The no development option versus the development option in an underdeveloped area
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21153824 |
|---|---|
| Authors | R D Diab (0000-0002-3564-8320, University of KwaZulu-Natal), W N Ellery (0000-0002-5831-9415, University of KwaZulu-Natal), J Tooley (University of KwaZulu-Natal), A Mckenzie, Amy L McKenzie (0000-0003-4549-5177, University of KwaZulu-Natal), K Barnes (University of KwaZulu-Natal) |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 243-250 |
| Publication date | 1999-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| 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 | 10.3152/147154699781767800 |
| OpenAlex | W2068763721 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
The ‘no development’ option is traditionally considered as one of the alternatives in an environmental impact assessment (EIA). This paper highlights the difficulty of considering this option in an underdeveloped context, using the example of an EIA for a power line to an ecotourism development in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The area is ecologically sensitive and there was opposition from environmental action groups, but there are urgent and basic human needs to be met. The power line would improve the living conditions of the local rural community. Once the ‘no development’ option was rejected, attention focused on an optimum route selection and the recommendation of environmental management guidelines to minimise the impacts on the environment
Business · Developing country · Economic growth · Economics · Ecotourism · Environmental planning · Environmental resource management · Geography · Tourism · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Environmental Science · Sustainable Building Design and Assessment
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |