An overview of UK practice to date - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 237

Table 8.8 Changing perceptions of participants of
quality of EISs in relation to particular criteria (%)

Good Marginal Poor

Post-1991 Pre-1991 Post-1991 Pre-1991 Post-1991 Pre-1991

Comprehensiveness 31 55 31 27 38 18

Objectivity 18 41 37 35 45 24

Clarity of information 25 55 56 38 19 7

( Source: DoE 1996.)

were improving, yet still wanting. Table 8.8 from the DoE study (1996) indicated that
participants (LPAs, developers, consultants and consultees) generally thought the key EIS
criteria of comprehensiveness, objectivity and clear information were improving. Yet it is
interesting to note that only about 40 per cent of interviewees regarded the objectivity of
the more recent EISs as good.
Developers and consultants link EIS quality with ability to achieve planning
permission. Consultants felt that developers are increasingly recognizing the need for
environmental protection and are starting to bring in consultants early in project planning,
so that a project can be designed around that need. One reason for this improvement may
be that pressure groups are becoming more experienced with EIA, and thus have higher
expectations of the process (DoE 1996).

8.4.3 Determinants of EIS quality
Several factors affect EIS quality including the type and size of a project, and the nature
and experience of various participants in the EIA process. Certain types of project have
been associated with higher quality EISs. For instance, Schedule 1 projects, which
generally have a high profile and attract substantial attention and resources, are likely to
have better EISs. Better EISs have been linked with projects coming under the electricity
and pipeline EIA regulations, the Scottish EIA regulations (Lee & Brown 1992) and the
post-1993 highways regulations (Zambellas 1995) and, within the planning regulations,
with wind farms, waste-disposal and treatment plants, sand and gravel extraction schemes
and opencast coal projects (DoE 1996). Larger projects generally have more satisfactory
EISs than smaller projects, as is shown in Table 8.9.
Regarding the nature and experience of the participants in the EIA process, EISs
produced in-house by developers are generally of poorer quality than those produced by
outside consultants: the DoE (1996) study, for instance, showed that EISs prepared in-
house had an average mark of D/E, while those prepared by consultants averaged C/D,
and those prepared by both B/C. Lee & Brown's (1992) analysis of 83 EISs concluded
that 57 per cent of those prepared by environmental consultants were satisfactory,
compared with only 17 per cent of those prepared in-house. Similarly, EISs prepared by
independent applicants tend to be better (C/D) than those prepared by local authorities for
their own projects (D/E) (DoE 1996).