www.protectedareasmanagement.org www.protectedareasmanagement.org
www.protectedareasmanagement.org
 
Environmental Impact Assessment
[Everything in bold is required]
ABOUT YOU
The results of this study will be of public domain. However, the identity of the respondents will not be disclosed and their contact information will not be shared with anyone. Occasionally, with his or her permission, I may contact a respondent to ask for further clarification on any of the answers. Respondents will receive a message to acknowledge their participation.
If you wish, you may check the consent form approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary. Answering this questionnaire indicates that you agree to participate in the research.
 
Name:
 
Years of experience in this field:
 
Position:
 
Organization:
 
Country:
 
E-mail:
 
Area Code and telephone:
 
Do you want to keep the name of your organization anonymous?
 Yes  No 
 
Do you wish to remain anonymous?
 Yes  No 
 
Would you like to receive information about the results of the study?
 Yes  No 
 
[In this questionnaire, the term "park" refers to any category of protected area. I encourage you to use the spaces provided if the available options do not reflect what you wish to share and to expand on your responses.]
 
 
Which of the following best describes your field of work?
Academic
Agency staff
Consultant
Other
 
What kind of involvement have you had in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process?
Community representative
Consultant (carry out the assessment or part of it)
Expert that provides professional opinion in review panels
Proponent
Reviewer/responsible authority
Stakeholder (please specify type of interest or involvement)
Other
 
Please indicate the most recent or most relevant EIAs in which you have participated.
If you can refer to specific assessments, please fill in the blanks.
EIA 1
EIA 2
EIA 3
 
Please indicate the name(s) of the parks included in the study area of the assessments.
EIA 1
EIA 2
EIA 3
 
What was the main purpose of the assessment?
Approval for a proposed development or activity EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Evaluate the likely impacts of activities considered in the management plan EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Gather information about the state of the park and its resources for management purposes  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other:
EIA 1
EIA 2
EIA 3
 
Who was the main promoter of the assessment?
Academics EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Authorities from other government department or agency EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Consultants EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Nearby communities EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Non-Governmental organizations EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Park Agency authorities EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Park staff EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Proponent of the project or activity EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Sponsors EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Comments
 
Who had the leading role in carrying out the assessment?
Academics EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Agency authorities EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Authorities from other government department or agency EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Consultants EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Nearby communities EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Non-governmental organizations EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Park staff EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Proponent of the project or activity EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Sponsors EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
How were park staff/managers involved during the assessment process?
They authorized the assessment EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They collaborated further after delivering the final report EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They made recommendations for or against approval of the project EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They only received the final report EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They provided funding EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They provided information EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They were involved at the beginning of the assessment (planning) EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They were involved during the assessment (information gathering) EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They were involved in all the stages of the assessment (analysis or reporting) EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
They were not involved in the assessment EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Comments
 
Which of the following facilitated the assessment?
Access to technology  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Available knowledge about species or ecosystems and their response to disturbances EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Available knowledge about the park projects or the human activities potentially affecting the park EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Disposition of park or agency authorities EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Expertise of consultants or researchers involved EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Funding  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Legal requirements EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Staff availability  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Staff skills  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Stakeholders’ support EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Comments
 
What were the main obstacles to completing the assessment? Please comment on this points if possible.
Complex legal requirements  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Inadequate staff skills  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Insufficient expertise of consultants or researchers involved  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Insufficient knowledge about species or ecosystems and their response to disturbances  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Insufficient knowledge about the characteristics of the park projects or human use potentially affecting the park EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of funding  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of staff availability  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of stakeholders’ support  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Limited access to technology  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Limited collaboration or support from park or agency authorities  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Comments
 
