On the underestimation of the significance of environmental impacts in Peru
An approach using homogeneous units
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21153610 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Natali Hurtado (0000-0002-2740-3745, Centro de Investigación Biodiversidad Sostenible, Piura, Perú, corresponding author), José Alejandro Zegarra, José Cabezas (0000-0002-7209-3731), José Cárdenas Cabezas, Nilton Rivas Montes, Mirjam Saavedra Kovach, Briggeth Sandoval Flores (Instituto Científico Michael Owen Dillon – IMOD, Arequipa, Perú), B Flores (Dillon Consulting), Marielena Lucen Bustamante (Universidad de Ingeniería y Tecnología – UTEC, Barranco, Perú), Mariela Bustamante (0000-0002-6954-0991, Universidad de Ingeniería y Tecnología) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 437-452 |
| Publication date | 2024-09-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1461-5517 • E-ISSN: 1471-5465 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/14615517.2024.2414161 |
| OpenAlex | W4404141882 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 24 |
This study examines the reliability of the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) in Peru, focusing on projects predicted to have high negative impacts. It highlights the discrepancy between the expected and the estimated impacts in EISs, revealing a general trend of underestimating the environmental significance of projects, particularly in areas free from industrial activities. The study critiques the application of the Gomez Orea Method, originally successful under Spanish regulations but problematic in its Peruvian applications, as evidenced by inconsistencies in the methodologies and a lack of bibliographic and regulatory support for the indicators used. The analysis covers seven EISs involving hydroelectric and mineral exploitation projects. It identifies a recurrent pattern where despite the significant potential impacts of these projects on water quality, ecosystems, and biodiversity, the impacts are predominantly classified as ‘Compatible’ or low. This underestimation results in 97.37% of impacts being categorized as low, contradicting the projects’ initial high-risk classification. Moreover, the study compares the Gomez Orea Method with the Conesa Method, a more conservative approach, finding significant methodological differences affecting impact significance estimations. The study advocates for enhanced Environmental Impact Assessment practices in Peru, suggesting the adoption of more conservative assessment methods to accurately gauge and mitigate environmental impacts
Environmental planning · Environmental protection · Environmental resource management · Geography · Homogeneous · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Environmental Science · Mathematics · Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning
The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations
Gaining a deeper understanding of the psychology underpinning significance judgements in environmental impact assessment (EIA)
Determining sustainability impact assessment indicators
A glocal environmental movement against gold mining
Environmental justice at the environmental courts? Mining, socioenvironmental conflicts, and environmental litigation in northern Chile
Socio-environmental conflicts
The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems
Impact significance determination—Designing an approach
Theoretical reflections on the connection between environmental assessment methods and conflict
The Globalization of Environmental Protection
| Highly cited | No |
|---|