The concept of the significance of effects is a critical yet poorly understood component of environmental impact assessment (EIA). In this paper we explore the potential of fuzzy-set theory and simulations of environmental change for delineating evaluations of impact significance made by a range of stakeholders. The theoretical basis of fuzzy sets is explained and the approach is applied to the noise and visual effects associated with a ‘live’ windfarm EIA case study. In the final part of the paper we critically reflect on the approach before drawing conclusions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeattieR B, 1995, “Everything you already know about EIA (but don't often admit)”Environmental Impact Assessment Review15109–114.
2.
BilgicTTurksenI B, 1997, “Elicitation of membership functions: How far can theory take us?”, in Proceedings of Fuzzy-IEEE ‘97 Barcelona, Spain, pp 1321–1325.
3.
BilgicTTurksenI B, 2000, “Measurement of membership functions: Theoretical and empirical work”Handbook of Fuzzy Sets and Systems. Volume 1: Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets Eds DuboisDPradeH (Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA) pp 195–232.
4.
Bojorquez-TapiaL AJuarezLCruz-BelloG, 2002, “Integrating fuzzy logic, optimization, and GIS for ecological impact assessments”Environmental Management30418–433.
5.
BossermanR WRagadeR K, 1982, “Ecosystem analysis using fuzzy set theory”Ecological Modelling16191–208.
6.
BotteldoorenDVerkeynALercherP, 2003, “A fuzzy rule based framework for noise annoyance modelling”Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1141487–1498.
7.
BurroughP A, 1989, “Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation”Journal of Soil Science40477–492.
8.
CashmoreM, 2004, “The role of science in environmental impact assessment: Process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory”Environmental Impact Assessment Review24403–426.
9.
ChameauJ LSantamarinaJ C, 1987, “Membership functions part 1: Comparing methods of measurement”International Journal of Approximate Reasoning1287–301.
10.
Department of the Environment, 1993Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG22: Renewable Energy (HMSO, London).
11.
DTI, 1999Cumulative Effects of Wind TurbinesDepartment for Trade and Industry, London.
12.
DuinkerP NBeanlandsG E, 1986, “The significance of environmental impacts: An exploration of the concept”Environmental Management101–10.
13.
FisherB, 2003, “Fuzzy environmental decision-making: Applications to air pollution”Atmospheric Environment371865–1877.
14.
GurocakE RWhittleseyN K, 1998, “Multiple criteria decision making: A case study of the Columbia River Salmon Recovery Plan”Environmental and Resource Economics12479–495.
15.
IEMA, 2002Guidelines on Participation in Environmental Decision Making (IEMA, Lincoln).
16.
InnesJ E, 1998, “Information in Communicative Planning”Journal of the American Planning Association6453–63.
17.
KillingsworthM JPalmerJ S, 1992, “The environmental impact statement and the rhetoric of democracy”, in Environmental Discourse and Practice: A Reader Eds BentonL MShortJ R (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 156–160.
18.
KlirG AYuanB, 1995Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic (Academic Press, New York).
19.
KlostermanR E, 1983, “Facts and values in planning”Journal of the American Planning Association49216–225.
20.
KonticB, 2000, “Why are some experts more credible than others?”Environmental Impact Assessment Review20427–434.
21.
LeinJ K, 1992, “Expressing environmental risk using fuzzy variables: A preliminary examination”The Environmental Professional14257–267.
22.
LeungY, 1988Spatial Analysis and Planning Under Imprecision (North-Holland, New York).
23.
LiHChenCLPHuangH P, 2000Fuzzy Neural Intelligent Systems (CRC Press, London).
24.
LidskogRSonerydL, 2000, “Transport infrastructure investment and environmental impact assessment in Sweden: Public involvement or exclusion?”Environment and Planning A321465–1479.
25.
OpenshawS, 1996, “Fuzzy logic as a new scientific paradigm for doing geography”Environment and Planning A28761–768.
26.
OwensSRaynerTBinaO, 2004, “New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research”Environment and Planning A361943–1959.
27.
ParkinJ, 1993Judging Plans and Projects: Analysis and Public Participation in the Evaluation Process (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants).
28.
PettsJ, 1999, “Public participation and environmental impact assessment”, in Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 1: Process, Methods and Potential Ed. PettsJ (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 145–177.
29.
RaginC C, 2000Fuzzy Set Social Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
30.
SadlerB, 1996Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance final report by the International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment and the International Association of Impact Assessment, Canada, http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/017/012/iaia8_e.pdf.
31.
SheppardABowlerC, 1997, “Beyond the requirements: Improving public participation in EIA”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management40725–738.
32.
SilvertW, 1997, “Ecological impact classification with fuzzy sets”Ecological Modelling961–10.
33.
SmithP N1994a, “Fuzzy applications in project appraisal: Part 1 discrete fuzzy sets”Project Appraisal999–109.
34.
SmithP N, 1994b, “Applications of fuzzy sets in the environmental evaluation of projects”Journal of Environmental Management42365–388.
35.
SmithsonM, 1987Fuzzy Set Analysis for Behavioural and Social Sciences (Springer, New York).
36.
SonerydLWeldonS, 2003, “Noise and newts: Public engagement in the UK and Sweden”Environmental Impact Assessment Review2317–37.
37.
SteinhardtU, 1998, “Applying the fuzzy set theory for medium and small scale landscape assessment”Landscape and Urban Planning41203–208.
38.
StrachanP ALalD, 2004, “Wind energy policy, planning and management in the UK: Hot air or a gathering storm?”Regional Studies38551–571.
39.
TurksenI B, 1991, “Measurement of membership functions and their acquisition”Fuzzy Sets and Systems405–38.
40.
WestonJ, 1999Screening, Scoping and ES Review Under the 1999 EIA Regulations WP184, School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
41.
WestonJ, 2000, “EIA, decision-making theory, and screening and scoping in UK practice”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management42185–203.
42.
WilkinsH, 2003, “The need for subjectivity in EIA: Discourse as a tool for sustainable development”Environmental Impact Assessment Review22401–414.
