FORUM
The Significance of Environmental Impacts:
an Exploration of the Concept
PETER N. DUINKER*
GORDON E. BEANLANDS**
Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 3E2, Canada
ABSTRACT / Since environmental impact assessment (EIA)
is concerned primarily with significant environmental im-
pacts, the concept of impact significance deserves to be de-
fined and applied rigorously. In this article use of the term
over the past 15 years in EIA documentation is reviewed.
Some recent attempts at elucidating the concept are sum-
marized. Four perspectives on impact significance that
emerged from a series of workshops on the ecological basis
for EIA are presented. These perspectives include (a) statis-
Few persons would argue against the notion that
environmental impact assessment (EIA) is concerned
primarily with significant environmental impacts. In-
deed, the question of the significance of human-~in -
duced perturbations in the natural environment con-
stitutes the very heart of EIA. From any perspective--
technical, conceptual, or philosophical--the focus of
EIA ultimately narrows down to a judgment call: Are
the predicted impacts significant?
Use of the term significant with respect to environ-
mental impacts has been common ever since EIA had
its beginnings some 15 years ago. The term has ap-
peared frequently in impact assessment legislation, in
policy and procedure documents, in guidelines for the
preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS),
in EISs themselves, and in the journal literature on EIA
topics. While some headway has been made in defining
and qualifying the term, much work in this respect re-
mains to be done. All too often, no meaning is apparent
KEY W9 Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Environmental
impact significance; Environmental impact criteria; EIA
guidelines; Environmental impact statement (EIS)
*Current address: Faculty of Forestry, University of New Brunswick,
Bag Service No. 44555, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada E3B
6C2.
**Current address: Director of Research, Federal Environmental As-
sessment Review Office, 1312 Robie Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada B3H 3E2.
Environmental Management Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-10
tical (related to problems of isolating project-induced
changes from natural variation), (b) ecological (related to the
importance of project-induced changes from a purely eco-
logical perspective), (c) social (related to the acceptability of
project-induced changes in important environmental attrib-
utes), and (d) project (related to whether project-induced
changes will indeed influence project decision making). The
following synthesis is proposed: Any exercise in judging the
significance of an environmental impact should thoroughly
consider (a) the importance of the environmental attribute in
question to project decision makers, (2) the distribution of
change in time and space, (c) the magnitude of change,
and (d) the reliability with which change has been predicted
or measured. The implications of considering these factors
are discussed.
where significant has been used, or the meanings pro-
vided are broad, vague, and/or ambiguous.
The concepts discussed below are in part based on
the results of a major research project on the ecological
basis for EIA (Beanlands and Duinker 1983). Begin-
ning in July 1980, the two-year study was undertaken
at the Institute for Resource and Environmental
Studies of Dalhousie University, and was funded by the
government of Canada, the university, and industry.
The main objective of the study was to determine the
extent to which the science of ecology could contribute
more effectively to the design and conduct of impact
assessment studies, and to recommend ways in which
this could be achieved. The major investigative activity
of the project was a series of ten technical workshops
held across Canada in 1981. Each workshop was at-
tended by approximately 15 EIA experts from federal
and provincial governments, industry, universities, and
consulting firms. These participants were asked,
among other things, to describe a "significant environ-
mental impact" from their own perspectives.
Because our workshops were concerned primarily
with the problems and opportunities associated with
undertaking ecological studies for EIA, the coverage of
this paper is qualified as being from the viewpoint of
impact analysts. We have not dealt with significance
from the viewpoint of government agencies which ad-
minister EIA procedures, where significance is espe-
cially important in decisions on whether a development
proposal should be subjected to some type of advanced,
formal environmental assessment. In this respect, it
9 1986 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
2 p.N. Duinker and G. E. Beanlands
may be helpful to examine the three-stage paradigm of
environmental assessment proposed by Gordon and
Longhurst (1979). In this approach, the first stage is
called the concern stage, where the public, special interest
groups, and/or the scientific and planning communities
express, on the basis of intuition or educated guess,
concerns that a proposed development may result in
undesirable environmental changes. The second stage,
called the issue stage, is reached when qualified persons
have examined the concerns and confirmed the sus-
picions that adverse effects are likely to occur. Finally,
the impact stage is one of considerable research and anal-
ysis resulting in specific impact predictions that can be
considered in project decision making. In this staged
scheme, it is likely that not all concerns will develop
into issues, and not all issues will require specific pre-
dictions of impact.
Using this approach as a guide, we suggest that EIA
agencies, in deciding on the level of formal assessment
for any development proposal, are concerned primarily
with significance as it relates to either concerns or is-
sues, whereas those who actually undertake and review
detailed impact investigations are concerned with "im-
pact" significance. In the discussions that follow, we will
devote most of our attention to the latter, both in re-
porting on workshop discussions and in suggesting a
framework for future applications of the concept.
Following a review of the use of the term significant
in various types of EIA documents, and a synopsis of
some recent developments in defining the term, the
article delves into four basic perspectives on impact sig-
nificance as discussed at the workshops. A statement is
then presented which could provide a suitable basis for
further elaboration of the concept, or even a basis for
developing specific criteria for impact significance. Fi-
nally, the technical implications of adopting the state-
ment as a framework for significance are discussed.
The Use of Significant in EIA Documentation
Let us examine the use of the term significant in
various types of documentation, mostly of Canadian
origin, related to EIA. In all quotes below, the emphasis
on the terms significant and significance has been added.
EIA Legislation
An examination of the legislative bases of certain
EIA processes reveals the importance of the meaning
of significant early in the processes. For example, in the
US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, the legendary Section 102(C) reads: All agencies
of the Federal Government shall . . . (c) Include in
every recommendation or report on proposals forleg-
islation and other major Federal actions significantly af-
fecting the quality of the human environment, a de-
tailed statement by the responsible official o n . . . " (US
Congress 1970). As another example, consider the En-
vironmental Assessment Act of the province of New-
foundland and Labrador in Canada: " 'Undertaking'
means any enterprise, activity, project, structure, work,
policy, proposal, plan or program that may, in the
opinion of the Minister, have a significant environ-
mental impact . . . " (Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador 1980). It is evident from these examples
that, as depicted by legislation, the judgment of the
significance of impacts resulting from an "action" or
"undertaking" takes place early in the process to decide
whether a full EIA should be undertaken, and depends
on the informed judgment of decision makers and
their advisors.
EIA Policy and Information Documents
In a number of political jurisdictions, EIA proce-
dures have been established as a matter of policy rather
than legislation. The term significant is used frequently
in official documents describing such policies. For ex-
ample, for the Canadian Federal Environmental As-
sessment and Review Process (EARP), a guide to the
process (FEARO 1979) states: "Activities with poten-
tially significant environmental effects are submitted to
the Minister of the Environment for formal review by
an Environmental Assessment Panel." At the provincial
level, consider the policy statement of the government
of New Brunswick (Washburn 1975): "Some criteria
might be (a) will the natural, physical or aesthetic en-
vironment be significantly altered? (b) will there be sig-
nificant social or economic effects on a community or
r e g i o n ? . . . " Finally, another provincial EIA policy doc-
ument (Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and
Environmental Management, undated) reads as fol-
lows: "Environmental assessments are (to be) carried
out for all proposed provincial projects that may sig-
nificantly alter or affect the e n v i r o n m e n t . . . " These
documents, like legislative writings, call for a judgment
of significance before an EIA has been undertaken for
a development proposal.
EIA Guidelines
Most EIA procedures call for the provision of guide-
lines from the assessment agency to the development
proponent for the preparation of an EIS. Such guide-
lines are often generic (that is, they apply to general
classes of projects such as hydroelectric developments),
or alternatively they are project-specific. Guidelines
usually make liberal use of the term significant. For ex-
ample, EIA guidelines issued by the government of

Alberta (Alberta Environment 1977) state: "The pur-
pose of the (EIA) report is to . . . facilitate the early
identification and resolution of potentially significant
adverse environmental effects of proposed resource
development." In project-specific guidelines issued
under EARP (Slave River Hydroelectric Power Devel-
opment Environmental Assessment Panel 1982), the
proponent is advised to place "emphasis on those ele-
ments that are likely to be significantly affected."
Environmental Impact Statements
Since it is in EISs that specific impacts are predicted,
one would expect to find more careful use of the term
significant. Yet equally vague usage continues here, just
as in guidelines and procedural documents. The fol-
lowing are statements drawn from Canadian EISs that
bear no definition for significance:
Movements and activities at the drill site will have no significant impact
on other marine bird species in the area. (Martec 1980)
The impact of m u d disposal will be insignificant... (Imperial Oil Ltd.
and others 1978)
Mine noise and the construction of a mine service road across some
of the "migration" trails could have a significant impact on Caribou
should they migrate in numbers through the area again. (Beak Con-
sultants Ltd. 1979)
Recommendation and Decision Documents
Under EARP, the reports of Environmental Assess-
ment Panels to the federal minister of environment are
public documents. They summarize the predicted ef-
fects of a proposed development as well as the review
of those predictions, and contain recommendations to
the minister. In so doing, these reports often contained
undefined references to impact significance. For ex-
ample:
The conclusion of the Panel is that the project can be constructed and
operated with acceptable environmental disturbance and no significant
residual environmental impact. (Banff Highway Environmental As-
sessment Panel 1979)
Cleaning of the reservoir beyond the perimeter area would not have
a significant overall environmental benefit. (Lower Churchill Environ-
mental Assessment Panel 1980)
Recent Developments in the Concept
There have been several recent initiatives in North
America aimed at bringing some order to the concept
of impact significance. In 1975, a workshop was con-
vened by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission on
the subject of the biological significance of environ-
mental impacts (Sharma and others 1976). One of the
workshop's tangible outcomes was a definition of im-
Environmental Impacts 3
pact significance that reportedly represented the con-
sensus of the participants:
An impact is significant if it results in a change that is measurable in
a statistically sound sampling program and if it persists, or is expected
to persist, more than several years at the population, community, or
ecosystem level. (Buffington 1976)
Also at that workshop, a paper was presented in
which another definition of impact significance was of-
fered. That definition reads:
A significant adverse impact on a biological system can be operation-
ally defined as an adverse impact which justifies rejection of a project
or a change in its site, design, or mode of operation. (Christensen and
others 1976)
Andrews and others (1977), in their report on EIA
to the Institute of Ecology, set forth a number of cri-
teria that should be incorporated into a context for
determining the significance of environmental impacts.
These criteria include:
(1) Magnitude of the impact.
(2) Spatial extent of the impact.
(3) Duration of the impact.
(4) Probability of occurrence of the impact.
(5) Confidence in the impact prediction.
(6) The existence of "set values" (e.g., air or water
quality standards).
(7) The controversy surrounding the development
proposal.
Elliott (1981) wrote of the difficulties of making
sense of the many and disparate impact variables when
preparing EISs that are to be useful to decision makers.
He gave the name amalgamation to the process of com-
bining many variables into a few evaluative impact in-
dices. Amalgamation consists basically of two elements:
(a) the appropriate scaling of the magnitude of impacts
so that combination of different variables is meaningful
and mathematically consistent, and (b) weighting of the
variables so that each contributes to the impact in-
dex in proportion to its relative importance. Two cate-
gories of approaches were proposed for dealing with
weighting. The first assigns absolute priority to any
variable that can be considered as an immutable con-
straint (e.g., a water quality standard), so that certain
project alternatives can be "screened" out of the set of
feasible alternatives if they are predicted to exceed the
constraint. This is akin to the initial results of applying
a linear programming model to the decision problem.
The second category involves weighting the remaining
impact variables as indicated in (b) above. Although
4 P.N. Duinker and G, E. Beanlands
Elliott spoke of weighting in this m a n n e r as j u d g i n g
impact significance, it appears m o r e appropriate to call
this variable or attribute significance (the distinction
should become clear below).
Over the past five years, a n u m b e r of EIAs in
Canada have begun to classify the significance of pre-
dicted impacts on a four-step scale using the descriptors
major, moderate, minor, and negligible. While the classifi-
cation has not normally specified the link between these
categories of impact and the decision-making process,
the categories have been defined predominantly on an
ecological basis. T h e classification first a p p e a r e d in the
assessment of exploratory hydrocarbon drilling in the
South Davis Strait (Imperial Oil Ltd. and others 1978).
T h e category definitions are presented in Table 1. T h e
definitions include considerations of (a) the proportion
of a population or species affected, (b) the ability of the
population or species to recover, (c) the n u m b e r of gen-
erations before recovery takes place, and (d) the sub-
sistence or commercial importance of the population
or species. Subsequent EIAs for major resource devel-
opments in Canada have adapted and used this classi-
fication of impact significance (e.g., D o m e Petroleum
Ltd. and others 1982). A particularly noteworthy ex-
ample is the E I A for the Midwest Project, a proposed
u r a n i u m mine development in northern Saskatchewan
(Canada Wide Mines Ltd. 1981). In this assessment, the
four categories of the classification scheme for impact
significance were uniquely defined for impacts on air
quality, terrestrial habitat, wildlife, historical resources,
terrestrial contaminants, hydraulic regimes, water
quality, and aquatic habitat.
T h e Federal Environmental Assessment Review Of-
rice (FEARO), the agency of the g o v e r n m e n t of Canada
which administers EARP, is currently developing a po-
sition d o c u m e n t on the significance of impacts in re-
lation to EIAs conducted u n d e r the federal policy
(Wolf 1983). An important conclusion of this initiative
is that "significance" is relativistic and always must be
set in a context. Examples o f factors to be considered
in such a context include (a) competition for resources,
(b) environmental sensitivity, (c) social sensitivity, and
(d) the scale and rate of development. Arising from
this work at FEARO is the following preliminary,
working definition of a significant impact:
A significant impact is one where anticipated future conditions, en-
vironmental or social, resulting from a proposed action differ from
those otherwise expected from normal change, and where this antic-
ipation raises serious concerns among a professional or lay section of
the Canadian public.
Four Perspectives on Impact Significance
T h e majority of the participants at o u r workshops
Table 1. Criteria used to rate impacts in the
environmental impact assessment of exploratory
hydrocarbon drilling in the Davis Strait region.
Major impact
Affects an entire population or species in sufficient mag-
nitude to cause a decline in abundance and/or change in
distribution beyond which natural recruitment (reproduc-
tion, immigration from unaffected areas) would not return
that population or species, or any population or species
dependent upon it, to its former level within several gen-
erations. May also affect a subsistence or commercial re-
source use to the degree that the well-being of the user is
affected over a long term.
Moderate impact
Affects a portion of a population and may bring about a
change in abundance and/or distribution over one or more
generations, but does not threaten the integrity of that pop-
ulation or any population dependent upon it. A short-term
effect upon the well-being of resource users may also con-
stitute a moderate impact.
Minor impact
Affects a specific group of localized individuals within a
population over a short time period (one generation or
less), but does not affect other trophic levels or the popu-
lation itself.
Negligible
Any impacts below the minor category are considered neg-
ligible.
Source: Imperial Oil Limited and others (1978).
were professionals active in E I A either as impact ana-
lysts (those who plan and conduct studies) or as re-
viewers (those who review the results). As mentioned
earlier, the participants were asked to describe a "sig-
nificant impact" related to their own disciplines. In the
earlier workshops (spring of 1981), the discussions were
relatively undirected, resulting in a very broad spec-
t r u m of responses. T h e s e responses were then analyzed
so that the later workshops (autumn of 1981) could be
presented with a preliminary synthesis as a basis for
discussion. Before presenting the synthesis, we will ex-
amine in detail four perspectives on impact significance
as they e m e r g e d f r o m our early analyses of the work-
shop proceedings.
A Statistical Perspective
T h e statistical interpretation of impact significance
represents a relatively value-free approach based on
isolating h u m a n - i n d u c e d changes (i.e., impacts) f r o m
natural variation. Thus, the focus is on detecting statis-
tically significant differences in project-affected vari-
ables before and after project initiation.
T h e adoption of this perspective has important im-
plications for E I A studies. At a very general level, it
implies (a) measurement to test for change, (b) an ade-

quate quantitative knowledge of conditions both before
(the baseline) and after (the so-called monitoring)
project initiation, and (c) the use of acceptable statistical
procedures for data analysis.
More specifically, the concept of statistical signifi-
cance can be reduced to a consideration of the proba-
bilities of making errors when testing hypotheses with
statistical techniques. For impact assessment studies, we
might define the conventional types I and II statistical
errors in the following w a y - - t h e false conclusion that
there is an impact is a type I error, and the false con-
clusion that there is no impact is a type II error (Barnt-
house 1982). Environmental scientists routinely set the
probability of committing a type I error, denoted a, at
a very low level. However, equally important but almost
always ignored in environmental studies is the proba-
bility of committing a type II error, denoted 13 (Zar
1976). Obviously, ignoring 13, and thus the chances of
erroneously concluding that no impact has occurred,
can be a dangerous oversight. From basic statistical
principles, we know that the ability of a statistical test
to detect differences of a given magnitude (termed its
power and defined as 1 - 13)is directly related to sample
size, n. The relationships among ~x, 13, and n are such
that a decrease in 13 (and consequently an increase in
power) can be obtained through either (a) increasing
or, or (b) increasing n, in which case a can also be re-
duced if necessary (Green 1979). Since sampling design
is under the control of the investigators, within the re-
sources and time available, it becomes clear that both
types of statistical errors should be carefully considered
when dealing with the concept of statistical significance.
A number of workshop participants stressed the im-
portance of taking account of trends in important vari-
ables, rather than specific, short-term shifts outside of
historically defined limits. Such trends may be caused
by the project being examined, or may be occurring
independent of that project (e.g., the increased acidity
of lakes over large areas as a result of acid deposition).
Such trends are particularly important in the context
of control areas for EIA studies, as reviewed by Eber-
hardt (1976).
Bernstein and Zalinski (1983) have summarized well
the role of statistical significance in EIA studies. In their
words:
The environmental biologist and/or resource manager should esti-
mate, before the impact occurs, what in his j u d g m e n t constitutes a
biologically significant impact, and then design a sampling program
which has a specified probability (power) of detecting this change at
a given level of statistical significance. Only when the probabilities of
making both type I and II erors are made explicit is it possible to make
an informed decision concerning the worth of proposed impact
studies.
Environmental Impacts 5
An Ecological Perspective
This is probably the most difficult interpretation of
impact significance on which to develop a consensus.
There was no general agreement at our workshops on
a definition for significant environmental impact from
a purely ecological perspective. Proposed definitions
have ranged from specific concerns such as loss of crit-
ical breeding habitat, local extinction of species, and
reduction in primary productivity, to more general but
less definitive concerns including loss of ecosystem sta-
bility, exceeding tolerance limits, and reduction in as-
similative capacity. Most of these definitions contain in-
herent value judgments, or require the existence of
some nonbiological standard against which to interpret
the severity of the impact.
There are, however, some underlying themes that
were advanced as fundamental to a consideration of
ecological significance. First, it may be argued that eco-
systems have no intrinsic value; they are ascribed a
value in the context of the extent to which they are
used or required by man. Admittedly, this may be an
overly restrictive view of ecological significance. Yet, the
conservation ethic expressed by the general public in
the environmental impact assessment process can most
often be traced to a concern for the continued welfare
or survival of people.
The second major theme relates ecological signifi-
cance to the irretrievable loss of ecosystem components
within specified time and space boundaries. Examples
of this, in increasing biological importance, include the
loss of a population, a reduction in genetic variability
(gene pool), or the loss of a species. As Cooper and
Zedler (1980) noted, the destruction of a population
can result in the loss of genetic materia! that may have
great survival value for the species or that may have
great value in plant or animal breeding and improve-
ment. Time and space limitations must be imposed to
separate human-induced losses from normal evolu-
tionary processes. Embodied in this theme is the notion
of stewardship of nature which philosophically may be
contradictory to the theme that ecosystems have no in-
trinsic value.
Unlike the loss of a gene pool or a species, which is
absolute, the significance of the "loss" of a particular
population must be qualified according to certain time
boundaries. Such time frames (recovery times) are
seldom discussed in any detail in environmental impact
studies.
The loss of a population or species may imply an
irreversible change in the structure of an ecosystem;
however, as pointed out by Buffington and others
(1980), "It is not certain how many species can be lost,
nor how their role can be replaced by species already
6 P.N. Duinker and G. E, Beanlands
in the community picking up the function, without
risking collapse of a community." This idea of the func-
tional integrity of an ecosystem was raised by a number
of workshop participants as another interpretation of
an ecologically significant impact. However, the con-
cept of function often implies the organization of spe-
cies at the more complex community and ecosystem
levels, and, not surprisingly, discussions relating impact
significance to changes in ecosystem functioning were
often couched in generalities such as a disruption of
the food chain, a simplification of complex systems, or
changes in assimilative capacity.
There was some general support for the idea that
impacts which result in irreversible reductions in
primary productivity (the concentration of energy
through the production of organic material) should be
considered as potentially significant since such reduc-
tions represent an erosion of one of the primary life-
support systems for species at higher trophic levels.
Some of the literature on the biological significance of
impacts (e.g., Longley 1979) also reflects this focus on
reduction in primary productivity. Unfortunately, nei-
ther the literature nor the workshop participants pro-
vided any guidance on how rigorously this definition
should be applied; for example, is any reduction in pri-
mary productivity to be considered as significant? Cer-
tainly in marine and aquatic systems primary produc-
tivity, as controlled by algal populations, is so variable
under natural conditions that only gross human-in-
duced changes can be detected (Anonymous 1975). It
seems clear, however, that a reduction in primary pro-
ductivity is one area in which the effects of incremental
losses are to be guarded against, especially as they may
affect the functioning of aquatic ecosystems.
A Social Perspective
Any consideration of the significance of environ-
mental effects must acknowledge that environmental
impact assessment is inherently an anthropocentric
concept. It is centered on the effects of human activities
and ultimately involves a value judgment by society of
the significance or importance of these effects. Such
judgments, often based on social and economic criteria,
reflect the political reality of impact assessment in
which significance is translated into public acceptability
and desirability. Some authors (e.g., Andrews 1973,
and Buffington and others 1980) preferred to separate
the concept of significance of impacts from public ac-
ceptability, while others such as Longley (1979) and
Cooper and Zedler (1980) equated the two. In the
words of Longley (1979), "Significance is a determi-
nation that links estimations of magnitude made by im-
pact assessment analysts with environmental policies."
In this context, the ecological implications of a pro-
posed development usually get translated into effects
on physical and biotic resources valued by people for
commercial, recreational, or aesthetic purposes. From
the perspective of an ecologist, more profound changes
to the intrinsic structure and function of natural sys-
tems may be involved, but their significance will likely
be evaluated by the public in terms of the implications
for such resources. In effect, ecologists involved in en-
vironmental impact assessment are often required to
extend their interpretation of impacts beyond the limits
of professional interest and to emphasize those envi-
ronmental attributes perceived by society to be impor-
tant.
There emerged from the workshops a number of
ideas concerning the public perception of environ-
mental values and their influence in the EIA process.
These can be characterized as follows:
(1) The first concern of the public with respect to
environmental matters is human health and
safety. All other concerns are subordinate when
human health is in jeopardy as a result of pro-
posed development.
(2) The general public will have a great concern for
potential losses of important commercial species
or commercially available production. The reverse
would hold true regarding an increase in the num-
bers of undesirable species.
(3) Society can be expected to place a high priority on
species of major recreational or aesthetic impor-
tance, independent of whether they support com-
mercial activities of any consequence.
(4) Special interest groups will usually gain broad
public support in their concern for rare or endan-
gered species on the basis that humans have spe-
cial custodial responsibilities regarding their pres-
ervation.
(5) Next to the direct impacts on valued species, the
public can normally be expected to be concerned
over the loss of habitat as it represents a foreclo-
sure on future production even if the habitat is
not currently being utilized to capacity.
(6) In all of the above cases, public concern will be
heightened in relation to perceived imbalances be-
tween supply and demand of species or habitats
within a local, regional or national context.
Although some workshop participants felt that this
anthropocentric focus compromised their professional
contribution to EIA, there was a consensus that, ulti-
mately, impacts would be measured on the yardstick of
human values. Any comprehensive definition of a sig-

nificant impact with respect to environmental assess-
ment must reflect this value judgment.
A Project Perspective
Both the workshops and the literature have sug-
gested that impacts of any magnitude can be deemed
insignificant if they are not considered in making
project-related decisions. This perspective arises from
one of the main objectives of EIA, namely, to present
relevant ecological information for consideration in
project planning. This brings the judgment of impact
significance into the decision-making arena (corporate,
judicial, or political), and in a sense depends on the
outcome of considering the statistical, ecological, and
social perspectives. In other words, if an impact rep-
resents a statistically significant change in a socially or
ecologically important attribute, then presumably the
impact would be considered significant from a project
perspective and would be taken into account when de-
ciding upon project acceptability, site, design, opera-
tion, and so on.
A Proposed Synthesis
For any particular EIA, the development of criteria
for judging impact significance should take place veU
early in the planning stages of the assessment. To place
this in the context of the overall results of the EIA
research project (Beanlands and Duinker 1983), a set
of six so-called requirements for organizing and con-
ducting ecological impact studies has been proposed.
The adoption of these requirements should prove to
be instrumental in (a) fostering a more rigorous sci-
entific approach to EIA studies, (b) encouraging an ef-
fective assessment planning exercise in advance of ex-
pensive field studies, and (c) reducing our past and
current penchant to study everything by redirecting
limited time and resources to important issues. Briefly,
an EIA should be required to:
(1) Identify a set of "valued ecosystem components"
as a focus for the assessment studies.
(2) Define a context within which the significance of
changes in the valued ecosystem components can
be determined.
(3) Show clear spatial and temporal boundaries and
resolution for the assessment.
(4) Develop explicit strategies for investigating inter-
actions between the-project and the valued eco-
system components.
(5) State impact predictions explicitly and show the
basis from which they were derived.
Environmental Impacts 7
(6) Demonstrate and detail a commitment to a well-
defined plan for monitoring project effects.
The significance of impacts is the subject of the
second of the six proposed requirements. Undoubt-
edly, grappling with this matter is a very difficult task,
especially if it involves several parties who must coop-
eratively develop the specific criteria. Nevertheless, as
Bernstein and Zalinski (1983) pointed out, it is expe-
dient to do so in advance of designing and conducting
impact studies, in the field or laboratory. Otherwise, a
risk is run of undertaking studies that examine unim-
portant environmental attributes, address ill-defined
hypotheses and thus remain inconclusive, or examine
appropriate attributes but over inappropriate time and
space scales.
The following statement is our synthesis of the
workshop discussions on impact significance as aug-
mented by the literature. The statement is offered as a
beginning point for developing specific criteria for sig-
nificance for individual EIAs.
Any exercisein judging the significanceof an environmentalimpact
should thoroughlyconsider (a) the importanceof the environmental
attribute in question to project decision makers, (b) the distribution
of change in time and space, (c) the magnitude of change, and (d)
the reliabilitywith which change has been predictedor measured.
Implications of Adopting the Statement
This statement holds a number of implications for
the impact analyst who adopts it as a basic framework
for impact significance. T h e following discussion out-
lines what these implications are.
Importance of EnvironmentalAttributes
Any information collected or predictions made
which have little relevance to project decisions are in-
consequential to the EIA of that project. In adopting
our framework for impact significance, the impact an-
alyst should judiciously concentrate assessment efforts
and funds on environmental attributes that are ex-
pected to have a bearing on project planning and that
will be issues in the public forum.
This is not to say that the scientific and environ-
mental planning communities should not add profes-
sional concerns to the public debate. It may be argued
that they have a duty to do so. As pointed out by a
number of workshop participants, scientists and other
professionals have special knowledge and insight which
may allow them to recognize potential impacts of im-
portance to society that might go unnoticed by the gen-
eral public.
8 P.N. Duinker and G. E. Beanlands
It may be more scientifically expedient to examine
"surrogate" or "proxy" environmental components
which can indicate the state of the variable of interest.
However, those designing assessment studies must con-
stantly remind themselves that predictions and rec-
ommendations in impact assessment reports will have
the greatest influence on project decisions if they re-
flect a focus on changes in valued ecosystem compo-
nents.
Distribution in Time and Space
The statement points out the need to establish tem-
poral and spatial boundaries, and resolution within
those boundaries, when considering the significance of
an impact. A discussion of the various factors appro-
priate for setting such boundaries is beyond the scope
of this article (see Beanlands and Duinker 1983); the
main point is that boundaries and resolution must be
clearly and rationally established early in the assessment
process to provide the context within which impact sig-
nificance can be judged.
Magnitude of the Change
Our statement suggests the obvious in that the mag-
nitude of an impact has a bearing on its significance.
There are a number of considerations with regard to
determining what magnitude of impact should be con-
sidered significant. For example:
(1) Many environmental variables have "stability en-
velopes" within which they commonly fluctuate,
and if such variables are forced beyond the limits
of the envelope, they may assume quite different
or unknown trajectories in time (Holling and
Goldberg 1971, Holling 1973). In these cases, vari-
ables which are predicted to move outside their
normal stability limits might be considered as sig-
nificant impacts, while small shifts within the en-
velopes might be considered insignificant. Use of
this approach is limited by our rudimentary
knowledge of such stability envelopes.
(2) Some important variables may be critically af-
fected by small shifts in other variables. For ex-
ample, a small downward shift in dissolved oxygen
concentration in a lake may be the driving force
that causes the demise of a resident trout popu-
lation.
(3) The concept of "set value" (Andrews and others
1977) has direct application to determining impact
significance on the basis of magnitude. Examples
of these values include air or water quality stan-
dards, land-use plans, or other statutory environ-
mental goals. If a variable is predicted to exceed,
or is measured in excess of, a set value, then pre-
sumably the impact would be considered signifi-
cant.
(4) The supply or abundance of an environmental at-
tribute may be critical in determining the signifi-
cance of an impact on that attribute. In brief, if
the amount of an environmental attribute de-
stroyed were small compared with the amount or
supply of that attribute (in a local, regional, na-
tional, or global context, depending on the re-
quirements of the analysis and the boundaries es-
tablished), then the impact may be considered in-
significant, and vice versa (Cooper and Zedler
1980). It is clear that the boundaries in this context
must be established early. Otherwise, the results
of the analysis can be manipulated as desired by
adjusting the boundaries.
(5) The resource allocation approach as suggested by
Sharma (1976) for allocating the maximum sus-
tainable yield of fish poPulations among com-
peting uses, may have application in some cases.
