Abstract
Along with the invention of the future, as something we can know and do better about, and the invention of the public, as distinct from the electorate, the invention of the environment as an object of generalized social concern distinguishes the intellectual history of the 1960s. These three converge in the analytical and institutional system of environmental impact assessment (EIA), a major social innovation of the 1970s usually thought to have originated in the United States. Futurism enters in the prediction of future environments and environmental problems, and the conditions which will likely result from a proposed environmental modification. The public (or publics) enter as active participants in the formulation of environmental issues and the expression of environmental concerns. EIA is a rational means of systematically relating these conditions and concerns in a process of collective decision and action. This chapter reviews why EIA was introduced, when it is undertaken, and whether it is achieving its objectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Easton, R. Black Tide: The Santa Barbara Oil Spill and I’ts Consequences (New York, New York: Delacorte, 1972 ).
Worster, D. Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1979 ).
Carson, R. Silent Spring (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1962 ).
Talbot, A.R. Power Along the Hudson: The Storm King Case… and the Birth of Environmentalism (New York, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1972 ).
Anderson, F.R. NEPA in the Courts: A Legal Analysis of the National Environmental Policy Act (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973 ).
Wandesforde-Smith, G. “The evolution of environmental impact assessment in California”, pp. 47 - 76 in T. O’Riordan and W.R.D. Sewell, eds. Project Appraisal and Policy Review (New York, New York: John Wiley, 1981 ).
Catalano, R. and R. Reich. “Local government and the environmental impact assessment process”. Urban Lawyer 9(1977)185–207
Lucas, A.R. “Legal foundations for public participation in environmental decision-making”. Natural Resources Journal 16 (1976) 73–102.
McDonald, T.M. “The relationship between substantive and procedural review under NEPA: A case study of SCRAP v. U.S.” Environmental Affairs 4 (1975)157–178.
Lake, L.M., ed. Environmental Mediation: The Search for Consensus (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1980 ).
Liroff, R.A. Air Pollution Offsets: Trading, Selling and Banking ( Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980 ).
Komarov, B. The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union (White Plains, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1980 ).
Crenson, Matthew A. The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971 ).
Buttel, F.H. and W.L. Flinn. “The politics of environmental concern: The impacts of party identification and political 39 ideology on environmental attitudes”. Environment and Behaviour 10(1978)17–36.
Neuhaus, R. In Defense of People (New York, New York: Macmillan, 1971 ).
Sills, D.L. “The environmental movement and its critics”. Human Ecology 3(1975)1–41.
Council on Environmental Quality.Public Opinion on Environmental Issues: Results of a National Public Opinion Survey ( Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980 ).
McHarg, I.L. Design With Nature (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971 ).
Harvey, D. “Social processes, spatial form and the redistribution of real income in an urban system”, pp. 296-337 in 40 Appraisal and Policy Review (New York, New York: John Wiley, 1981 ).
Pattison, E.S. “The key ecological unknown”. Technology Review 76(1974)4.
U.S. Senate. Policies, standards and procedures in the formulation, evaluation and review of plans for use and development of water and related land resources, Document No. 97 ( Washington, C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962 ).
Wolf, C.P. “Getting social impact assessment into the policy arena”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1(1980)27–36.
Darling, F.F. and J.P. Milton, eds. Future Environments of North America: Transformation of a Continent (Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, 1966 ).
Council on Environmental Quality and Department of State. The Global 2000 Report, 3 volumes. ( Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980 ).
Schindler, D.W. The impact statement boondoggle. Science 192(4239)(1976)509
Caldwell, L.K. et al. Citizens and the Environment: Case Studies in Popular Action (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1976 ).
Fairfax, S.K. and H.M. Ingram. “The United States experience”, pp. 29-45 in T. 0TRiordan and W.R.D. Sewell, eds. Project
Bisset, R. “Quantification, decision-making and environmental impact assessment in the United Kingdom”. Journal of Environmental Management 7(1978)43–58.
Matzke, G. et al. An Examination of the Moral Dilemmas of University Scientists Participating in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (Stillwater, Oklahoma: Department of Geography, Oklahoma State University, 1977 ).
Weinberg, A. “Science and trans-science”. Minerva 10(1972) 209–222. M. Steward, ed. The City: Problems of PIanning. ( Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin, 1972 ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolf, C.P. (1983). The U.S. Model of Environmental Impact Assessment. In: Environmental Impact Assessment. NATO ASI Series, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6795-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6795-3_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6797-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6795-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive