ارزشیابی بیانیه های ارزیابی اثرات محیط زیستی در کشور

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری محیط زیست، دانشکدۀ منابع‌طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

2 استادیار دانشکده منابع‌طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشیار دانشکدۀ منابع‌طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

ارزیابی اثرات توسعه قبل از تصمیم­گیری و اجرای پروژه­ها و طرح­های توسعه، منجر به شناسایی،‌ پیش­بینی، کاهش یا جبران اثرات منفی ها خواهد شد. کیفیت گزارش­های ارزیابی اثرات می­تواند جهت تصمیم­گیری بهتر در مورد مسائل محیط­زیستی و تأثیر گذاری ارزیابی کمک نماید. برای بازنگری گزارشات در کشورهای اروپایی از روش سلسله مراتبی "لی و کالی" استفاده می­شود که دارای چهار بخش کلی است و هر بخش به طبقات و زیر طبقاتی از معیارها تقسیم می­گردد. در این پژوهش با اقتباس از روش لی و کالی و با در نظر گرفتن فرآیند ارزیابی اثرات ایران، برای ارزشیابی کیفیت مطالعات گزارش­های ارزیابی اثرات، شش بخش در نظر گرفته شد. ابتدا تعداد 50 گزارش (سال 1376 تا 1390) از استان­های مختلف کشور و انواع پروژه­های نقطه­ای، خطی و پلی گونی برای ارزشیابی کیفیت مطالعات بخش­های مختلف انتخاب گردید سپس کیفیت مطالعات گزارش­های ارزیابی با توجه به معیارهای تعیین شده توسط کارشناسان به روش دلفی مورد ارزشیابی و امتیازدهی قرار گرفت. نتایج بررسی نشان داد کیفیت مطالعات انجام شده در 76% از گزارش­های ارزیابی اثرات مطلوب (خیلی خوب، خوب، متوسط) است. درگزارش­های ارزیابی اثرات، بخش مربوط به تشریح پروژه با 84% مطلوبیت بالاترین کیفیت و بخش مدیریت و پایش محیط زیستی، پایین­ترین مطلوبیت را داشت؛ بنابراین با بررسی کیفیت مطالعات بخش­های مختلف گزارش­های ارزیابی اثرات می­توان به نقاط قوت و ضعف آن­ها پی برد و در آینده ارزیابی اثرات مؤثرتر و
دقیق­تری انجام داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of environmental impact assessment statement of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • fatemeh rasouli nasab 1
  • Bahman Jabbarian Amiri 2
  • mohammad kaboli 3
  • afshin daneh kar 3
1 1MSc Gradute, Department of Environment
3 Associate Professor, Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

Development impact assessments before decision making and projects implementing and development plan, leads to identification, prediction, reduction or offset the negative effects of the projects. Quality of impact assessment reports can assist to make a better decision about environmental issues and impact assessment effectiveness. For review of the reports on European countries is used the "Lee N & Colley" method .This method has four level or general sections which each of the sections is divided to some categories and subcategories. In this article "Lee N & Colley" method has been used for reports assessment. In Iran, to evaluation the quality of impact assessment reports has been considered six sections. In this research, 50 reports from different provinces and various projects including linear and polygonal were evaluated by experts. The results showed that quality of 76% from assessments reports was favorable and satisfactory (very good, good, and fair). Description of Project had the highest percentage of satisfaction about 84 %. Monitoring of the environment and management had the lowest quality and satisfaction. Therefore with assessment of different parts of impact assessments reports, you can recognize their strengths and weaknesses and in the future In the future, impact assessments carried out more carefully and effectively.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • The EIA process
  • EIS
  • Satisfactory
  • Criterion

Dabiri, F., 1386. Check the laws and regulations, including environmental impact assessment in the prevention, Environmental Science and Technology, Volume IX, Number IV, Winter 86. Pp. 95-109.

Flavio,S.,  Claudio S.,  Nicola G.,  Antonio B. 2016. A new method to assess the sustainability performance of events: Application to the 2014 World Orienteering Championship. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,1-11

Fuller, K 1999. Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment. In Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol. 2, ed. J Petts, pp. 55–74. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Fuzzy Logic, Mehrmahdis Press, 305 p, Translated by: Salmanmahiny (In Persian).

Madjnoonian, H. Mirabzadeh, A., Danesh, M. 2008. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook: Guidelines for Energy, Industry & Sectoral Projects(World Bank Technical Papers). Tehran: Publication of the Environment(In Persian).

Makhdoum, M. 2008. Journal of Environment and Development, Four Tips on environmental impact assessment, 2, (3): Pp. 9-12 (In Persian).

Hunt D, Catherine J. Environmental management systems principles and practices. 2nd ed. England: McGraw Hill, 1995; p: 100-115.

Jabbarian A, B. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment, 190 p (In Persian).

Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2007; 27:287-300.

Kruger, R.2012. A critical analysis of the quality of EIA reports for filling stations in South Africa.

Lee N, Colley R. Review of the quality of environmental statements. Occasional Paper, vol. 24. Manchester: EIA Centre, University of Manchester; 1992.

Lee, N., Colley, R., Bonde, J., and Simpson, J., 1999, review the quality of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Appraisals, Occasional paper, No 55. EIA Centre, University of Manchester, UK.

Leknes, E. 2001. The role of EIA in the decision-making process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21: 309- 334.

Leu W, Williams WP, Bark AW. Development of an environmental impact assessment model and its application: Taiwan case study. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1996; 16(2):113–33.

Luke A. Sandham, Hester M. A review of EIA report quality in the North West province of South Africa. Pretorius. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 229–240.

Momtaz, S., 2005, Institutionalizing Social Impact Assessment in Bangladesh resource management: limitations and opportunities, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25:33-45.

Momtaz , S. Zobaidul Kabir, S. M. 2013, Chapter 4 - The Quality of Environmental Impact Statements,, Pages 53-83.

Ortalano, L., Shephered, A. 2012. Environmental Impact assessment: Challenges & opportunities, Impact assessment, 3(1), 3-30.

Rahmati, A. 2012.Journal of Environment and Development, Evaluation of environmental impact assessment process in Iran, challenges and solutions, 3: Pp. 15-23 (In Persian).

Richards B. Shepard, A. 2011. Quantitying Environmental Impact Assessments using.

Toro J, Duarte O, Requena I, Zamorano M. 2012. Determining Vulnerability Importance in Environmental Impact Assessment; The case of Colombia, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32: 107-117.

Valve, H.1999. Frame conflicts and the formulation of alternatives: environmental assessment of an infrastructure plan Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19:125- 142.

Wood C. Environmental Impact Assessment: a comparative review. Second edition. Harlow: Prentice–Hall; 2003.

Tonis Poder, Tiit Lukki. Critical review of checklist-based evaluation of environmental impact statements Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(1), March 2011, pages 27–36.