UNIT II

Stage II: Scoping

• The Terms of Reference (TOR) shall be conveyed to the applicant by the Expert
Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee within sixty
days of the receipt of Form 1.
• If the Terms of Reference is not finalized and conveyed to the applicant within
sixty days of the receipt of Form 1, the Terms of Reference suggested by the
applicant shall be deemed as the final Terms of Reference for EIA studies.
• Display of approved Terms of Reference on the website
• Application may be rejected by the regulatory authority at this stage itself.
• In case of such rejection, the decision together with reasons for the same shall
be communicated to the applicant in writing within sixty days of the receipt of
the application
• Scoping is used to
• Define the proposed action,
• Enlist the cooperation of agencies,
• Identify what's important,
• Identify what's not important,
• Set time limits on studies,
• Determine requirements of the study team,
• Collect background information,
• Identify required permits,
• Identify other regulatory requirements, and
• Determine the range of alternatives
• Classification and Prediction of Impacts
• Impact Types
• Environment impacts arising from any development
projects fall into three categories
• Direct impacts,
• Indirect impacts; and
• Cumulative impacts.
• These three groups can be further broken down
according to their nature, into
• Positive and negative impacts;
• Random and predictable impacts;
• Local and widespread impacts; and
• Short - and long term impacts.
ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF AN IMPACT

• The determination of significance is defined in terms of context

and intensity.
• Context refers to the geographical setting of a proposed project or action.
• Intensity refers to severity of impact
• Factors to be Considered for Taking Decisions Based on
Assessment of Significance of an Impact
• Magnitude
• Prevalence
• Duration and Frequency
• Risk:
• Importance
• Mitigations
Significant impacts

• Determine adverse negative impacts

• Determine magnitude, including cumulative
impacts
• Determine geographical extension of negative
impacts
• Determine duration and frequency
• Determine the degree of reversibility
• Assess its probability of occurrence
• Assess the scientific uncertainty of the probability
of occurrence of a significant impact
Key elements to establish the
significance (importance) of an impact

• Cultural Importance
• Social Importance
• Ecological Relevance
• Environmental Patterns
• Statistic significance
• Technical issues
• Political/institutional issues
Themes of interest in EIA

• Public health
• Safety and security, occupational health
• Vulnerable groups
• Gender
• Economic organization and wellbeing
• Population growth
• Cultural and aesthetic values
Finding the significance of
impacts
EIA methodologies

• EIA methodologies – approaches developed to identify,

predict and value changes of an action.
• Reflected in the sequence of activities, steps, as well on
the range of environmental issues considered (physical,
chemical, biological, socioeconomic, cutlural, landscape
values and processes)
• Uses methods and techniques to quantify or to qualify
those changes. All aspects and variables can be
easured, problem is to value them.
EIA methodologies

• The development of METHODOLOGIES to assess

impacts depend on:
• The relationships between territorial elements (or
characteristics) and the actions
• The specific measurements and the necessary
information to estimate the impacts
• The mitigation measures, compensation and follow-up
Objectives of methodologies

• Understand the nature and location of the project and

possible alternatives
• Identify factors of analysis and assessment objectives
• Preliminary identification of impacts and scoping
• Baseline studies and evolution in the absence of
projects
• Prediction and assessment of impacts and alternatives
comparison
• Mitigation
• Monitoring and impacts management
Objectives of methodologies

• Technique and method for the evaluation of impacts

should have the following qualities and characteristics
• It should be systematic in approach;
• It should be able to organize a large mass of heterogeneous
data;
• It should be able to quantify the impacts;
• It should be capable of summarizing the data;
• It should be able to aggregate the data into sets with the least
loss of information because of the aggregations;
• It should have a good predictive capability;
• It should extract the salient features, and
• It should finally be able to display the raw data and the
derived information in a meaningful fashion.
Criteria for the Selection of EIA
Methodology
• General
• Simplicity
• Manpower time with budget constraints:
• Flexibility
• Impact Identification
• Comprehensiveness
• Specificity
• Isolation of project impacts
• Timing and duration
• Impact Measurement
• Commensurate units
• Explicit indicators
• Magnitude
• Objective criteria
Criteria for the Selection of EIA
Methodology
• Impact Interpretation and Evaluation
• Significance
• Explicit criteria
• Portrayal of "with" and "without" situation
• Uncertainty
• Risk
• Depth of analysis
• Alternative comparison
• Public involvement
• Impact Communication
• Affected parties
• Setting description
• Summary format
• Key issues
• Compliance
Example of methods

