• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.117-123
• /
• 1998

The present study was performed to improve the Environmental Impact Assessment system by comparing and analysing EIA systems for Residential Developments in the light of the business practice. For the improvement of EIA system, future strategies from each of three part ; the organ of approval(Construction&Transportation Dept.) for residential developments, the organ of consultation(Environment Dept.) for EIA and a developer(Korea Nation Housing Corp.), were analysed, and EIA systems and the processes of Residential developments were analysed. Results from the analysis of problems have provided a proposal for improvement of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.315-322
• /
• 2000

Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) was first formally established in the Korea in 1981. Subsequently there has been a rapid growth in EIA activity, and over one hundred fifty environmental impact statements are now published in Korea each year. Although EIA now has almost 20 years of history in the Korea, elsewhere the development of roles and practice is more recent. Development is moving apace in many countries, including the Japan and the EU Member States. Such progress has not been without its problems, and a number of the current issues in EIA-scope of the assessment, the relative roles, the quality of assessment and monitoring and auditing after decision, and so on- are highlighted. So the purpose of this article is to reform the EIA roles and process, in extending the scope of activity, and assessing effectiveness. This article suggested improving the effectiveness of project assessment, widening the scope: stretegic environmental assessment, and extending EIA to project design process, environmental monitoring and feedback system.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.55-71
• /
• 2018

To improve the ecological function of urban areas, the guideline for applying the Biotope Area Ratio to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was developed in 2005 and modified in the July, 2017. This study investigates whether the guideline has been actually practiced in the real world by searching reports including 648 cases of the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) and 471 cases of the EIA. The results show that the 38% of SEIA and the 43% of EIA include sections about Biotope Area Ratio, and the 15% of SEIA and the 25 % of EIA are satisfied the threshold of the Biotope Area Ratio suggested by the guideline. The statistical analysis results show that this low level of practice was not improved through the modification of the guideline in 2017. This is because the guideline is forcibleness, its explanation is unclear, and stockholders' understanding of it lacks. In addition, lack of tracking management on SEIA and EIA also contributes to the low level of practice of the guideline. To promote the practice, the efforts to legislate and publicize the guideline are required.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.55-61
• /
• 1995

The European Community (EC) began dealing with the subject of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the mid-1970s. After ten years of preparatory work and more than 20 draft versions, the EC Council of Ministers adopted, in 1985, the Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC). This directive requires the member states to make EIA mandatory for certain projects. Its Article 3 defines the purpose of the instrument: "The environmental impact assessment will identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of a project. There are no rules on scoping or on post-project analysis. However, member states are free to adopt, in their domestic legislation, more stringent rules regarding the scope and procedure of EIA. Consequently, they have developed national EIA systems which differ considerably from each other. Also, EIA practice in each of these countries is different from that in the others. In 1992, the EC Council adopted the 'Flora, Fauna, Habitat' Directive which lays down an additional EIA requirement. Member states will have to develop a network of 'European' nature conservation areas. Each project or plan possibly endangering these areas will have to be assessed whether it is in line with the protection purposes laid down for them. Although the directive does not say so explicitly, this means that a kind of EIA will have to be carried out for those projects and plans. For several years, the Commission has been developing proposals for a directive on EIA of plans and programmes ("strategic EIA"). This would supplement directive 85/337/EED, and would require and EIA for plans and programmes influencing decisions on specific projects(e.g. agricultural plans or energy programmes). At present, procedural and methodological questions of strategic EIA are being discussed extensively both within and without the European Union.

• Journal of Environmental Science International
• /
• v.2 no.4
• /
• pp.245-254
• /
• 1993

This paper attempts to analyze the institutionalization process of Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) system within the context of Korean environmental policy. The implementation of EIA in the 1980's was not seriously considered by other government agencies and was sometimes degraded as mere formality due to the inherent problems of the system. With viewing the theory and practice of EIA in Korea, this paper argues that it is essential to reinforce ex post facto management incorporate the participation of residents of concerned areas, upgrade the validity of assessment by selecting a credible assessment-agenices and develop the required technologies. Finally, this paper acknowledge the necessity of devising the mechanism to reconcile the conflict between the regional interest and the national interest.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.411-424
• /
• 2011

Over the past three decades, Korea has undertaken a series of reforms to improve development policy, plans and programs, including measures to mainstream the environment across all major sectors. Despite of these efforts, there has been still the lack of capacity to fully assess the environmental impacts as well as sustainable implications of development projects and strategies. At the level of regional and sectoral development plans, the development of strategic environmental assessment SEA systems continues to remain at a relatively early stage in the region with fewer examples of fully operational processes or effective practice. This study shows a further information to our understanding of the EIA and SEA systems and their implementation in Korea. It affords a number of insights into strengths and weaknesses of the current action in different countries, and identifies an agenda of needs and options for capacity building for implementing the EIA enactment.

• Journal of Environmental Science International
• /
• v.27 no.5
• /
• pp.281-289
• /
• 2018

The Korean environmental impact assessment(EIA) system, and explored ways to improve it as a more efficient and viable institution relevant to the demand of our time and conditions in study. The first problem this study identified is found in the fact that the party to write up the assessment report is itself the business operator or the one who is planning to work out the business plan. This structure translates into placing an order with an agent for EIA report. The reporting job may br subcontracted to the agent at a cost far below the rate specified in the 'Standard for Estimate of Agency Fee for Environmental Impact Assessment.' This practice also causes the vicious circle of producing a report that is written to justify the project or business in question or it leads to rough-and ready and poor documentation to minimize the time required. Second, in order to achieve the goal of the plan or business, which is the target of EIA, the local residents tend to ve regarded as an obstacle. This means elimination of the local people from participating in the EIA or their opinion being frequently ignored. This is the seed of distrust and hostility that sometimes provoke disagreements or fierce conflicts. The first proposal to improve these problem is to improve the factors that cause poor documentation of the assessment report as well as improve the understanding of the EIA system. This study proposes the following measures for improvement. The agency cost for EIA should be paid by the business operator or a third party that can ensure faithful implementation of the payment. A system should be established to verify transparent estimation of the agency cost. In order to enhance the professional quality of EIA agents, there should be implementation of qualification test for industrial engineer of related engineers in addition to the current EIA Qualification Test. The second proposal for improvement is to improve the citizen participation process by instituting a legal framework to make clear the purpose of the briefing session for local residents, which is held as a procedure of EIA, and to ensure more positive publicity during the stage of listening to the opinion of the local community. For a smooth and rational communication process, a moderator and a communicator of opinion, as is the case in a public hearing, could be instituted to clearly get the purpose of the briefing session across to the residents and to help to carry out the explanation and Q & A sessions according to the categories of the opinion of the residents. At present, the notification of the public inspection of the draft of the assessment report and briefing session for the residents is made on the newspaper and internet network. But some people have difficulty with access to this method of announcement. A higher participation rate could be secured if a legal provision is added to specify putting up placards in specific places such as the entrance to the place for the briefing session for residents or the building of administrative agencies of the area concerned.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.30 no.5
• /
• pp.328-338
• /
• 2021

EIA consultation is a final decision-making process that enables a variety of stakeholders to participate in and to share important information about the expected environmental impacts caused by development projects. However, this process is often undermined through re-consultation processes by significant changes in the proposed plans. EIA re-consultation is a necessary process when an approved plan needs to be changed for a variety of importantreasons including the changes of land use, delay of construction, and surrounding environments. EIA re-consultation is also important to resolve conflicts among stakeholders and to respond flexibly to unexpected changes in surrounding environment. This study aims to analyze the operation status and the problems of current institutional systems of EIA re-consultation, and to draw implications by reviewing institutional systems of other countries such as U.S. EU, Scotland, and Japan. On the basis of the previous analysis, we propose recommendations to improve the existing EIA re-consultation process. We expect this study helps understand operation status and problems of EIA re-consultation, and provides meaningful implications to improve the existing institutional systems and practice of re-consultation.

• Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment
• /
• v.4 no.3
• /
• pp.87-94
• /
• 1995

At both international and national levels, such as in the Rio Declaration and the EU's Fifth Environmental Action Plan, governments have committed themselves to the adoption of the precautionary principle (UNCED 1992, CEC 1992). These commitments mean that the existence of uncertainty in appraising policies and proposals for development should be acknowledged. Uncertainty arise in both the prediction of impacts and in the evaluation of their significance, particularly of those cumulative impacts which are individually insignificant but cumulatively damaging. The EC network of EIA experts, stated at their last meeting in Athens that indirect effects and the treatment of uncertainty are one of the main deficiencies of current EIA practice. Uncertainties in decision-making arise where choices have been made in the development of the policy or proposal, such as the selection of options, the justification for that choice, and the selection of different indicators to comply with different regulatory regimes. It is also likely that a weighting system for evaluating significance will have been used which may be implicit rather than explicit. Those involved in decision-making may employ different tolerances of uncertainty than members of the public, for instance over the consideration of the worst-case scenario. Possible methods for dealing with these uncertainties include scenarios, sensitivity analysis, showing points of view, decision analysis, postponing decisions and graphical methods. An understanding of the development of cumulative environmental impacts affords not only ecologic but also socio-economic investigations. Since cumulative impacts originate mainly in centres of urban or industrial development, in particular an analysis of future growth effects that might possibly be induced by certain development impacts. Not least it is seen as an matter of sustainability to connect this issue with ecological research. The serious attempt to reduce the area of uncertainty in environmental planning is a challenge and an important step towards reliable planning and sustainable development.

• Journal of environmental and Sanitary engineering
• /
• v.19 no.4 s.54
• /
• pp.34-47
• /
• 2004

Although Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) in Korea has been improved markedly over the past two decades, by enlarging the range of projects for assessment, instituting pub lic participation and environmental monitoring, and similar measures, it remains deficient in its coverage of human health in Environmental Impact Statements(EISs). Health Impact Assessment(HIA) can supply the necessary correctives. HIA is a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, programme, projects or legislative procedure may be judged for its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of these effects within it. The principle of health protection is, however, established as a primary concern in EIA processes, in practice health is scarcely mentioned or the discussion is limited to a description of effects through the biophysical environment. The whole range of possible effects on health, including those mediated by socio-economic factors is often ignored, and no effective mechanism are in place to successfully incorporating health criteria and expertise into environmental, assessment(EA) that include ElA, SEA. These are foremost among the current issues facing EIA in Korea.