DEAMB - Departamento de Engenharia Ambiental

URI permanente desta comunidadehttp://www.hml.repositorio.ufop.br/handle/123456789/480

Navegar

Autor: search.filters.author.Brito, Ludmila Ladeira Alves de

Resultados da Pesquisa

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
  • Nenhuma Miniatura Disponível
    Item
    Methodological pluralism in environmental impact prediction and significance evaluation : a case for standardization?
    (2020) Fonseca, Alberto de Freitas Castro; Brito, Ludmila Ladeira Alves de; Gibson, Robert B.
    At the core of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process is the identification, prediction and evaluation of impacts, activities that are profoundly marked by case-specific differences and methodological pluralism. Despite difficulties, policy-makers are occasionally attracted to the idea of standardizing EIA methods. The objective of this study was to understand the merits of standardizing methods for impact prediction and significance evaluations, using Brazil as the empirical context. Based on a content analysis of 49 EIA reports, a survey with 126 practitioners, and a critical evaluation of two standardization initiatives, the study shows that, while generally perceived as beneficial, the standardization of EIA methods is likely to remain a rather challenging task in the foreseeable future. The high degrees of discretion taking place in the selection and implementation of impact prediction and significance evaluations are to a large extent a consequence of the difficulty of finding terminology, metrics, criteria, thresholds, boundaries, and values across different settings. Current standardization initiatives in Brazil are targeting some of the easiest methodological issues related to terminology and process. While relevant to administrative efficiency and process predictability, such issues represent a small piece of the complex puzzle of EIA effectiveness. Findings signal the need for clearer policy priorities, capacity building, and more applied research about the actual, long-term effects of standardization initiatives.
  • Nenhuma Miniatura Disponível
    Item
    Does size matter? An evaluation of length and proportion of information in environmental impact statements.
    (2018) Rivera Fernández, Germán Marino; Brito, Ludmila Ladeira Alves de; Fonseca, Alberto de Freitas Castro
    For decades, authors and institutions have argued that the quality of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) is somehow affected by the volume of information they contain. Both too little and too much information can be a problem. However, very few academic studies have addressed the issue of EIS length in detail. The objective of this article was to systematically analyze the volume of information presented in EISs, using Brazil as the empirical context. More specifically, this study evaluated the volume and proportion of information disclosed in 49 Brazilian EISs. This study also tried to identify sectorial variations and whether variables such as project size and number of pages in Terms of References are likely determinants of information volume.>146 thousand pages of EIS information were scrutinized in two rounds of content analysis. Data were organized in spreadsheets and then coded and analyzed through various descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Overall, findings corroborate the fact that EISs are now significantly longer than the early ones, and still heavily loaded with baseline information. The average number of pages in EISs and in Non-technical Summaries was found to be 2993 and 94, respectively. Kruskal-Wallis and linear regression tests indicated that EIS length is likely affected by a combination of variables, including project size, territorial and sectorial characteristics. Such findings suggest that the historical approach of setting page limits to EISs through regulations and Terms of References is no longer appropriate for EIA practice in connection with large enterprises in Brazil, and arguably elsewhere. The article discusses its practical and academic implications, and highlights the need to further investigate the actual impacts of EIS length on decision-making.