Please indicate one of more choices about each component of the assessment(s)
Study area
Included all or part of a park (political boundaries) EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Was defined by ecosystem boundaries (the great ecosystem that contains the park) EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Was the estimated area of influence of a proposed development EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Was the full extent of a park  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Information
It conducted studies to produce required information about the ecosystems or valued ecosystem components EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It relied on available information  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Scope
It considered more than one spatial scale EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It considered more than one temporal scale EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It described the environment EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It evaluated cumulative effects on the park EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It evaluated cumulative effects on the region EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It evaluated the likely impacts of an specific project or activity EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It evaluated the likely impacts of more than one project or activity EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It evaluated the state of the environment  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Analysis
It included economic factors EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It included environmental/ecological factors EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It included social factors EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It included sustainability considerations EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It included visual factors EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It made predictions about the significance of the possible impacts EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It provided estimates of the uncertainty associated with the prediction of impacts EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It provided recommendations for follow-up of mitigation measures EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It provided recommendations to mitigate environmental impacts EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
Did the assessment specifically evaluate cumulative effects?
 Yes  No 
 
If yes, what motivated the evaluation of cumulative effects?
Interest of consultant/researcher EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Interest of park authorities EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Interest of proponent EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Interest of the public EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Legal requirement EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
If cumulative effects were not evaluated, why not?
Available information was insufficient EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Budget constraints EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It was not required EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of access to technology EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of skills EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Time constraints EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Comments
 
In your opinion, which of the following aspects were properly addressed by the assessment(s)?
Consideration of different spatial scales (e.g. park/local, greater ecosystem, region)  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Consideration of different temporal scales (e.g. short, medium and long term effects)  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Description of the project or activity  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Description of the study area  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Determination of the significance of expected effects  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Generation of new knowledge/ contribution to best practice of EIA  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Identification and analysis of likely cumulative effects  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Identification and analysis of likely direct effects  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Level of confidence in predictions EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Quantification of the magnitude of expected effects  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Selection of Valued Ecosystem Components or indicators  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Usefulness of recommendations and/or mitigation measures for controlling likely impacts or for decision-making  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
If the project was not approved, what do you think the reason was?
Changes in the priorities of the proponent EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Flaws in the project proposal EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Insufficient information to make the decision  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Pressure from stakeholders or the public EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Problems with funding EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
The assessment showed that there would be significant impacts, which would be difficult to mitigate EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
If the project was approved and mitigation measures or recommendations were considered, approximately what percentage of them was implemented and/or had follow up?
Do not know EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
None  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
1 to 25%  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
26 to 50%  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
51 to 75%  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
76 to 99% EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
100% EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
To your knowledge, what were the main reasons for not implementing the mitigation measures or recommendations?
Implementation of recommendations or measures was not required for the authorization  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Inadequate staff skills EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
It was not specified who was responsible for implementing the measures or recommendations EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of funding EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Lack of support or involvement from stakeholders or the public  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Limited access to technology EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Limited staff availability EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Political reasons  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Recommendations or measures were considered to be not specific enough EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Recommendations or mitigation measures were considered to be inappropriate or inadequate to control impacts EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Recommendations or mitigation measures were considered to be not economically feasible EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Recommendations or mitigation measures were considered to be not technically feasible EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
The person or entity that should be responsible for the implementation of measures did not comply  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
Do you think that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Cumulative Effects Assessments (CEA) are effectively used as a tool to improve management of parks and natural resources?
Yes, both
Only EIA
Only CEA
No
Why?
 
Which of the following factors could have helped to improve the usefulness of the EIA?
Access to technology for consultants  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Access to technology for staff in charge of reviewing assessments  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Adequacy of legislation  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Consideration of social, economic and environmental factors and trade-offs  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Consultations with stakeholders  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Coordination between government agencies  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Objectivity in the evaluation process  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Quality of the reports  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Resolution of disagreements between different laws EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Training for consultants  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Training for staff in charge of reviewing assessments EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Usefulness of the reports for decision-making  EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
Other   EIA 1  EIA 2  EIA 3 
 
Based on your experience and / or knowledge, what would you suggest to improve the usefulness of environmental assessments as management tools for protected areas?
 
Please use this space if you have additional comments or if you would like to comment on any aspect that you think is related to this topic and was not covered by this questionaire.
 
Please, use this link if you would like to give me some feedback on this questionnaire