabir & Salim Momtaz, 2014. "Sectorial variation in the quality of environmental impact statements and factors influencing the quality," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(11), pages 1595-1611, November.
    2. Katie Hoover & Marc J. Stern, 2014. "Team leaders' perceptions of public influence in the US Forest Service: exploring the difference between doing and using public involvement," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 157-172, February.
    3. El-Sayed A. Badr & Matthew Cashmore & Dick Cobb, 2004. "The Consideration Of Impacts Upon The Aquatic Environment In Environmental Impact Statements In England And Wales," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 19-49.
    4. Matthew Cashmore & Epaminondas Christophilopoulos & Dick Cobb, 2002. "An Evaluation Of The Quality Of Environmental Impact Statements In Thessaloniki, Greece," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(04), pages 371-395.
    5. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, , 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    6. Carissa Schively Slotterback, 2008. "Stakeholder involvement in NEPA scoping processes: evaluating practices and effects in transportation agencies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(5), pages 663-678.
    7. John Glasson & Riki Therivel & Joe Weston & Elizabeth Wilson & Richard Frost, 1997. "EIA-Learning from Experience: Changes in the Quality of Environmental Impact Statements for UK Planning Projects," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 451-464.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tetsuya Kamijo, 2022. "How to enhance EIA systems in developing countries: a quantitative literature review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 13476-13492, December.

    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. Kamijo, Tetsuya & Huang, Guangwei, 2017. "Focusing on the Quality of EIS to Solve the Constraints on EIA Systems in Developing Countries: A Literature Review," Working Papers 144, JICA Research Institute.
    2. Ina Falfán & Luis Zambrano, 2023. "Lacustrine Urban Blue Spaces: Low Availability and Inequitable Distribution in the Most Populated Cities in Mexico," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Muluberhan Biedemariam & Emiru Birhane & Biadgilgn Demissie & Tewodros Tadesse & Girmay Gebresamuel & Solomon Habtu, 2022. "Ecosystem Service Values as Related to Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Ethiopia: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Isabelle King & John Martin, 2021. "Exploring Public Recognition and Perceived Cultural Value of the Special Qualities within English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Qianru Yu & Chen-Chieh Feng & NuanYin Xu & Luo Guo & Dan Wang, 2019. "Quantifying the Impact of Grain for Green Program on Ecosystem Service Management: A Case Study of Exibei Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Shrestha, Kripa & Shakya, Bandana & Adhikari, Biraj & Nepal, Mani & Shaoliang, Yi, 2023. "Ecosystem services valuation for conservation and development decisions: A review of valuation studies and tools in the Far Eastern Himalaya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    7. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Eduardo Blanco & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Kalina Raskin & Philippe Clergeau, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem-Level Biomimicry and Regenerative Design: Linking Ecosystem Functioning and Urban Built Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Kiefer, Katharina & Kremer, Jasper & Zeitner, Philipp & Winkler, Bastian & Wagner, Moritz & von Cossel, Moritz, 2023. "Monetizing ecosystem services of perennial wild plant mixtures for bioenergy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    12. Binglu Wu & Wenzhuo Liang & Jiening Wang & Dongxu Cui, 2022. "Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    13. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    14. Zulian, Grazia & Stange, Erik & Woods, Helen & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan & Andrews, Christopher & Baró, Francesc & Vizcaino, Pilar & Barton, David N. & Nowel, Megan & Rusch, Graciela M. & Autune, 2018. "Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 465-480.
    15. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Dunford, Rob & Harrison, Paula & Smith, Alison & Dick, Jan & Barton, David N. & Martin-Lopez, Berta & Kelemen, Ezsther & Jacobs, Sander & Saarikoski, Heli & Turkelboom, Francis & Verheyden, Wim & Hauc, 2018. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 499-514.
    17. Dick, Jan & Andrews, Chris & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Teff-Seker, Yael & Zulian, Grazia, 2022. "A mixed-methods approach to analyse recreational values and implications for management of protected areas: A case study of Cairngorms National Park, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    18. Gacutan, Jordan & Galparsoro, Ibon & Murillas-Maza, Arantza, 2019. "Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: A Bayesian Belief Network approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Oliver Fritsch & Jonathan C. Kamkhaji & Claudio M. Radaelli, 2017. "Explaining the content of impact assessment in the United Kingdom: Learning across time, sectors, and departments," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 325-342, December.
    20. Li-Chun Peng & Wan-Yu Lien & Yu-Pin Lin, 2020. "How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10668-020-00686-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.