• Adhoc methods
• Checklists methods
• Matrices methods
• Networks methods
• Overlays methods
• Environmental index using factor analysis
• Cost/benefit analysis
• Predictive or Simulation methods
Adhoc method

• Simple method based on subjective environment

impacts on broad aspects.
• Adhoc method is useful when time constraints and lack
of information require that the EIA must rely exclusively
on expert opinion.
• It provides minimal guidance for total impact
assessment while suggesting the broad areas of
possible impacts and the general nature of these
possible impacts.
Ad hoc method

• This method serves as a preliminary assessment which helps in

identifying more important areas like :
• Wildlife
• Natural drainage
• Recreation
• Endangered species
• Natural vegetation
• Exotic vegetation
• Grazing
• Social characteristics
• Groundwater
• Noise
• Air Quality
• Visual description and services
• Open space
• Health and safety
• Economic values
• Public faciIities
Types of Ad Hoc Methods

• Opinion polls.
• Experts opinion.
• ADVANTAGE
• Specialists on a particular area will provide guidance.
• DISADVANTAGE
• It require expert.
• Short/long term impact are merely examined on guess basis.
• Identification , prediction and interpretation of impacts are
quite poor
CHECKLISTS
 Checklist means a listing of potential
Environmental Impacts.
 This method is done to assess the nature of

the impacts i.e. its type such as adverse

/beneficial , short term or long term , no
effect or significant impact , reversible or
irreversible etc
• Structured list of environmental factors potentially
affected.
• Extensive and complete. Main function: identify ALL
possible consequences of the proposal
• Should enable identification of impacts on:
• Soil
• Water
• Atmosphere
• Flora
• Fauna
• Resources
• Recreation
• Cultural
Checklists

• Simple : no information needed on magnitude or

importance of impacts
• Descriptive: require information on magnitude or
importance of impacts as well as indication on
prediction methods and indicators.
• Scaling or Rating
Summary

• Checklist have the professional credibility and Usability

• As it is prepared by the professionals/ experts
• Provides a structured approach for identifying key impacts and or
pertinent environmental factors
• Can be used to stimulate or facilitate interdisciplinary team
discussions
• Clear definition of the spatial boundaries and environmental factors
and the codes used must be given
• Documentation of rationale basic to identifying key factors and/ or
impacts should be accomplished
• Factors and/or impacts from a simple or descriptive checklist can be
grouped together to demonstrate secondary and tertiary impacts
• Importance weights can be assigned to key environmental factor or
impacts
• Key impacts which should be mitigated can be identified using simple
or descriptive methods
• ADVANTAGES
• Simple to understand and use.
• Good for site selection and priority setting.
• Structured list of key potential factors for analysis or key
impacts – aide-memoire;
• Often result from experts judgement published by public /
international organizations;
• Enable interdisciplinary discussions;
• Preparatory stage for matrix assessment (checklist of
actions /activities and checklist of environmental
components);
• DISADVANTAGES
• Do not distinguish between direct and indirect impacts.
• Do not link action and impact.
• Sometime it is a cumbersome task.
Matrices

• Double entrance tables, permit establishment of

relationships:
• Project actions or activities (causes)
• And the environmental factors (effects)

• Functions:
• Preliminary identification of impacts (scoping)
• Comparative analysis of alternatives
• Impact assessment
• Presentation of evaluation results
Matrices

• Matrix and its variants provide us a framework of

interaction of different actions/activities of a project
with potential EI caused by them.
• A simple interaction matrix is formed where project
actions are listed along one axis i.e. vertically and EI
are listed along the other side i.e. horizontally.
• It was pioneer by Leopold et al(1971).
• It lists about 100 project actions and about 88
environmental characteristic and condition.
Sectoral Matrix
• Leopold Matrix (Leopold et al., 1971). 100
causes per 100 effects.
• Magnitude (left-hand corner) and Importance
or significance (right-hand corner). Scale 1 to
10. Values can still be signaled as positive
( “+”) or negative (“-”).
Stepped Matrices

• Also called as cross- impact matrix

• Used to address secondary and tertiary impacts

• In this environmental factors are displayed against

other environmental factors
 1 2 3 4 A B F G

A
B
C
D
E

A
B
H
I
J
Matrices – Basic rules

• Objectives and assumptions clear.

• Matrices can be used creatively to identify indirect
impacts, cumulative impacts or contributions to
mitigation measures.
• Its better to use colour codes and graphical symbols in
matrices.
• The development of a matrix does not imply that it
needs to be used in the report, it may simply be an
element of work
• Each impact analysis needs to be contextualized
• ADVANTAGES
• Link action to impact
• Good method for displaying EIA results
• DISADVANTAGES
• Difficult to distinguish direct and indirect impacts
• Significant potential for double-counting of impacts
• Qualitative
Network Method

• It uses the matrix approach by extending it take into

account primary as well the secondary impacts.
• Shown in the form of tree called as Relevance/Impact
tree/Sequence diagram.
• Identification of direct ,indirect /short and long term
environment impact is a crucial and intact basic step of
making Impact tree.
• Used to identify cause-effect linkages
• Visual description of linkages
Primary and secondary impacts
Tree diagrams – decision-
making
• ADVANTAGES
• Link action to impact
• Useful in simplified form in checking for second order impacts
• Handles direct and indirect impacts
• DISADVANTAGES
• Can become overly complex if used beyond simplified version
• Qualitative
 Overlay
• Rely on a set of maps of a project area’s environmental
characteristics covering physical , social, ecological,
aesthetic aspects.
• Separate mapping of critical environmental features at
the same scale as project's site plan
• e.g. wetlands, steep slopes, soils, floodplains, bedrock
outcrops, wildlife habitats, vegetative communities, and
cultural resources...
• Older Technique: environmental features are mapped
on transparent plastic in different colours.
• Newer Technique: Geographic Information Systems
(GIS).
• ADVANTAGES
• Easy to understand and use
• Good display method
• Good for site selection setting
• DISADVANTAGE
• Address only direct impacts
• Do not address impact duration or probability
There is no single ideal
method
Uncertainty in impacts prediction

• Sources of uncertainty:
• information on baseline and on the project (quantity,
precision, reliability)
• associated to the model
• preparation of the model
• application of the model
Uncertainties related to

• Quantity: spatial and temporal resolution, reading

mistakes, bias and imprecision associated to the
technique.
• Precision: detail on measurements
• Reliability: correction of such measurements The more
precise is the information the more difficult it is to get
reliable data.
 Baseline
• Characterization should:
• limit itself to the relevant affected factors
• be proportional to the probable significant impact

• 1st step- establish objectives in information collection

• Do not collect and present available information just because it is
available, if it is irrelevant, concentrate efforst on relevant
information
• 2nd step- analysis of available information and verification
of such information to the defined objectives.
• spatial and temporal representativeness
• 3rd stage- identify additional information needs, field work/
time available
• 4th stage- synthesize collected information and identify
gaps in knowledge and how important they are to the key
objectives
Baseline - methods

• • Methods vary depending on natural, social or

economic variables
• Function of scoping and impacts identification
• Criteria for selection of methods:

• - Objectives
• - impact indicators (relationship with monitoring)
• - limitation: time and budget
Prediction of impacts - Methods

• Prediction of impacts is based on the quantification or

descriptive qualification of impacts identified. Prediction
impacts are clearly dependent on impacts and
disciplines.
• Type of methods:
• Experts opinion
• Case comparison
• Use of models
• Experiments
Prediction of impacts - Models

• Physical models
• Representation of the reality ina reduced scale, simulating
processes. (Exs. Wind tunnels or coastal area physical models
that simulate waves)
• Visual models
• Elaboration of images that represent the environment before
and after the development of a project and its alternatives. It
can also address the timing dimension (e.g., seasonal changes,
vegetation growth).
• Mathematic models
• Maths or statistic simulations applied to the deterministic or
probabilistic calculation, based on quantitative values.
• Cartographic models
• Representation of reality that will be affected by the project
through maps or charts. Cartographic overlaps enable impact
predictions.
Alternatives
Alternatives

• To find the most effective way of meeting the need and purpose
of the proposal, either through enhancing the environmental
benefits of the proposed activity, and or through reducing or
avoiding potentially significant negative impacts
• Consideration of potential alternatives in the EIA process is one of
the most critical elements of the scoping phase
• Its importance is highlighted by Glasson et al. (1999) and
by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the
United States, which describes the consideration of
alternatives as the ‘heart’ of EIA (CEQ, 1978)
• It is not uncommon to find that feasible alternatives are omitted
deliberately or that alternatives proposed by stakeholders are
rejected without adequate justification.
• It provides the opportunity for an unbiased, proactive
consideration of options, to determine the most optimal
course of action
• Failure to consider alternatives adequately at the outset is
often symptomatic of a biased process that is intent on
defending a project proposal
• Such EIA reports are often referred to as ‘sweetheart’
reports
• They can also lead to stakeholder dissatisfaction through
failure to consider relevant suggestions for alternatives
from stakeholders and as such may lead to conflicts within
the EIA process.
• By contrast, recognition of the valuable role of
alternatives implies a desire for transparency in the EIA
process and a willingness to explore all feasible options in
an objective manner, with a view to facilitating balanced
decision making in order to achieve sustainable
development.
Obstacles to the full consideration
of alternatives include
• Technological obstacles
• Where high costs of a particular technology may prevent it
from being considered as a viable option, or the lack of
technological development may preclude certain options from
consideration
• Resource availability obstacles
• Which may limit the range of alternatives in a particular
context
• Political economy or intellectual obstacles
• In which barriers may be imposed by groups or individuals,
usually holding positions of economic or political power, who
wish to advance a particular agenda
TYPES OF ALTERNATIVES

• A range of types of alternatives exists, not all of which

are necessarily appropriate for each EIA
• Consideration should be given to those that are most
appropriate for the potential project
• An important starting point for determining appropriate
alternatives is to consider the following aspects:
• Who is the proponent? (private or public sector)
• Who are the intended beneficiaries? (general public, select
groups or individuals)
• Where is the proposal to occur? (zoned land use, common
property or private property)
• Discrete alternatives
• Generally identified during the pre-feasibility, feasibility and
or scoping phases of the EIA
• Incremental alternatives
• Arise during the assessment process in order to address the
negative impacts that have been identified
• Usually developed to reduce adverse impacts and or enhance
benefits
• Since they are linked closely with the identification of
mitigation measures, they are often included with a
discussion of mitigation measures or are incorporated into the
final project proposal
The following types or categories of
alternatives can be identified
• Activity alternatives
• Location alternatives
• Process alternatives
• Demand alternatives
• Scheduling alternatives
• Input alternatives
• Routing alternatives
• Site layout alternatives
• Scale alternatives
• Design alternatives
Activity Alternatives

• Referred to as project alternatives

• To embrace policies, plans and programmes as well as
projects
• Consideration of such alternatives requires a change in
the nature of the proposed activity
Location Alternatives

• Location alternatives could be considered for the entire

proposal or for a component of a proposal
Process Alternatives

• Also referred as technological alternative and

equipment alternative
• The purpose of considering such alternatives is to
include the option of achieving the same goal by using
a different method or process
Demand Alternatives

• Demand alternatives arise when a demand for a certain

product or service can be met by some alternative
means
Scheduling Alternatives

• Also known as sequencing or phasing alternatives

• An activity may comprise a number of components,
which can be scheduled in a different order or at
different times and as such produce different impacts.
Input Alternatives

• Most applicable to industrial applications that may use

different raw materials or energy sources in their
processes
Routing Alternatives

• Consideration of alternative routes generally applies to

linear developments such as power lines, transport and
pipeline routes
Site Layout Alternatives

• Site layout alternatives permit consideration of different

spatial configurations of an activity on a particular site
Scale Alternatives

• Activities that can be broken down into smaller units

can be undertaken on different scales.
Design Alternatives

• Consideration of different designs for aesthetic

purposes or different construction materials in an
attempt to optimise local benefits and sustainability
would constitute design alternatives
• The design alternatives could be incorporated into the
project proposal and so be part of the project
description, and need not be evaluated as separate
alternatives
THE ‘NO-GO’ ALTERNATIVE`

• The ‘no-go’ alternative is sometimes referred to as the

‘no-action’ alternative (Glasson et al., 1999) and at other
times the ‘zero-alternative’
• It assumes that the activity does not go ahead, implying a
continuation of the current situation or the status quo
• In a situation where negative environmental impacts have
high significance, the ‘no-go’ alternative takes on
particular importance
• In some cases, the ‘no-go’ alternative may be the only
realistic alternative and then it has a critical role to play
• Many practitioners argue that the ‘no-go’ alternative
should be included in every environmental assessment as
it provides a baseline against which to assess the relative
impacts of other alternatives
• It is recommended that the ‘no-go’ alternative should
routinely be included as part of the analysis in EIA. The
‘no-go’ alternative provides the means to compare the
impacts of project alternatives with the scenario of a
project not going ahead. In evaluating the ‘no-go’
alternative it is important to take into account the
implications of foregoing the benefits of the proposed
project (World Bank, 1996).
IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES

• Determination and analysis of alternatives should be

appropriate for the potential project being examined
• Alternatives should be identified as early as possible in
the project cycle (e.g. during the pre-feasibility stage)
• Identification of alternatives usually takes place during
the scoping phase of the EIA.
• The search for alternatives should be broad and
objective and should be well documented
• Stakeholders should be consulted in the identification
of alternatives and their views taken into account
• Key criteria when identifying alternatives are that they
should be “practicable”, “feasible”, “relevant”,
“reasonable” and “viable”
• The starting point for project EIA is to identify the
project objectives. For SEA, the starting point is to
define development objectives. This is followed by
identifying alternative technologies or alternative
development strategies
• Alternatives must be assessed and evaluated at a scale
and level that enables adequate comparison with the
proposed project
• Assessment should focus on the potential impacts, both
direct and indirect or cumulative, on the environment of
all reasonable alternatives
• The discussion of alternatives should include a
statement on the criteria used to select certain
alternatives and how the level of investigation that was
applied to each alternative was established. If an
alternative was rejected, a full motivation should be
provided.
• Methods for comparing alternatives range from very
simple descriptive and non-quantitative methods,
through methods based on varying levels of
quantification to a full quantitative comparison, in
which all impacts are expressed in monetary terms
(Glasson et al., 1999).
ROLE OF VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

• The role of the environmental practitioner is to:

• Encourage the proponent to consider all feasible alternatives;
• Provide opportunities for stakeholder input to the
identification and evaluation of alternatives;
• Document the process of identification and selection of
alternatives;
• Provide a comprehensive consideration of the impacts
of each of the alternatives; and
• Document the process of evaluation of alternatives.
• The role of the proponent is to:
• Assist in the identification of alternatives, particularly
where these may be of a technical nature;
• disclose all information relevant to the identification
and evaluation of alternatives;
• Be open to the consideration of all reasonable
alternatives; and
• Be prepared for possible modifications to the project
proposal before settling on a preferred option.
• The role of the public is to:
• Assist in the identification of alternatives, particularly
where local knowledge is required;
• Be open to the consideration of all reasonable
alternatives; and
• Recognise that there is rarely one favoured alternative
that suits all stakeholders and that alternatives will be
evaluated across a broad range of criteria, including
environmental, social and economic aspects.
SPECIAL CASES WHERE ANALYSIS
OF
ALTERNATIVES IS NOT FEASIBLE
• These may include a project that is granted exemption
from the EIA process by the competent authority since
no significant environmental impacts were identified
during the screening process
• In such a case it must be clearly demonstrated that the
proposal is aligned within a re-evaluated development
zone.
ROLE OF ALTERNATIVES IN STRATEGIC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

• Consideration of alternatives is critical

• Early identification and assessment of alternatives in
policies, plans and programmes can avoid many
potential problems at the project level (Therivel and
Partidario, 1996)
• In certain cases there may be a range of alternatives at
the strategic level to consider.
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Definition
 Process by which the concerns
of local affected persons and
others who have plausible
stake in the environmental
impacts of the project or
activity are ascertained with a
view to taking into account all
the material concerns in the
project or activity design as
appropriate
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Ensures the EIA process is open,
transparent and robust, characterised by
defensible analysis
 Includes public consultation (or dialogue)
and public involvement, which is a more
interactive and intensive process of
stakeholder engagement
 Most EIA processes are undertaken
through consultation rather than
participation
 Public involvement must provide an
opportunity for those directly affected by a
proposal to express their views regarding
the proposal and its environmental and
social impacts
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Organized, continuous, two-way
communication process or on a general
level as a practice used by governmental
agencies, private-sector organizations or
companies to consult and involve members
of the public in the planning, decision-
making, management, monitoring and
evaluation process of an Impact
Assessment
 Feed-forward describes the process where
the public officials give information to
citizens, information feed-back is the
reverse which means that citizens give
information to the public officials about
policies
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Notice of Public Hearing

 Advertisement of venue, date and
time in one major National and one
local newspaper.
 A minimum notice period of 30
(thirty) days shall be provided to the
public for furnishing their responses
 Advertisement shall also inform the
public about the places or offices
where the public could access the
draft EIA and Executive summary

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Public Hearing is applicable for all Category ‘A’

and Category B1 projects, except the
following:-
 modernization of irrigation projects
 all projects or activities located within
industrial estates or parks approved by the
concerned authorities
 expansion of Roads and Highways which do
not involve any further acquisition of land.
 All Building /Construction projects/Area
Development projects and Townships
 All projects or activities concerning national
defense and security or involving other
strategic considerations as determined by
the Central Government
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Videography
 Regulator shall arrange video recording of entire
proceedings.
 A copy of the videotape or a CD shall be
enclosed with the public hearing proceedings
and forwarded to the Regulatory Authority
concerned.
 Proceedings
 The attendance of all those who are present at
the venue shall be noted and annexed with the
final proceedings.
 Every person present at the venue shall be
granted an opportunity to seek information or
clarifications on the project
 Views and concerns expressed shall be recorded
by the regulator
 Regulator shall also display the proceedings on
its website for general information
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Arnstein’s ladder-
Describes Public involvement in EIA
Process

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 The purpose of public

involvement is to:
 inform the stakeholders about
the proposal and its likely
effects;
 canvass their inputs, views and
concerns; and
 take account of the information
and views of the public in the
EIA and decision making.
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 key objectives of public

involvement are:
 Information dissemination,
education, and liaison
 Identification of problems, needs,
and important values
 Idea generation and problem solving
 Reaction and feedback on proposals
 Evaluation of alternatives
 Conflict resolution by consensus

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Public participation at various
stages

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Necessity of Public Participation:

 As a tool to ensure quality of
an Impact Assessment decision
 For the creation of greater
legitimacy
 Ensures a democratic process
in the public decision-making
activities

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Principles of public participation:
 Process should be:
 inclusive – covers all stakeholders
 open and transparent – steps and
activities are understood
 relevant – focused on the issues
that matter
 fair – conducted impartially and
without bias toward any
stakeholder
 responsive – to stakeholder
requirements and inputs
 credible – builds confidence and
trust
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Levels of Public Participation

 Information
 Consultation
 Participation
 Negotiation

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Stakeholders in EIA process:

 People – individuals, groups and
communities– who are affected by
the proposal;
 Proponent and other project
beneficiaries;
 Government agencies;
 NGOs and interest groups; and
 others, such as donors, the private
sector, academics etc.

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Factors affecting conductance of

Public Participation:
 Poverty
 Remote and rural settings
 Illiteracy
 Local values/culture
 Languages
 Legal systems
 Interest groups
 Confidentiality

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Factors needs to be considered
while conducting Public
Participation:
 Number of participants and their
interests
 Degree of interaction between
participants
 Participants influence on decisions
 Stage of the EIA at which it is
conducted
 Time available for conducting the
process
 Complexity and controversy
 Consideration
P. Purushothaman, ofCivil
Dept. of cultural norms
Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Advantages:
 Legitimacy
 Improves quality of decision
 Identifies and address controversies
 Fosters transparency
 Two–way communication avoids:
misunderstanding and misconception
 Less protest/ disagreement
 Ensures mutual acceptable solutions

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 Disadvantages:
 Chances of delay in process
 Requires more time
 Lack of knowledge from public
can result in wrong
implementation and high cost
 More demand from public
(citizen power)
 More vested interests causing
controversies
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Methods of Public Participation
 Public meetings\informal, small group
meetings
 Information and coordination
seminars
 Forum of other agencies or groups
 Operating fields offices
 Local planning visits
 Field trips and site visits
 Public displays and model
demonstration
 Workshops
 Charettes
 Special committees
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
 Best-Practice Public Participation
 Integrity and accountability
 Influence
 Fair notice and time
 Inclusiveness and adequate
representation
 Fair and open dialogue
 Multiple and appropriate
methods
 Informed participation
 Adequate and accessible
information
P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR
 EXPERT SYSTEMS

 Expert systems are alternatively

referred to as knowledge-based
systems
 Used in processing and impact
identification stage
 Some systems even helps to
identify management and
mitigation plans
 Helps in decision making

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 EXPERT SYSTEMS

 Rule based systems:

 Software based
 Can address specific issue or
holistic
 Artificial intelligence (IoT)
 Remote Sensing and GIS
 Models (Air quality model, Water
quality models, climate change
models)

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 EXPERT SYSTEMS

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 EXPERT SYSTEMS

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR

 EXPERT SYSTEMS

P. Purushothaman, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SRMIST, KTR