An overview of UK practice to date - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 236

communication and presentation of results. Nelson (1994), Pritchard et al. (1995) and
Jones (1995) made broadly similar findings. Tables 8.6 and 8.7 for the Oxford Brookes
University DoE study noted earlier show the results of an analysis of the 25 matched
pairs of EISs (1996) based on, respectively, the simple “regulatory requirements” and the
more comprehensive IAU criteria. Coverage of each of the regulatory requirement
criteria improved over time, from an average of about two thirds before 1991 to more
than 80 per cent since 1991. Based on the IAU criteria, quality in general also rose
significantly between 1988 and 1990 and between 1992 and 1994, with improvements in
each of the eight main categories of assessment. The EISs' description of monitoring and
mitigation improved only marginally, but the other categories generally improved by
about half of a mark (e.g. from D to C/D). A particular improvement was seen in the
approach to alternatives. Of the 25 EIS pairs, 15 showed an improvement in quality,
while nine became worse (DoE 1996).
Other studies have analysed the quality of specific EIS environmental components, for
instance, landscape/visual impacts (e.g. Mills 1994) and socioeconomic impacts (e.g.
Hall 1994). These show findings similar to those discussed above. In sum, although both
aggregated and disaggregated studies by academics show a continued and pleasing
improvement in EIS quality, there must still be concern that many EISs, from between
one-third to one-half depending on the criteria used, are still not satisfactory, and in
several cases poor.
8.4.2 Quality for whom?
These findings must, however, be considered in the wider context of “quality for whom?”
Academics may find that an EIS is of a certain quality, but the relevant planners or
consultees may perceive it quite differently. For instance, the DoE (1996) study, Radcliff
& Edward-Jones (1995), and Jones (1995) found little agreement about EIS quality
between planners, consultees and the researchers; the only consistent trend was that
consultees were more critical of EIS quality than planners were.
In interviews conducted by the IAU (DoE 1996), planning officers thought EISs were
intended to gain planning permission and minimize the implication of impacts. Just over
40 per cent felt that EIS quality had improved, although this improvement was usually
only marginal. Most of the others felt that this was difficult to assess when individual
officers see so few EISs and when those they do see tend to be for different types of
project, which raises different issues. A lack of adequate scoping and discussion of
alternatives was felt to be the major problem. EISs were seen to be getting “better but
also bigger”. Some officers linked EIS quality with the reputation of the consultants
producing them, and believed that the use of experienced and reputable consultants is the
best way to achieve good quality EISs.
Statutory consultees differed about whether EIS quality was improving. They
generally felt that an EIS's objectivity and clear presentation were important and