环境影响评价的备选方案:分类。

IF 8.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Álvaro Enríquez- de-Salamanca
{"title":"环境影响评价的备选方案:分类。","authors":"Álvaro Enríquez- de-Salamanca","doi":"10.1093/inteam/vjaf135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The consideration of alternatives is central to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as decisions cannot be made without options to choose from. Despite its significance, the treatment of alternatives in EIA practice has inadequacies, driven by factors such as lack of interest, predefined options, and limited understanding of the possibilities. An essential requirement for alternatives is that they must be reasonable; we identify three types of unreasonable alternatives, false, contrived, and subtle, which may distort the EIA process. To address ambiguities in existing literature, we propose a taxonomy classifying alternatives into seven groups: implementation, spatial, timing, functional, design, constructive, and operational, answering the questions why, where, when, what, and how. The aim of this taxonomy is to enhance the consideration of alternatives in EIA practice by improving knowledge of the existing possibilities. Early integration of alternatives, particularly during the scoping phase, and a proactive approach are essential to strengthening EIA; otherwise, the process risks becoming a mere environmental authorisation rather than a robust decision-making tool.</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alternatives in environmental impact assessment: A taxonomy.\",\"authors\":\"Álvaro Enríquez- de-Salamanca\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/inteam/vjaf135\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The consideration of alternatives is central to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as decisions cannot be made without options to choose from. Despite its significance, the treatment of alternatives in EIA practice has inadequacies, driven by factors such as lack of interest, predefined options, and limited understanding of the possibilities. An essential requirement for alternatives is that they must be reasonable; we identify three types of unreasonable alternatives, false, contrived, and subtle, which may distort the EIA process. To address ambiguities in existing literature, we propose a taxonomy classifying alternatives into seven groups: implementation, spatial, timing, functional, design, constructive, and operational, answering the questions why, where, when, what, and how. The aim of this taxonomy is to enhance the consideration of alternatives in EIA practice by improving knowledge of the existing possibilities. Early integration of alternatives, particularly during the scoping phase, and a proactive approach are essential to strengthening EIA; otherwise, the process risks becoming a mere environmental authorisation rather than a robust decision-making tool.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13557,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf135\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf135","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

考虑备选方案是环境影响评估的核心,因为没有备选方案就无法作出决定。尽管具有重要意义,但由于缺乏兴趣、预先确定的选择以及对可能性的理解有限等因素,在环评实践中对替代方案的处理存在不足。选择方案的一个基本要求是它们必须是合理的;我们确定了三种不合理的替代方案:虚假的、人为的和微妙的,它们可能扭曲环评过程。为了解决现有文献中的歧义,我们提出了一种分类法,将备选方案分为七组:实施、空间、时间、功能、设计、建设性和可操作性,并回答了为什么、在哪里、何时、做什么和如何做的问题。本分类法的目的是通过提高对现有可能性的认识,加强对环境影响评估实践中备选方案的考虑。早期整合替代方案,特别是在范围界定阶段,以及积极主动的方法对于加强环境影响评估至关重要;否则,这一过程就有可能成为一种纯粹的环境授权,而不是一种强有力的决策工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Alternatives in environmental impact assessment: A taxonomy.

The consideration of alternatives is central to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as decisions cannot be made without options to choose from. Despite its significance, the treatment of alternatives in EIA practice has inadequacies, driven by factors such as lack of interest, predefined options, and limited understanding of the possibilities. An essential requirement for alternatives is that they must be reasonable; we identify three types of unreasonable alternatives, false, contrived, and subtle, which may distort the EIA process. To address ambiguities in existing literature, we propose a taxonomy classifying alternatives into seven groups: implementation, spatial, timing, functional, design, constructive, and operational, answering the questions why, where, when, what, and how. The aim of this taxonomy is to enhance the consideration of alternatives in EIA practice by improving knowledge of the existing possibilities. Early integration of alternatives, particularly during the scoping phase, and a proactive approach are essential to strengthening EIA; otherwise, the process risks becoming a mere environmental authorisation rather than a robust decision-making tool.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESTOXICOLOGY&nbs-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas: Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making Health and ecological risk and impact assessment Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems Sustaining ecosystems Managing large-scale environmental change Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society: Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信