Environmental risks, decision-making, and public perception: A case study involving environmental impact statements

The federal government prepares an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for actions which significantly affect the environment. This dissertation explores four aspects of the EIS process: (1) a broad sample of over 300 EISs from 1990 to 1995 was reviewed and categorized; (2) a survey was used to determine the public's perceptions of ecological, environmental, human health and safety, and quality-of-life impacts from EISs; (3) the relative importance that the public places on different aspects of the EIS decision-making process was assessed using a conjoint analysis; and (4) a statistical model was developed to predict litigation likelihood and EPA's rating of ElSs.; Major findings from each of these categories include: (1) Complex EISs many consequential impacts were the most likely to be litigated. EIS with many consequential impacts were likely to receive a poor rating from the EPA. Geographical region, sponsoring agency, and the publics view and concerns of generic projects were not predictive of litigation likelihood or EPA rating. (2) Models of public's perception of complex multi-attribute projects must include separate factors for positive and negative impacts associated with each dimension. Cumulative or net impact scores do not capture the underlying concerns adequately. Duration is a significant factor for describing environmental impacts. Public's perception of a project becomes more negative the more they consider it in detail. (3) People were generally consistent and were able to predict accurately the factors influencing the ranking of complex multi-attribute projects. (4) There is a high correlation between the level of impacts and both the likelihood of litigation and a poor EPA rating. Therefore, reduction of the level of impacts through feasible mitigation and thorough planning is warranted. (5) There is no single description of the public's preference towards environmental attributes. Scoping is crucial to identifying all the attitudes of the public. This scoping must include laypeople, and not just advocacy groups and technical people, as there is a significant difference in the opinions of these groups. (6) The public's view of the “environment” is very broad including visual, cultural, and noise as environmental impacts.