miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Where did requirements for alternatives in EIA go?
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Ecotechnology and Sustainable Building Engineering.
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Ecotechnology and Sustainable Building Engineering.
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Ecotechnology and Sustainable Building Engineering.
2013 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

In the 1960s the growing interests for environmental questions became prominent and were worldwide recognized. The safeguard of natural resources, the recognition of the environment´s carrying capacity, and the need for planning to minimize conflicts between environment and development were issues pointed out. In 1969 the US enacted the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, with its “action forcing” provisions in section 102(2). The provisions included a procedure and a document and was directed towards activities, with likely significant impact on the environment. What gave this section teeth was the requirement for “alternatives to the proposed action”. This tool, internationally known as EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) was later picked up by other countries and international organisations, where it was considered as a vital component for decision making processes aiming at environmental awareness. EIA was outlined as guidelines and principles by UNEP 1972, reflected in the Espoo convention in 1991 and 1992 declared as principle 17 in the Rio Declaration. This clearly reflects a special degree of acceptance in modern environmental law. However, the postulate to investigate alternatives has been circumvented in practice. Today it can be left out without even being challenged. Many lawyers obviously have difficulties to really understand EIA and the idea behind it. From a sustainability perspective this is indeed fatal. This article puts the request for alternative investigations in perspective of a) effective decision making and sustainable use of natural resources, b) environmental quality standards and environmental planning and c) sustainable assessment tools.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013.
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-20481OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-20481DiVA: diva2:676458
Conference
The 33rd Annual Conference Of The International Association For Impact Assessment - Impact Assessment The Next Generation
Available from: 2013-12-06 Created: 2013-12-06 Last updated: 2014-01-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Carlman, IngaGrönlund, ErikLongueville, Anna
By organisation
Department of Ecotechnology and Sustainable Building Engineering
Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 589 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf