Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

A qualitative method proposal to improve environmental

impact assessment
Javier Toro a, Ignacio Requena b, Oscar Duarte c, Montserrat Zamorano d,
a

Institute of Environmental Studies, National University of Colombia at Bogot, Colombia

Department of Computer Science and Articial Intelligence, University of Granada, Spain
National University of Colombia at Bogot, Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics, Colombia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, Spain
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 27 November 2012
Received in revised form 20 April 2013
Accepted 30 April 2013
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Qualitative methodology
Potential environmental impact
Vulnerability
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact statement
Colombia

a b s t r a c t
In environmental impact assessment, qualitative methods are used because they are versatile and easy to apply. This
methodology is based on the evaluation of the strength of the impact by grading a series of qualitative attributes that
can be manipulated by the evaluator. The results thus obtained are not objective, and all too often impacts are eliminated that should be mitigated with corrective measures. However, qualitative methodology can be improved if the
calculation of Impact Importance is based on the characteristics of environmental factors and project activities
instead on indicators assessed by evaluators. In this sense, this paper proposes the inclusion of the vulnerability
of environmental factors and the potential environmental impact of project activities. For this purpose, the study described in this paper dened Total Impact Importance and specied a quantication procedure. The results obtained
in the case study of oil drilling in Colombia reect greater objectivity in the evaluation of impacts as well as a positive
correlation between impact values, the environmental characteristics at and near the project location, and the technical characteristics of project activities.
2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process that analyzes
and evaluates the impacts that human activities can have on the environment. Its purpose is to guarantee a sustainable development that is in harmony with human welfare and the conservation of ecosystems. EIA has
proven itself to be an effective tool of environmental planning and management (Jay et al., 2007; Ortolano and Sheperd, 1995; Toro et al., 2010;
Wathern, 1994; Wood, 1993). Its application involves the use of attributes
to identify and evaluate possible environmental changes caused by a project, construction, or other human activity. Furthermore, the affected
community should be previously informed so that its members can participate in the decision-making processes (Canter and Sadler, 1997;
Modak and Biswas, 1999; Sadler, 1996; Toro, 2009; Wathern, 1994).
The EIA is the technical key to incorporating concepts such as the precaution principle and to preventing the loss of natural resources, which is evidently the main goal of sustainable development in decision-making
(Sadler, 1996; Wood, 2003). It goes without saying that the adoption
and application of EIA depends on the institutional framework and the
political context in the country or region (Ortolano et al., 1987).

Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada,

E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, 18071
Granada, Spain. Tel.: +34 958 249458; fax: +34 958 246138.
E-mail addresses: jjtoroca@unal.edu.co (J. Toro), requena@decsai.ugr.es
(I. Requena), ogduartev@unal.edu.co (O. Duarte), zamorano@ugr.es (M. Zamorano).
0195-9255/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.04.004

One of the results of the EIA process is the Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS), thanks to which it is possible to identify, describe, and
evaluate the environmental impacts stemming from the interaction
of the project with environmental factors. This evaluation can be
performed by using different methods such as the following: (i) interaction matrices; (ii) prediction of impacts; (iii) analysis and decisionmaking. As a general rule, interaction matrices are the most frequently
used method because they are simple to apply, inexpensive, and not
time-consuming (Canter and Sadler, 1997; Modak and Biswas, 1999;
Sadler, 1996; Toro et al., 2010). Despite these advantages, interaction
matrices also have limitations. For one thing, their predictions are partially based on subjective judgments, and for another, certain impact
attributes can be eliminated, which opens the door to weighting them
more favorably (Barker and Wood, 1999; Modak and Biswas, 1999).
Consequently, the grading of impact importance is signicantly less
harsh, which means that fewer impacts are included in environmental
management plans and/or plans to implement corrective measures.
This evidently increases the risk of environmental deterioration in the
project's area of inuence (Toro, 2009).
Toro et al. (2012) have analyzed the concept of vulnerability and justied its use within the context of the EIA in order to reduce uncertainty
as well as the inherent subjectivity in the assessments of evaluators who
calculate the Impact Importance in qualitative EIA methodology. The
study provides arguments in favor of the inclusion of vulnerability in
the EIA process, even in those cases in which primary information is difcult to obtain or is unavailable.

10

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Table 1
Phases and components of the EIS.
Phase

Component

i. Preliminary decisions

Project screening

Description

Decisions are made as to whether the project or activity requires an EIA or an

Environmental License for its construction and/or operation.
Scoping
After the screening process, the administration lists the impacts to be considered
and/or species the content of the EIS.
ii. Basic information
Description of the project/actions and alternatives
A description is provided of the different phases and activities of the project
alternatives.
Description of the environmental baseline
The environmental factors in the area affected by the project are described.
iii. Prediction of impacts
Identication and assessment of environmental impacts The environmental impacts of the project activities are predicted and evaluated.
iv. Environmental management Environmental management plan/design of corrective Measures are proposed that will prevent or mitigate the impacts evaluated as potentially
plan
measures
signicant.
v. Monitoring and control
Monitoring and control
Checking and verication of the environmental management plan or the plan
of corrective measures.

In this paper, we analyze qualitative methodology for the evaluation of impacts in the EIS with the purpose of identifying weaknesses
and proposing modications that decrease the uncertainties in this
type of impact prediction (Tenny et al., 2006). These modications
mainly involve the inclusion of Environmental Vulnerability proposed
by Toro et al. (2012) as well as a new concept that we have called the
Potential Environmental Impact of Activities. Accordingly, Section 2
of this paper analyzes conventional qualitative methodology and
outlines its phases. It also explains the calculation procedure used to
measure the importance of the environmental impact and identies
its main weaknesses. Section 3 describes a new model for the calculation of impact importance in a qualitative environmental assessment
methodology. This model includes the vulnerability of environmental
factors as a strategy for using indicators and functions in the social
ecosystem. A relevant example is the concept of the Potential Environmental Impact of Activities (PEIA) for the measurement of the disturbance that a certain action may cause, which can thus be incorporated
in the evaluation of the importance of impacts. Section 4 presents a
case study in which this new method is applied. The results obtained
are compared with those of the original method, particularly in the
evaluation of impact importance. The paper concludes with a discussion
of the strengths and advantages of this new environmental assessment
method.
2. Qualitative methodology. Description and weaknesses
One of the key components of EIA is the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which provides information regarding the environmental
factors of the project area, project characteristics, the identication and
evaluation of potential impacts, and a contingency plan with corrective
measures. Table 1 outlines the application of the EIS during its ve
phases and for each of its components (Glasson et al., 2005; Leopold et
al., 1971; Modak and Biswas, 1999; Toro et al., 2012; Wathern, 1994;
Wood, 2003).
The third phase of the EIA (prediction of impacts) calculates impact
importance. Also specied during this phase are the impacts to be included in the environmental management plan and the corrective measures to be applied. Methods in this phase include recourse to expert
opinions, indices and indicators, risk evaluation, and matrices (Canter
and Sadler, 1997; Modak and Biswas, 1999; Warner and Bromley,
1974; Wood, 2003). Of the matrix types, the symbolized matrix combines descriptive and numerical scales that grade Impact Importance.
Examples of the attributes or qualities used by experts in their evaluations are the following: positive, negative, reversible, prevalence, duration,
frequency, probability of occurrence, mitigability, etc. (Modak and Biswas,
1999; Thomson, 1990). This qualitative or crisp methodology (Duarte,
2000; Duarte et al., 2007) is widely applied in the European Union as
well as in Central and South America because of its versatility, simplicity, and cost-effectiveness (Androulidakis and Karakassis, 2006; Canter
and Sadler, 1997; Conesa, 2006; Glasson and Salvador, 2000; IUCN,
2003; Martnez, 2011; Toro, 2009). For instance, in Colombia in 2010,

87% of the EISs submitted to the Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y

Desarrollo Territorial 1 as part of Environmental License applications
used this qualitative methodology to evaluate potential environmental
impacts (Martnez, 2011).
The qualitative methodology relates project activities (A1, Ai, An) to
environmental factors (F1, Fi, Fm) in a double-entry matrix in which intersections are used to identify possible impacts (see Table 2). Once the
impacts are identied, Impact Importance is then evaluated by grading
a set of attributes that vary in number, depending on the legal framework of the country and the ofcial guidelines recommended or required
by the government. Impact Importance is conventionally dened as an
expression of its social cost or value (Duinker and Beanlands, 1986;
Thomson, 1990; Toro et al., 2012).
The qualitative calculation of Impact Importance is carried out by
applying a generic mathematical formula composed of a series of attributes that have been graded by an evaluator. Consequently, the process
is rather subjective. Eq. (1) is based on Conesa (2006) and is used to calculate or estimate environmental impact importance though other
combinations are also possible. In this expression, Imp stands for the importance of the impact; refers to the weighting of the importance of
the impact; I is the Intensity; Ex is the Extension; Mo is the Moment;
Pe is the Persistence; Rv is the Reversibility; Sy is the Synergy; Ac is
the Accumulation; Ef is the Effect; Pr is the Periodicity; and Rc is the
Recovery. The nal assessment of Impact Importance, with values ranging from 13 to 100, is calculated on the basis of the values assigned
to the attributes (see Table 3). The numerical result evaluates the
impact as compatible (0 Imp b 25), moderate (25 Imp b 50),
severe (50 Imp b 75) or critical (Imp 75) (Conesa, 2006).
Imp I Ex Mo Pe Rv Sy Ac Ef Pr Rc:

Despite the central role of Impact Importance in the EIA process, its
evaluation is one of the most difcult and least understood processes,
mainly because of its subjective nature and the fact that it is based on
value judgments (Duinker and Beanlands, 1986; Lawrence, 2007). It is
also true that opinions of the importance of certain environmental impacts tend to differ, depending on the values and personal beliefs of
the evaluators. Obviously, this facilitates the manipulation of the results
(Sadler, 1996; Toro et al., 2012). This situation is rather disturbing, particularly in those countries whose laws allow the interested parties to
select the methodology as well as the attributes to be assessed (Toro
et al., 2010). In this regard, there are various research studies and/or
methods to identify and quantify the values and attitudes of the stakeholders (Barker and Wood, 1999; Ijs et al., 2010; Modak and Biswas,
1999; Pastakia and Jensen, 1998; Sadler, 1996).

1
The Ministry of the Environment, Housing and Territorial Development is the national public agency responsible for matters related to the environment. It performs
and promotes activities directed at sustainable development (www.mavdt.gov.co).

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

3. Proposal of a modied qualitative method for environmental

impact assessment

Table 2
Matrix of impact identication (Toro, 2009).
Susceptible environmental factors

Actions that can potentially generate

environmental impacts

Fj
Fm

A1

Ai

An

FiA1
FmA1

FjAi
FmAi

FiAn
FmAn

Consequently, the grading of Imp by assigning values to a series of

attributes can mean that the current qualitative methodology does
not achieve the main objective of the EIA, namely, to guarantee that environmental considerations are successfully addressed in the decisionmaking process regarding the project, construction, or activity (Jay
et al., 2007; Toro et al., 2010). An additional weakness is the fact that
this methodology permits the exclusion or elimination of attributes.
This is especially frequent in countries whose laws do not specify the
methodology for the evaluation of impacts or the attributes that must
be included in the calculation equation. Evidently, this can lead to significant variations in the nal result (Martnez, 2011; Toro, 2009; Toro et
al., 2010).

Table 3
Values used to grade attributes dening Impact Importance in qualitative methodology
(Conesa, 2006).
Intensity (I)
Incidence of the action on the
environmental factor.
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Total

Extension (Ex)
Area affected by the impact in relation
to the total area of the surroundings
1
2
4
8
12

Isolated
Partial
Widespread
Total
Criticala

1
2
4
8
+4

Moment (Mo)
Time between the start of the action and
the time when the factor begins to be
affected.

Persistence (Pe)
Permanence of the impact from the
time of its appearance until when the
environmental factor returns to its
initial state.

Long-term (>5 years)

Medium-term (15 years)
Immediate (b1 year)
Criticalb

Fleeting (b1 year)

Temporary (110 years)
Permanent (>10 years)

1
2
4
+4

1
2
4

Reversibility (Rv)
Natural recovery of the environmental
factor to its initial state before the impact

Synergy (Sy)
Mutual reinforcement of two or more
individual impacts

Long-term (b1 year)

Medium-term (15 years)
Irreversible

Non-synergic
Synergic
Very synergic

1
2
4

Accumulation (Ac)
Increases in the strength of the impact
Simple
Accumulative
Periodicity (Pr)
Regularity of the impact

Irregular o discontinuous
Periodic
Continuous
a

1
2
4

Effect (Ef)
Causeeffect relation of the impact
affecting the environmental factor
1
4

Indirect
Direct

1
4

Recovery (Rc)
Possibility of articially recovering
the initial environmental conditions
previous to the impact
1
2
4

Immediate
Medium-term
Able to be mitigated
Irrecoverable

1
2
4
8

If an isolated impact occurs in a critical area, 4 units are added to the value.
If there is any circumstance that makes the moment critical, 4 units are added to the
value.
b

11

Based on the arguments presented in the previous section, it is our

belief that the qualitative methodology should be modied so that the
properties of environmental factors and of the project can be the main
focus. The ultimate goal is to reduce the role of the evaluator in the assessment of Impact Importance, thus making the process more effective.
For this purpose, we propose the Total Importance of the impact
(ImpTotal) as a substitute for Importance. This new term includes the
Importance of the Project (ImpPro), which is the equivalent of the Imp.
However, it also integrates the Importance of the Activity that generates
the impacts (ImpAct) as well as the Importance of the Vulnerability of
the environmental factors (ImpVul). This proposal has the advantage
of calculating the ImpTotal, based on a wider range of information. Consequently, there is less room for the subjective interpretation of the evaluator since the evaluation is now much less dependent on his/her
personal criteria (see Fig. 1). These three new terms are included and
weighted in Eq. (2). Accordingly, WImpPro, WImpAct and WImpVul are the
weighting coefcients for each term.
ImpTotal WImpPro  ImpPro WImpAct  ImpAct WImpVul  ImpVul: 2

Eq. (2) can be interpreted within the information aggregation

framework. The main issue addressed by this theory is how to combine information that comes from different sources, is of different
types, and has different qualities within a single space (e.g. Fodor
and Rudas, 2009). Rudas (2001) provides an overview of the aggregation connectives, most of which are based on fuzzy set theory
(Zadeh, 1965). A very useful set of aggregation operators is the Ordered
Weighted Averaging (OWA) family of parametric operators, which
have been extensively studied by Yager (Filev and Yager, 1998; Yager,
1988, 2009, 2010; Yager and Kacprzyk, 1997). Simple average, maximum, and minimum are special cases of the OWA family. Regarding
the selection of the most suitable aggregation operator for complex systems, the incompatibility principle (Zadeh, 1973) should be taken into
account.
According to this principle, the precision and signicance (or relevance) of our statements about very complex systems are almost mutually exclusive characteristics. The environment is a very complex
system, and in an EIA, the goal is to make relevant statements about
the overall impact. As a result, we need to use simple aggregation operators, even if they are less precise than more sophisticated choices.
The weighted average of Eq. (2) is simple but sufcient to maintain
the individual interpretability of the aggregated information. The following sections describe the procedure for determining each component for the calculation of the ImpTotal.
3.1. Determination of the Importance of the Project (ImpPro)
As previously mentioned, the Importance of the Project (ImpPro)
is equivalent to Importance in the current methodology. We propose
that Eq. (1) be used to calculate this value, based on the attributes dened by Conesa (2006), though other attribute combinations are also
feasible, as those presented by Kuitunen et al., 2008; Leopold et al.,
1971; Pastakia and Jensen, 1998; Peche and Rodrguez, 2011.
3.2. Determination of the Importance of the Activity (ImpAct)
Within the context of the EIA, environmental impacts are the result of
the interaction of human activities with the environment. Such activities
include road construction, mining, oil exploration and exploitation, pig
farming and pork production, ower production, textile manufacturing,
leather and tanning, and paper making. These are all classied as activities
that can have a signicant impact on groundwater, and which is a potential risk for the atmosphere, water, soil, and human welfare (Kim et al.,

12

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Proposed
Methodology

ImpTotal

Aggregation

Qualitative
Methodology

ImpPro

Aggregation

ImpAct

Potential Environmental
Impact

ImpVul

Qualitative Values of
the Vulnerability

I Ex Mo Pe Rv Sy Ac Ef Pr Rc

Fig. 1. Schema of the modied qualitative method.

2008; Lefebvrea et al., 2006; USDA, 2000). This high environmental impact is inherent in the characteristics of the activity and can be the basis
for the valuation of environmental impacts.
Along these same lines, the methods used to assess impacts, particularly the qualitative methodology, are based on the grading of a set of
attributes that characterize this interaction. It is precisely at this point
where these valuations become imprecise and less objective (Toro,
2009). This is why there is general agreement on the urgent need to determine the relative importance of all the parameters that intervene in
the impact valuation process. The technical problem resides in the accurate calculation of interactions within a given system of parameters
(Beinat et al., 1994). The application of these concepts to the qualitative
method can enhance it since the calculation of impact importance will
thus include the characteristics of the economic activities that generate
the environmental impacts (Nilsson and Grelsson, 1995). Of course, any
strategy used to evaluate such characteristics should necessarily facilitate the calculation of Impact Importance and use criteria that reduce
subjectivity to a minimum.
In the case of the characteristics of an activity, we propose the concept of Potential Environmental Impact (PEI), dened as the potential
positive or negative impact generated by a human action or disturbance
that affects the physical, biotic or socioeconomic environment (in specic relation to environmental factors) and which is directly linked to
the intrinsic characteristics of the action or disturbance (Glasson et al.,
2005; Gmez, 2003; IUCN, 2003; McMichael et al., 2003). The PEI permits the organization of activities, depending on their potential for the
deterioration and/or contamination of air quality, soil, agriculture and
shing, public health, surface water and groundwater, and socioeconomic welfare patterns (IUCN, 2003; Ying and Liu, 1995).
In regard to environmental management, the analysis of the PEI is
currently applied in research on the effects and impacts of human activities on the environment (Chaytor, 1995; Piedrahita, 2003; Rowe et al.,
2009; UN-DSE, 1992). The use of the PEI in the EIA process has been proposed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean (CEPAL, 1999) and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2003) for the general classication of
projects, constructions, and other human activities. In fact, it is now included in the law in countries such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, and is used in decisions related to the EIS and environmental
licenses (Agreement 4312007; Decree 762006; Decree 31849 of
2004). However, to our knowledge, there have been no proposals for
its use in qualitative methodology or in any other methods for the valuation of environmental impacts.

Accordingly, this paper presents a system for calculating the PEI of

projects or activities for each of the indicators to be considered in vulnerability analysis, as dened and listed in Toro et al. (2012). These activities
include the following: Wildlife Habitat (WH), Wildlife Diversity (WD),
Flora Diversity (FD), Surface Water Quality (SWQ), Land Use Change
(LUC), Air Quality (AQ), Social Security (SS), Population (Pp), Employment (Ep) and Educational System (Edu). This proposal includes them
in the denition of the Importance of the Activity (ImpAct), which corresponds to the PEI of the project or activity in regard to environmental factors. The procedure used to calculate the importance of the activities that
require EIA, based on their PEI, is composed of the following phases:
1. Qualitative determination of the PEI of the activities subject to EIA.
2. Assignment of quantitative values to the qualitative categories of the
IAP.
3. Determination of the value of the Impact of the Activity (ImpAct).
3.2.1. Qualitative determination of the PEI of the activities subject to EIA
in Colombia
In order to establish a system capable of accurately calculating the
importance of the activities subject to EIA, we used the Delphi method,
which is a structured communication technique that relies on a panel of
experts. It has been widely applied and validated in research carried out
all over the world (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Kamal and Bashar, 2009;
Lee et al., 2008; Thompson and Schaffer, 2002; Yu-Chun et al., 2007).
Kontic (2000) regards expert opinions as the backbone of all EIA processes. Although he admits the results obtained can be subjective, he
claims that the credibility of an EIA, depends on the validity of expert
evaluations.
In this research, the consultation method was used to obtain opinions from a sample of experts in each of the activities that require an
EIA process in Colombia.2 A questionnaire was thus designed with this
purpose in mind. The questions pertained to the grading of the PEI of
the activities on environmental factors. Because of the specic nature
of the topics, there was no need to repeat the same question or critically
compare opinions. Since each expert was anonymous, there was less
possibility of their opinions being inuenced by those of other experts.
The panel selected for this consultation was made up of experts in
each of the activities subject to the EIA process. The size of the sample
was 20 experts, all of whom had suitable proles for the application
2
This geographic location was selected purely for reasons of expediency since two of
the authors reside in this country.

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

13

Table 4
Assignment of the PEI to activities that require an EIA in Colombiaa (Toro, 2009).

Indicators

Activity

WH

WD

FD

SWQ

LUC

AQ

SS

Pp

Ep

Edu

Incorporation of a new species

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI L

PEI L

PEI L

Hunting

PEIH

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI L

PEI L

Extraction of anthracite

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI L

Extraction of soft coal

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI L

Extraction of oil

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI L

Exploration for oil

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI L

Extraction of uranium

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI L

PEI L

Extraction of iron

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI ML

Extraction of metals

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

Electrical power plants

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

Construction of ports

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI L

Construction of airports

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI MH

PE IL

PEI ML

PEI L

PEI L

PEI L

Operation of airports

PEI MH PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI L

PEI L

PEI L

Construction of main roads

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI L

Construction of secondary roads

PEI L

PEI L

PEI ML

PEI L

PEI L

PEI L

PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI L

Construction of tunnels

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI L

PEI L

Construction of ports

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI ML

PEI ML

PEI L

Construction of landfills

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI H

PEI L

PEI ML

PEI H

PEI ML

PEI L

Operation of landfills

PEI MH PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI MH

PEI H

PEI L

PEI L

Wastewater treatment

PEI L

PEI L

PEI ML

PEI H

PEI MH

PEI L

PEI L

PEI L

PEI L

High potential environmental impact

PEI H

PEI L

PEI MH

PEI L

Moderate high potential environmental impact PEI MH

Moderate potential environmental impact

PEI ML

Low potential environmental impact

PEI L

See Toro (2009) for the complete list.

of the Delphi method, as reected in other similar studies (Amara and

Lipinski, 1972). More specically, the respondents were university professors with either a Master's Degree or a PhD, and who had more than
ten years of professional, teaching, and/or research experience.
The results of the questionnaires provided an estimate of the PEI of
these activities (see Table 4). It goes without saying that the results are
not denitive, nor can they be regarded as a tool to be used in all cases
requiring an EIA. This is merely an illustration of the way in which it is
possible to generate a system for the calculation of the ImpAct as well
as a checklist to estimate what should be done when an EIA is being
performed in a given context in Colombia or in another geographic
location.

Table 5
Quantitative values for the calculation of the Importance of the Activity (ImpAct).
Qualitative PEI valuation

Quantitative PEI
valuation

Activity importance
value

High PEI
High moderate PEI
Low moderate PEI
Low PEI

5
4
2
1

100
80
40
20

3.2.2. Assignment of quantitative values to the qualitative categories of

the PEI
Finally, the qualitative values of the PEI for each environmental factor
were transformed into quantitative values. For this purpose, we used the
method developed by Dean and Nishry (1965), in which each factor is
compared to all of the other factors. One of the advantages of this method
is that it can be applied by a single user or a group of users. This technique

Table 6
Calculation of the ImpAct for Oil Exploration (Toro, 2009).
Indicators

Qualitative PEI
valuation

Quantitative PEI
valuation

ImpAct

WH
WD
FD
SWQ
LUC
AQ
SS
Pp
Ep
Edu

PEIMH
PEIMH
PEIMH
PEIMH
PEIML
PEIMH
PEIMH
PEIML
PEIML
PEIL

4
4
4
4
2
4
4
2
2
1

80
80
80
80
40
80
80
40
40
20

14

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Table 7
Ranges of the indicators of environmental factors for the quantitative assignment of
Vulnerability (Toro et al., 2012).
Qualitative vulnerability
valuation

Quantitative vulnerability
valuation

Vulnerability importance
value

High vulnerability
High moderate
vulnerability
Low moderate
vulnerability
Low vulnerability

VH
VHM

5
4

100
80

VLM

40

VL

20

has also been used to assign categories to weight environmental factors

in the EIA (Canter, 2000; Dean and Nishry, 1965; Dee and Baker, 1973).
After analyzing the relative importance of each PEI, quantitative
values were assigned (Table 5, Column 2). PEIH was assigned a value

of ve (5) and PEIMH a value of four (4) because of the transcendence

of these categories in the EIA. The PEIML and PEIVL received values of
two (2) and (1), respectively, because they were less crucial.
The quantitative values of PEI are the reference for the value assignation of ImpAct. Those values must be converted to a range from 13
to 100 because this corresponds to the value of Imp in the qualitative
methodology. Following this same criterion, the values of ImpAct are
located in a range from 20 to 100. As a result, each quantitative value
of PEI corresponds to the third column in Table 5.

3.2.3. Calculation of the Impact of the Activity (ImpAct)

The ImpAct based on the PEI is calculated for given activity in order
to incorporate in the EIA the relative importance that the activity has in
the Total Impact, regardless of where the project is located. For this purpose, and with the quantitative PEI values as a reference, the ImpAct

Table 8
Assignment of qualitative values for the Vulnerability of environmental factors in Colombia (Toro et al., 2012).

Indicatorsa
Autonomous corporation
WH

WD

FD

SWQ

LUC

AQ

SS

Pp

Ep

Edu

AMVA

VH

VML

VML

VH

VH

VH

VL

VL

VH

VH

CAR

VH

VMH

VMH

VH

VH

VMH

VMH

VH

VH

VMH

CORPOBOYAC

VMH

VML

VMH

VH

VH

VMH

VML

VH

VMH

VH

CARDER

VMH

VMH

VML

VH

VMH

VML

VML

VML

VH

VH

CDMB

VMH

VML

VML

VH

VMH

VH

VML

VH

VMH

VH

CORPOGUAJIRA

VL

VML

VL

VH

VML

VML

VMH

VL

VH

VH

CORNARE

VH

VML

VML

VH

VH

VML

VL

VL

VH

VH

CORPAMAG

VMH

VMH

VML

VH

VMH

VML

VML

VML

VH

VH

CORPOCALDAS

VH

VMH

VML

VH

VMH

VMH

VML

VL

VH

VH

CORPONOR

VH

VML

VMH

VH

VMH

VMH

VML

VML

VMH

VH

CORTOLIMA

VH

VMH

VLM

VH

VH

VML

VML

VML

VH

VH

CRC

VML

VMH

VMH

VH

VL

VML

VML

VML

VMH

VH

CVC

VML

VMH

VMH

VH

VMH

VMH

VL

VML

VH

VML

CDA

VL

VL

VL

VH

VL

VML

VL

VL

VH

VH

DAGMA

VH

VML

VML

VH

VMH

VML

VL

VH

VH

VH

DAMAB

VH

VH

VMH

VH

VMH

VH

VML

VH

VH

VH

DAMA

VML

VML

VLM

VH

VH

VMH

VML

VH

VH

VL

CAS

VMH

VML

VMH

VH

VH

VMH

VML

VL

VH

VH

CORANTIOQUIA

VMH

VMH

VMH

VH

VMH

VH

VL

VL

VH

VMH

CRQ

VMH

VMH

VML

VH

VMH

VL

VL

VML

VH

VH

CAM

VMH

VML

VML

VH

VMH

VML

VML

VH

VH

VH

CORPOCESAR

VH

VML

VML

VML

VMH

VMH

VMH

VL

VH

VH

CORPORINOQUIA

VL

VML

VML

VML

VL

VMH

VH

VML

VMH

VH

CODECHOCO

VL

VML

VML

VH

VL

VL

VH

VL

VH

VH

High vulnerability

VH

Moderately high vulnerability

VMH

Moderately vulnerability

VML

Low vulnerability

VL

a
Wildlife Habitat (WH), Wildlife Diversity (WD), Flora Diversity (FD), Surface Water Quality (SWQ), Land Use Change (LUC), Air Quality (AQ), Social Security (SS), Population (Pp),
Employment (Ep), Education (Edu).

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

15

Fig. 2. Location of the oil exploration project in Colombia.

values are then assigned. These values should be in consonance with the
values of Impact Importance in the qualitative methodology. The values
ranged from 13 to 100 and are calculated on the basis of the values
assigned to the attributes. In this range, 13 is the result of calculating
Imp when the attributes get the minimum value, and the maximum
value corresponds to 100 (see Table 3 and Eq. (1)). When this same criterion was followed, the ImpAct values were found to range from 20 to
100. In this way, each quantitative value had the values shown in
Table 5. The quantitative ImpAct values thus assigned were taken as
reference values. The values had to be conrmed by the values of Impact
Importance in the qualitative methodology. In this way, it was possible
to reect the specicity of the impacts of an activity such as oil drilling,
landll operation, or the construction of a primary or secondary road.
The same procedure should be used to calculate the ImpAct of any
other activity.

For example, the PEI is assigned to the activity, Oil Exploration,

based on the indicators in Table 4 as well as the quantitative values
used in Table 5. The resulting ImpAct for the different indicators of
this activity is shown in Table 6. This same process can be applied to
other activities and environmental factors.
3.3. Determination of the Importance of Vulnerability (ImpVul)
Vulnerability is an expression of how the natural and human environment can respond to external events (Adger, 1999; Becker, 2001; Berry
et al., 2006; Burdge et al., 1995; Cutter et al., 2003; Metzger et al., 2006;
Smith and Zollner, 2005; Smith et al., 2008; Turner et al., 2003; Wei et
al., 2004). Within the context of the EIA, vulnerability is dened as an environmental characteristic related to the presence of impacts, stresses,
or perturbations that affect the system's ability to adapt to changing

16

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

conditions caused by projects or human activities. This is in accordance

with authors such as Luers et al. (2003), Smith and Pilifosova (2002),
Turner et al. (2003), Gallopn (2006) and Walker et al. (2004).
Subjectivity in the valuation of impacts (Weston, 2004) as well as the
fact that certain environmental impacts may be ignored or regarded as insignicant in the EIS has brought vulnerability into the spotlight within
the EIA process. In this sense, environmental impact assessments that include vulnerability are generally less subjective than those that do not
(Kvrner et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008).
To integrate vulnerability in the EIA process, Toro et al. (2012) dened
the concept of Vulnerability Importance and a procedure to determine it
by using relevant theoretical premises and concepts. Vulnerability Importance is thus directly related to the state of environmental factors and is
determined on the basis of a set of environmental state indicators or indicators of the loss of ecosystem function. The ImpVul is now part of the
qualitative methodology, and can be calculated as follows (Toro et al.,
2012): (i) denition of environmental factors; (ii) denition of indicators;
(iii) qualitative determination of the Vulnerability Importance of environmental factors; (iv) assignment of quantitative values of Vulnerability Importance. By applying the procedures described by Toro et al. (2012), four
qualitative and quantitative values were assigned to Vulnerability Importance (see Table 7).
This procedure was applied in Colombia to establish the vulnerability
of the Autonomous Regional Corporations (ARCs), which are ofcial administrative entities in Colombia that are in charge of the planning and
implementation of projects related to the conservation, decontamination, and recovery of renewable natural resources that have been affected in the area under their jurisdiction. Since ARCs have jurisdiction over
one or various departments, this means that the vulnerability assigned to
an ARC corresponds to the Environmental Vulnerability Factor of the departments3 located within their scope (Table 8). Consequently, any impact on the environmental factor, air, of a project located in the area of
the ARC, known as CAR, will have an ImpVul rating of VMH, whose quantitative value is 80 (see Table 8). Similarly, values can also be assigned to
other geographic contexts and environmental factors.

to their particular features (degree of objectivity of the methodology as

well as to the information available in Colombia).
4. Case study
This section gives an example of how this new procedure can be applied to determine Importance and shows the changes in the qualitative
method. The example selected is an oil exploration project in two different scenarios in Colombia: (i) the Department of Casanare located in the
eastern part of the country in the natural region of Orinoqua; and
(ii) the Department of Choco located in the west near the Pacic
Ocean (Fig. 2). These examples reect how our method is able to address the special needs and features of each region.
4.1. Description of the activity
The objective of the project in this example is to nd evidence of the
presence of oil in the subsoil of the two areas. The activities in the project
involve constructing platforms, enabling entry routes, building an access
corridor between the different points of the platforms, drilling wells,
on-site management, treatment and disposal of wastewater, constructing
ow lines, and transporting crude oil in vehicles or through pipelines. To
demonstrate the application of our method, we analyzed eight impacts
out of a total of fty, which had characteristics that were typical of the
other impacts identied. These were the following (Toro, 2009):
Changes in land use
Reduction in water quality
Increase in the PM10 in the air, mainly from transportation and
operation
Decrease in ora diversity
Loss of wildlife habitat
Decrease in wildlife diversity
Increase in population
Fewer traditional jobs.
The activities that could produce the impacts were classied,
depending on the phase in which they are generally performed:

3.4. Weighting coefcients

Weighted values of the ImpPro, ImpAct, and ImpVul should be dened as the work is being carried out and as experience is gradually accumulated. Nonetheless, this paper presents a proposal that can be used
as starting point. This initiative corresponds to the degree of objectivity
of the methodology as well as to the information available in Colombia.
The ImpPro value is based on calculations which depend on human
judgments, mediated by a set of attributes that are applied to the impact.
Since this is the methodology that has been most commonly used in
countries such as Colombia (Martnez, 2011) and which has been validated in various studies, it has been assigned a weighted value (WImpPro)
of 0.4 for this proposal. The value of the ImpAct exclusively depends on
the characteristics of the activity and can be modied by the use of technologies. Since its calculation is based on the criteria of experts, our
method assigns it a lower weighted value (WImpAct) of 0.2. Finally, the
value of the ImpVul is based on data from primary information sources
and indicators. Technology can affect this value very slightly since it depends on the properties and state of the environmental factor. For this
reason, our method assigns it a weighted value (WImpVul) of 0.4.
The assignation of weighting coefcients was executed in a similar
way as the assignment of quantitative values to the qualitative categories
of the PEI, by using a technique that has also been used to assign categories to weight environmental factors in the EIA. We used the method
developed by Dean and Nishry (1965), in which each Weighting is compared to all of the other Weighting and the values are assigned according
3
Colombia is divided into 32 departments, which in turn are subdivided into 1089
cities or municipalities (Toro, 2009).

(i) Construction:
A1: Mobilization of personnel, equipment, and materials; A2: Road
construction; A3: Construction of installations; A4: Construction of
owlines.
(ii) Operation:
A5: Mobilization of personnel, equipment, and materials; A6:
Drilling; A7: Management of encampments; A8: Oil-in-water
testing; A9: Transportation of oil.
(iii) Dismantling:
A10: Mobilization of personnel, equipment, and materials.

Table 9
Calculation of the ImpVul of the environmental factors in the departments of Casanare
and Choco.
Choco

Casanare

Factor

Qualitative
ImpVul
valuation

Quantitative
ImpVul
valuation

Qualitative
ImpVul
valuation

Quantitative
ImpVul
valuation

WH
WD
FD
SWQ
LUC
AQ
SS
Pp
Ep
Edu

VL
VML
VML
VH
VL
VL
VH
VL
VH
VH

20
40
40
100
20
20
100
20
100
100

VL
VML
VML
VML
VL
VMH
VH
VML
VMH
VH

20
40
40
40
20
80
100
40
80
100

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Table 10
Calculation of the ImpTotal for the impact, reduction in water quality cased by the mobilization of personnel, equipment, and materials for oil exploration in the departments of
Choco and Casanare.
Department

ImpProa

ImpActb

ImpVulc

ImpTotald

Choco

19

80

100

Casanare

19

80

40

0.4 19 + 0.2 80
+ 0.4 100 = 64
0.4 19 + 0.2 80
+ 0.4 40 = 40

a
b
c
d

17

100

10
25

27

80
60

69

40

75

69

20

Calculation in Table 11.

Calculation in Table 11.
Calculation in Table 9.
According to Eq. (2). Values of weighting coefcients have been proposed in Section 3.4.

21
0
ImpPro

ImpTotal Choco

Compatible

Moderate

ImpTotal Casanare

Severe

Critical

Fig. 3. Impact category percentages obtained with the traditional qualitative method
(ImpPro) and the modied qualitative method (ImpAct).

4.2. Calculation of the ImpPro

The ImpPro was calculated using Eq. (1), once the weighting values
of the (I) and (EX) proposed by Conesa (2006) had been specied. The
procedure and assignment of attribute values were performed by Toro
(2009). It was thus possible to classify the impacts with a view to prioritizing environmental management and establishing the optimal type of
corrective measures.
The values and their classication are listed in Table 10, according to
Conesa (2006). The calculation of ImpPro enabled us to identify and assess the environmental impact. More specically, the reduction in
water quality generated by activity A1 concerning the mobilization
of personnel, equipment, and materials was classied as moderate
since it had a value of 19 (Table 10, Column 2, Row 4).

4.4. Calculation of the ImpVul

The ImpVul was calculated as described in Toro et al. (2012), and the
values for the departments of Choco and Casanare, where the method
was applied, are listed in Table 9.
4.5. Calculation of the ImpTotal
The ImpTotal of the impacts generated by the oil exploration project
was calculated with the modied qualitative method described in this
paper (Eq. (2)). Returning to the calculation of the ImpTotal, the impact,
reduction of water quality caused by activity A1 (Section 4.2), stemming
from the mobilization of personnel, equipment, and materials, is shown
in Table 10. The ImpTotal for the other activities and impacts can be calculated in the same way (see Table 11).

4.3. Calculation of the ImpAct

Given that the project involved exploration for oil, the qualitative
and quantitative values of the ImpAct can be found in Table 6.

Table 11
Calculation of the ImpPro and ImpTotal for the impacts of the oil exploration project in the departments of Choco and Casanare.

Construction phase

I.A

A1

a
A1

b
A1

I1

A2

Operation phase
a
A2

b
A2

A3

a
A3

b
A3

A4

a
A4

b
A4

29

28

28

28

27

27

27

27

27

A5

a
A5

b
A5

Dismantling
phase
x

A6

a
A6

I2

19

64

40

27

67

43

29

68

44

27

67

43

20

64

40

I3

27

35

59

29

36

60

29

36

60

29

36

60

26

34

58

I4

15 38

38

46

50

50

45

50

50

27

43

43

28

35

35

27

35

35

26

69

34

23

33

33

31

36

29

44

44

28

43

43

26

42

42

22

41

41

31

44

63

41

49

I5
I6

23

41

41

I7

63

41

49

I8

32

67

Critical impact

ImpPro 75

Severe impact

50 ImpPro < 75

Moderate impact

25 ImpPro < 50

Compatible impact

0 ImpPro < 25

69

72

b
A6

45

A7

a
A7

b
A7

28

27

27

26

66

42

A8

50

a
A8

76

b
A8

52

A9

a
A9

b
A9

A 10 A 10 A 10
x

34

70

70

20

64

40

27

35

35

26

34

58

21

40

40

36

28

35

35

30

36

36

22

33

33

44

25

42

42

32

45

45

23

41

41

59

40

48

64

67

75

67

I.A: Environmental impact.

x
ImpPro equivalent of the former Imp; aImpTotal Department of Choco; bImpTotal Department of Casanare.
I1: Changed in land use; I2: Reduction in water quality; I3: Increase of PM10 in the air; I4: Reduction in ora diversity; I5: Loss of wildlife habitat; I6: Reduction in wildlife diversity;
I7: Increase in population; I8: Reduction in traditional jobs.

18

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A1

A2

A3

ImpPro
Water quality change

A4

A1

A2

A3

A4

A1

A2

ImpTotal Choco
Air quality change

Change in Plant Diversity

A3

A4

ImpTotal Casanare
Change Wildlife Diversity

Fig. 4. Valuation of impacts generated by oil exploration in two natural environmental settings with the ImpPro and the ImpAct (A1: Mobilization of personnel, equipment and
material; A2: Road repair and construction; A3: Construction of installations; A4: Construction of owlines).

5. Discussion
The inclusion of the ImpVul and the ImpAct in the calculation of the
ImpTotal leads to signicant changes in the evaluation of the impacts in
the departments of Choco and Casanare (Fig. 3). When our results were
compared with those obtained solely with the ImpPro equation, it was
found that all compatible impacts had disappeared. This is of particular
importance because in the traditional qualitative method, such impacts may not be obligatorily included in the management and corrective action plans. Alternatively, they might even be managed by
implementing compensatory measures. This means that the impacts
will continue, which would lead to the further deterioration of environmental factors. In contrast, the modied qualitative method, evaluated certain impacts as critical and this increased the number of severe
impacts in both departments. This result permits the government to demand preventive measures, which means that the irreversible loss of
natural resources and human welfare can be signicantly mitigated.
As can be observed, our proposal to include the vulnerability of
environmental factors and the PEI in the calculation of the ImpTotal
is justied by the evident differences in the evaluation of impacts for
the same activity in two natural scenarios that differ in environmental state and natural resources (e.g. surface water). For example, the
surface water in the Department of Casanare (CORPORINOQUIA) is
not as vulnerable as the surface water in the Department of Choco
(CODECHOCO). Moreover, the general activity of oil exploration has
a high potential environmental impact, which is not represented in
the calculation of the ImpPro (Table 6). However, the calculation of
the ImpTotal includes the characteristics of the environmental factor
as well as those of the activity. As a result, there are positive changes
in the degree of relevance and the category of the impacts (Fig. 4).
This increases the effectiveness of the EIA process and favors the future protection of the environment. It is our assertion that the synergy of these two new components for evaluating Importance leads to
the results in the tables.
6. Conclusions
This article has proposed modications in the qualitative method for
calculating Impact Importance. The two changes, which are reected in
a linear equation, are the following: (i) the use of the concept of ImpVul,
which is based on information concerning the state of natural resources,
instead of the subjective criteria of evaluators, to assign vulnerability
values to environmental factors; (ii) the use of the concept of PEI, as
suggested by the Economic Commission of the United Nations for Latin

America, to classify economic activities, and which is reected in the

ImpAct.
The application of this modied qualitative method to the example
of oil exploration in Colombia has shown its overall effectiveness in
the evaluation of the importance of environmental impacts. This method is more in consonance with the characteristics of the activity as well
as the social, economic, and environmental features of the context in
which it is applied. Its enhanced objectivity reduces the risk of the manipulation of data by the evaluator and assures that major impacts will
not be unfairly eliminated.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially funded by a predoctoral grant from the
CAROLINA Foundation of Spain, the National University of Colombia
and project 07TIC-0293 nanced by the Junta de Andaluca in Spain.
References
Adger W. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World
Dev 1999;27:24969.
Amara R, Lipinski A. Some views on the use of expert judgment. Technol Forecast Soc
Change 1972;3:27989.
Androulidakis I, Karakassis I. Evaluation of the EIA system performance in Greece, using
quality indicators. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26:24256.
Barker A, Wood Ch. Evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries. Environ
Impact Assess Rev 1999;19:387404.
Becker H. Social impact assessment. Eur J Oper Res 2001;128:31121.
Beinat E, Nijkamp E, Rietvel D. Value functions for environmental pollutants: a technique
for enhancing the assessment of expert judgments. Environ Monit Assess 1994;30:
9-23.
Berry PR, Rounsevell Harrison P, Audsley E. Assessing the vulnerability of agricultural land
use and species to climate change and the role of policy in facilitating adaptation.
Environ Sci Policy 2006;9:189204.
Burdge R, Fricke P, Finsterbusch K, Freudenburg W, Gramling R, Holden A, et al. Guidelines
and principles for social impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;15:
1143.
Canter L. Manual of environmental impact assessment: techniques for the preparation
of EIS (in Spanish). 2nd ed. Bogot: McGraw-Hill; 2000.
Canter L, Sadler B. A tool kit for effective EIA practice: review of methods and perspectives on their application. A supplementary report of the international
study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment. USA: Environmental
and Ground Water Institute, University of Oklahoma, Institute of Environmental Assessment, UK, International Association for Impact Assessment; 1997
[June].
CEPAL (Organizacin de las Naciones Unidas: Comisin Econmica Para Amrica Latina y
El Caribe). La liberalizacin comercial y los acuerdos de libre comercio: perspectivas
ambientales para Centroamrica; 1999 [Mxico].
Chaytor B. The potential of environmental impact assessment procedures to enhance
public participation in trade policy decision-making. Environ Impact Assess Rev
1995;15:50715.

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Conesa V. Methodological guide for the environmental impact assessment (in Spanish).
Madrid: Mundi-Prensa Libros; 2006.
Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci
Quart 2003;84:24261.
Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of
experts. Manage Sci 1963;9:45867.
Dean B, Nishry J. Scoring and protability models for evaluating and selecting engineering
projects. Oper Res 1965;3:55069.
Dee N, Baker N. Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water
Resour Res 1973;9:52335.
Estado de Costa Rica. Decreto 318492004 por el cual se aprueba el Reglamento
General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental (EIA),
126. Costa Rica: Diario Ocial del Estado de Costa Rica (DOECosta Rica) [Ofcial
Gazette of the Costa Rican Government] 2004. p. 2-34.
Estado de Guatemala. Acuerdo 4312007 Por el cual se reglamenta la Evaluacin.
Control y Seguimiento Ambiental, 8. Guatemala: Diario Ocial del Estado de
Guatemala (DOE-Guatemala) [Ofcial Gazette of the Guatemala Government]
2007. p. 3-14.
Estado de Nicaragua. Decreto 76;2006 por el cual se aprueba el Sistema de
Evaluacin, de Impacto Ambiental, 248. Managua: Diario Ocial del Estado de
Nicaragua (DOENicaragua) [Ofcial Gazette of the Nicaraguan Government]
2006.
Duarte O. Tcnicas Difusas en la Evaluacin de Impacto Ambiental. Tesis DoctoralGranada:
Universidad de Granada; 2000.
Duarte O, Requena I, Rosario Y. Fuzzy techniques for environmental-impact assessment in the mineral deposit of Punta Gorda (Moa, Cuba). Environ Technol
2007;28:65969.
Duinker P, Beanlands G. The signicance of environmental impacts: an exploration of
the concept. Environ Manage 1986;10(1):1-10.
Filev D, Yager R. On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Set Syst 1998;94:
15769.
Fodor P, Rudas IJ. Associative aggregation functions representing different scale types.
IEEE 7th International Conference on Computational Cybernetics, November 2629.
Spain: Palma de Mallorca 2009.
Gallopn G. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global
Environ Change 2006;16:293303.
Glasson J, Salvador N. EIA in Brazil: a procedurespractice gap. A comparative study with
reference to the European Union, and especially the UK. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2000;20:191225.
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment.
3rd ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 2005.
Gmez D. Environmental impact assessment (in Spanish). 2nd ed. Madrid: Editorial
Mundi-Prensa; 2003.
Ijs A, Kuitunen MT, Jalava K. Developing the RIAM method (rapid impact assessment matrix) in the context of impact signicance assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2010;30:829.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). EIA technical manual:
general guidelines for Central America (in Spanish). San Jos: IUCN; 2003
[Available at: http://www.eia-centroamerica.org].
Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood Ch. Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and
prospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2007;27:287300.
Kamal S, Bashar A. A software tool for the creation of a typical meteorological year.
Renew Energy 2009;34:54454.
Kim KY, Ko HJ, Kim HT, Kim YS, Roh YM, Lee CM, et al. Quantication of ammonia and
hydrogen sulde emitted from pig buildings in Korea. J Environ Manage 2008;88:
195202.
Kontic B. Why are some experts more credible than others? Environ Impact Assess Rev
2000;20:42734.
Kuitunen M, Jalava K, Hirvonen K. Testing the usability of the rapid impact assessment
matrix (RIAM) method for comparison of EIA and SEA results. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 2008;28:31220.
Kvrner J, Swensen G, Erikstad L. Assessing environmental vulnerability in EIAthe
content and context of the vulnerability concept in an alternative approach to
standard EIA procedure. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2006;26:51127.
Lawrence D. Impact signicance determinationback to basics. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 2007;27:75569.
Lee Y, Altschuld J, Hsin-Ling H. Practices and challenges in educational program evaluation
in the Asia-Pacic region: results of a Delphi study. Eval Program Plann 2008;31:
36875.
Lefebvrea O, Vasudevanb N, Torrijosa M, Thanasekaranb K, Moletta A. Anaerobic digestion of
tannery soaks liquor with an aerobic post-treatment. Water Res 2006;40:1492500.
Leopold L, Clarke F, Hanshaw B, Balsley J. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Washington: circular 645, Geological Survey, United States Department of the
Interior; 1971.
Ying LG, Liu YC. A model of objective weighting for EIA. Environ Monit Assess 1995;36:
16982.
Luers A, Lobella D, Sklard L, Addamsa L, Matsona P. A method for quantifying vulnerability,
applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Glob Environ Chang
2003;13:25567.
Martnez R. Methodological proposal for the environmental impact assessment in Colombia
(in Spanish). MSc DissertationBogot (Colombia): Universidad Nacional de Colombia;
2011.
McMichael A, Campbell-Lendrum D, Corvalan C, Ebi K. Climate change and human
health: risks and responses. Washington: World Health Organization; 2003.
Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schrter D. The vulnerability of
ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006;114:6985.

19

Modak P, Biswas A. Conducting environmental impact assessment in developing countries.

Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 1999.
Nilsson C, Grelsson G. The fragility of ecosystems: a review. J Appl Ecol 1995;32:
67792.
Ortolano L, Sheperd A. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities.
Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;13:3-30.
Ortolano L, Jenkins B, Abracosa R. Speculations on when and why EIA is effective. Environ
Impact Assess Rev 1987;7:28592.
Pastakia Ch, Jensen A. The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for EIA. Environ Impact
Assess Rev 1998;18:46182.
Peche R, Rodrguez E. Environmental impact assessment by means of a procedure
based on fuzzy logic: a practical application. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2011;31:
8796.
Piedrahita R. Reducing the potential environmental impact of tank aquaculture
efuents through intensication and recirculation. Aquaculture 2003;226:
3544.
Rowe R, Street N, Taylor G. Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale
deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:27190.
Rudas IJ. New trends in information aggregation. The 27th Annual Conference of the
IEEE Industrial Electronics Society 2001.
Sadler B. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment.
Final report environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Quebec: Environmental Agency, International
Association for Impact Assessment, Minister of Supply and Services, Canada;
1996.
Smith B, Pilifosova O. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climate
Change 2002;45:22351.
Smith W, Zollner P. Sustainable management of wildlife habitat and risk of extinction.
Biol Conserv 2005;125:28795.
Smith E, McKinnis P, Tran L, O'Neill R. The effects of uncertainty on estimating the
relative environmental quality of watersheds across a region. Landscape Ecol
2008;21:22531.
Tenny A, Kvrner J, Gjerstad K. Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency. Impact Assess Proj
Apprais 2006;24:4556.
Thompson C, Schaffer J. Minimum data set development: air transport time-related
terms. Int J Med Inform 2002;65:12133.
Thomson MA. Determining impact signicance in EIA: a review of 24 methodologies.
J Environ Manage 1990;30:23550.
Toro J. Constructive analysis of the process of environmental impact assessment in
Colombia. Proposals for improvement (in Spanish). PhD DissertationGranada
(Spain): University of Granada; 2009 [Available in: http://digibug.ugr.es/handle/
10481/2330].
Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: critical
analysis and proposals for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010;30:
24761.
Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. Determining vulnerability importance in environmental impact assessment. The case of Colombia. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2012;32:10717.
Turner II B, Matson P, McCarthy J, Corell R, Christensen L, Eckley N, et al. A framework for
vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003;100:80749.
UN (United Nation), DSE (German Foundation for International Development). Mining
and the environment: the Berlin guidelines; 1992 [London].
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service). Forest roads: a synthesis
of scientic information; 2000 [Washington].
Walker B, Holling C, Carpenter S, Kinzig A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability
in socialecological systems. Ecol Soc 2004;9 [Art 5. [Online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/].
Wang Si-Yuan, Liu Jing-Shi, Yang Cun-Jian. Eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation
in the Yellow River Basin, China. Pedosphere 2008;18:17182.
Warner L, Bromley DW. Environmental impact analysis: a review of three methodologies.
Madison, Wisconsin: Water Resources Center; 1974.
Wathern P. An introductory guide to EIA. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impact
assessment: theory and practice. London: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King's Lynn
1994. p. 3-46.
Wei Y, Fan Y, Lu C, Tsai H. The assessment of vulnerability to natural disasters in
China by using the DEA method. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:42739.
Weston J. EIA in a risk society. J Environ Plann Manage 2004;47:31325.
Wood Ch. Environmental impact assessment in Victoria: Australian discretion rules EA.
J Environ Manage 1993;39:28195.
Wood Ch. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. London: Prentice Hall; 2003.
Yager R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision
making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1988;18:18390.
Yager R. On generalized Bonferroni mean operators for multi-criteria aggregation. Int J
Approximate Reasoning 2009;50:127986 [September].
Yager R. Lexicographic ordinal OWA aggregation of multiple criteria. Inf Fusion 2010;11:
37480.
Yager R, Kacprzyk J. The ordered weighted averaging operators: theory and applications.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 1997.
Yu-Chun Ch, Chia-Jui H, Williams G, Mei-Ling P. Low cost carriers' destination selection
using a Delphi method. Tour Manage 2007;29:898908.
Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965;8:33853.
Zadeh L. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems. IEEE Trans Syst
Man Cybern 1973;SMC-3(1):2844.

20

J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43 (2013) 920

Dr. Javier Toro Caldern. Associate Professor at the Institute of Environmental Studies
of the National University of Colombia at Bogot. His work is related to environmental
management, and his main research lines focus on methods of environmental impact
assessment. He has authored over thirteen publications in national journals and conference proceedings as well as two papers in international journals. Currently he is
working with the IDEA research group of the National University of Colombia, and is
directing a research project on environmental impact assessment at the Institute of
Environmental Studies.
Dr. Ignacio Requena Ramos. Professor of the Department of Computer Science and
Articial Intelligence at the University of Granada in Spain. His research is on the application of soft computing techniques to real problems, namely fuzzy techniques and
ontologies applied to Environmental Impact Assessment (fuzzy EIA, OEIA), the application of neural networks to environmental noise analysis, etc. He is author of more than
sixty publications in international journals and conference proceedings. Currently he is
working with the ARAI research group at the University of Granada, and is the director
of the research project, Intelligent Systems for the Environmental Impact Assessment
of Human Activities (SINTEIA), funded by the Andalusian Regional Government.

Dr. Montserrat Zamorano Toro. Professor of the Department of Civil Engineering (Area of
Environmental Technology) at the University of Granada in Spain. Her research focus is waste
management and Environmental Impact Assessment. She has more than twenty publications
in international journals and conference proceedings. Currently she is working with the ARAI
research group at the University of Granada and is directing the research project, Using
Biomass from Agricultural Waste in Andalusia to Produce Pellets for Domestic Thermal Application, funded by the Andalusian Regional Government.
Dr. Oscar Duarte Velasco. Associate Professor at the National University of Colombia at
Bogot. He works in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics and is a
member of the PAAS research group (Program in Signal Acquisition and Analysis). His
research is on the development of software tools based on soft computing techniques,
such as software applications for Environmental Impact Assessment, based on fuzzy
arithmetic. He is also interested in the modeling, simulation, analysis, and control of
dynamic systems.