Feature
The potential of a gis-based scoping system: An israeli proposal and case study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00017-1Get rights and content

Abstract

In the environmental impact assessment (EIA) lifecycle, scoping is regarded as the most important stage for the quality of the entire process. Even though many EIA methods exist, only a few of them are specifically suited for scoping. Despite the well-acknowledged potential of geographical information systems (GIS) for EIA and their seemingly widespread use, the applicability of GIS for scoping has not been analyzed sufficiently. This article advances a GIS-based scoping method and discusses the conditions necessary for its utilization. Two specific issues are addressed: the ability of a GIS-based system to identify the pertinent environmental effects on the basis of readily available information under stringent time and budget constraints, and the institutional infrastructure needed for such a system to operate effectively. These issues are analyzed in a case study conducted in Israel. In this case study, the proposed GIS-based scoping system identified all the main effects found independently in a comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS), as well as issues not analyzed in the EIS. A centralized institutional scoping structure, whereby EIS guidelines are issued by a single entity, is found to be important for the operation of such a system, because it can enjoy the economies of scale and scope involved in setting up and operating a GIS system for scoping purposes.

Introduction

In the two decades that have passed since the first legal requirements for scoping of environmental impacts were promulgated, scoping requirements have become commonplace. The requirement for scoping came as a response to the mounting criticism of early environmental impact statements (EISs) in the US (Black 1981). The main argument for the promulgation of scoping was to focus the EIS on the important decision issues. Since the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations requiring scoping first came into effect, the idea of impact scoping has spread quickly, and the scoping stage has become an integral part of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process (ECE 1987). Moreover, it is recognized increasingly that the effectiveness and quality of the entire EIA process depends primarily on the scoping stage (Kennedy and Ross 1992). Unless accurate, quick, and low-cost scoping is carried out, one of two possible errors are likely to affect the process adversely. The first is that much effort will be wasted on analysis of issues that are found later to have no consequential impact or are unimportant from a decision-making point of view. The second possible error occurs when an important environmental element is overlooked and thus not incorporated into the EIA.

Because scoping is carried out at the beginning of the EIA process and impact evaluation cannot begin before completion of the scoping stage, scoping usually is carried out under stringent time and budget constraints. As a result, scoping must fulfill two contradictory requirements: good scoping must be comprehensive and complete, but on the other hand it must be performed within a short time and with limited resources (ECE 1991). This contradiction determines the range and choice of scoping techniques.

Since EIA was first introduced in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) legislation, many EIA techniques have been developed. Twelve years ago, a United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific report (ESCAP 1985) referred to over 100 different techniques for carrying out and implementing the entire EIA process. As a result, many techniques encapsulate a scoping method—either implicitly or (less common) explicitly. Most existing EIA/scoping techniques (such as matrices, checklists, networks, and so on) are not explicitly spatial, that is, they are not based on geographical data bases and often do not make use of explicit geographical data. The only spatial technique widely used in EIA is the overlay technique developed by Ian McHarg (1969) some 30 years ago. The lack of additional methods is because spatial analysis has been considered complex and data hungry, requiring substantial time and money resources (Munn 1975). Consequently, spatial analysis has been used primarily in the advanced stages of the EIA process and not for impact scoping.

In recent years, two important developments have reduced the complexity and cost of spatial analysis. First, the advent of user-friendly geographical information systems (GISs); and second, the improved quality and wider availability of spatial data sets. Consequently, such sets are now adequate for routine analysis (Batty 1993).

Recent surveys of the use of GIS in EIA found that while GIS is widely utilized, its use is largely limited to the basic GIS functions such as map production, classic overlay, or buffering (João 1998). This utilization does not make full use of the spatial analysis and modeling capabilities of GIS (João and Fonseca 1996). Noteworthy are some more complex, though sporadic, reports on the uses of GIS for EIA—such as using GIS in complex modeling representation techniques (Schaller 1990), or its potential as a repository for data and cumulative impact assessment Johnston et al. 1988, Scott and Saulnier 1993.

One factor that limits the usefulness of many existing EIA techniques is their tendency to be monolithic—they advance a method for conducting the entire EIA process and must be followed throughout the EIA lifecycle, from initiation to EIS publication. Moreover, such techniques usually apply to a limited set of projects and to the attributes of a specific EIA system. In a critique of these techniques, Lee (1988) asserts that many of them are not truly comprehensive, and that they fail to deal properly with all stages of the EIA. Consequently, he suggests that there is a need to use the “tool box” approach, whereby a collection of methods and techniques are made available for each stage of the EIA. By doing so, the EIA analyst can choose the appropriate technique for the local circumstances (Lee 1988). This suggestion is commensurate with the general trend from monolithic models to partial models, thus enabling better solutions to be found for local problems (Batty 1993).

The shift to a “tool box” approach requires that specific techniques suited for the scoping stage be identified and developed. Such techniques should allow the main effects to be identified (though not necessarily quantified) quickly, inexpensively, and often based on incomplete information.

The first question addressed in this article is to what extent GIS can serve as a basis for such techniques. This question, however, is not merely a technical one. The use of GIS requires constant maintenance and incurs costs; therefore, the second and central question that this article addresses is what are the institutional requirements for the effective use of GIS in the scoping stage.

To address these questions, the article first describes and evaluates a GIS-based method proposed for scoping environmental impacts in Israel. The article then goes on to discuss how widely such methods may be used. This is done by examining a general taxonomy of the institutional aspects of scoping. The Israeli EIA system is then described. A GIS-based scoping method is described, followed by an outline of the case study on which this method was tested. In the final part of the article, the generality of the GIS approach is discussed.

Section snippets

Scoping in EIA Systems: A Classification

EIA and EIS essentially are tools geared to improving the decision-making process by introducing the environmental implications of different actions at the planning stage (Munn 1975). Hence, the form and structure of the EIA process are tightly coupled with the policy setting in which it is used. Thus, despite the seemingly common goal and roots of EIA processes, no two EIA systems are identical. As scoping has evolved, often as an implicit and sometime informal procedure, it is not surprising

The Israeli EIS and Scoping System

EISs, introduced in the mid-1970s, were formally incorporated into the Israeli Planning and Building Law in July 1982 (Rotenberg 1986). Since then, EISs have become part of the routine of land-use planning within Israel Brachya 1993, Enosh Inc 1993. EIS is required either because the project is included in the list of project types controlled by regulations, or a planning commission (at the local, district, or national level) has determined that the project might have substantial environmental

The Incorporation of GIS in EIA Systems

GISs are computer systems that can store, integrate, analyze, and display spatial data (João and Fonseca 1996). The first systems evolved in the late 1960s and by the mid-1970s already were being used for EIA. The overlay technique mentioned previously was adapted to a computerized environment by 1972 and used for siting power lines and roads (Munn 1975). It is noteworthy that one of the applications of the so-called “first GIS” (Canada GIS [CGIS]) was in the preparation of an EIS for a dam on

A GIS-Based Scoping Proposal within the Israeli Context

The GIS-based scoping technique proposed for Israel is shown in Figure 3. It is based on two databases: a thematic database, which stores links between environment elements and the potential impact of proposed projects using the checklist metaphor; and a spatial database, which contains the spatial datasets. The sources for those datasets can be physical data (such as topographical data in the form of a digital elevation model [DEM]), coverage data (buildings, infrastructure etc.), ecological

Discussion

In discussing the Israeli case, there is a need to differentiate between the technical and institutional aspects of the proposed system.

From a technical perspective, the results of the case study suggest that a GIS-based analysis can improve the quality of the scoping effort. The GIS-based effort identified several issues and sites of concern not identified in the regular scoping effort that preceded the EIS for the road that was examined. It seems, therefore, that GIS-based scoping may help in

Conclusions

This article suggests that GIS can serve as a basis for scoping of environmental effects, despite the high initial costs of GIS, the inaccuracy of some layers of digitized data, and the severe time and money constraints under which scoping is carried out. From a technical perspective, the case study reported here shows that once the basic databases are available, a GIS-based system may provide better targeted guidelines for EIS and reduce the probability of either unnecessary site-specific data

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a study conducted as part of the first author’s MA thesis in the Department of Geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This research was generously supported by the Israeli Ministry of Environment. The case study reported in the article made use of a DTM that was created by John Hall (Israel Geological Survey), and information from the Jewish National Fund, the MOE GIS unit, the Natural Reserve Authority, and the Hebrew University GIS center database. We would

References (37)

  • CEQ

    National Environmental Policy Act–Regulation

    Federal Register

    (1978)
  • Chaibva, S. 1996. EIA in Zimbabwe—Past, present and future. EIA Newsletter 12, Manchester: EIA Center–University of...
  • D. Devuyst et al.

    Environmental impact assessment in Flanders, BelgiumAn evaluation of the administrative procedure

    Environmental Management

    (1993)
  • Douthwaite, R.J. 1996. EIA in Uganda. EIA Newsletter 12, Manchester: EIA Center–University of...
  • ECE

    Application of Environmental Impact AssessmentHighways and Dams

    (1987)
  • ECE

    Policies and Systems of Environmental Impact Assessment

    (1991)
  • Enosh Inc. 1993. Environmental Impact Statements: Improvements and Criticism. Report to the Ministry of Environment,...
  • ESCAP

    Environmental Impact Assessment—Guidelines for Planners and Decision Makers

    (1985)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text