Thus, the impact would be considered significant
if it "used up" more of the resource than had been
allocated for impact purposes.
Predicted or Measured Changes
While ideally project decisions are spread over the
entire length of time during which an EIA takes place
(Kiell 1984), there are two major phases in the process
at which most decisions are made. The first phase in-
volves decisions regarding project approval .and con-
ditions on that approval, and these decisions are based
on predictions of change. The second phase relies to
some extent on a reasonable degree of flexibility in
project design and operation, and decisions made
during this phase (after project start-up) are often
based on actual measurements of change. Such decisions
are usually directed at changes in operation to achieve
better emission control, or changes in design in mitigate
undesirable effects.
Thus, in adopting this framework for impact signif-
icance, the impact analyst may consider an impact sig-
nificant at the time it is predicted, or once it is detected
following project initiation. In some cases, a change
may appear as significant only after a project is in place;
reasons for this include:
(1) The prediction was wrong, and the change is ac-
tually larger than expected.
(2) The environmental attribute was not expected to
be affected by the project, and hence no impact
prediction was made.
(3) Changes in the environmental attribute were con-

sidered unpredictable u n d e r the particular cir-
cumstances, and the project was studied in an ex-
perimental sense to see if changes actually would
occur.
Reliability of Prediction or Measurement
The reliability of a prediction or measurement of
change should have a bearing on whether an impact is
considered significant. In o u r view, the significance of
quantitatively predicted impacts should be determined
partly on the basis of the confidence and probability
limits of the predictions. In the case where only gen-
eralized and qualitative predictions can be made, de-
cision makers may wish to consider potential impacts
as significant until m o r e reliable information indicates
otherwise (Andrews and others 1977). In the case of
m e a s u r e d changes, scientific scrutiny of sampling pro-
grams, data handling, and statistical analyses can reveal
the reliability with which conclusions of change of cer-
tain magnitudes are made.
Conclusion
T h e importance of developing criteria for impact
significance early in an E I A is clear. T h e s e criteria pro-
vide the foundation u p o n which the investigators can
design and u n d e r t a k e biophysical studies. Without
them there is little guidance on which environmental
attributes should be studied, and on the level of study
effort required. In this paper, we have presented four
perspectives on impact significance that are important
in considering the development of specific criteria for
significance. T h e s e perspectives include a statistical per-
spective, an ecological perspective, a social perspective,
and a project perspective. While m o r e theoretical work
in this area remains to be done, the developments re-
ported here could serve as a basis for m a r k e d improve-
ments in dealing with the concept of impact signifi-
cance in individual EIAs.
Acknowledgments
This work was accomplished u n d e r the joint spon-
sorship of Dalhousie University, the Federal Environ-
mental Assessment Review Office, the Canada Depart-
m e n t of Environment, the Arctic and Eastcoast Petro-
leum Operators' Associations, and the Canadian
Electrical Association. We thank Brenda Finn for
typing the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Alberta Environment. 1977. Environmental impact assess-
ment guidelines. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Al-
berta. 15 pp.
Environmental Impacts 9
Andrews, R. N. L. 1973. A philosophy of environmental im-
pact assessment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
28:197-203.
Andrews, R. N. L., P. Cromwell, G. A. Enk, E. G. Farnworth,
J.R. Hibbs, and V. L. Sharp. 1977. Substantive guidance
for environmental impact assessment: an exploratory study.
Institute of Ecology, Washington, DC. 79 pp.
Anonymous. 1975. Georges Bank conference: marine envi-
ronmental assessment needs on the Georges Bank related
to petroleum exploration and development. Proceedings,
conference and workshop, May 1975, Bentley College, Wal-
tham, Massachusetts. New England Natural Resources
Center.
Banff Highway Environmental Assessment Panel. 1979.
Banff highway project (East Gate to Km 13): report of the
environmental assessment panel. Federal Environmental
Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec. 85 pp.
Barnthouse, L. 1982. Personal communication.
Beak Consultants Limited. 1979. Environmental impact state-
ment: Kitts-Michelin project. Brinex (British Newfound-
land Exploration Limited), Mississauga, Ontario.
Beanlands, G.E., and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological
framework for environmental impact assessment in
Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Federal
Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec.
132 pp.
Bernstein, B. B., andJ. Zalinski. 1983. An optimum sampling
design and power tests for environmental biologists.Journal
of Environmental Management 16:35-43.
Buffington, J.D. 1976. A synthetic definition of biological
significance. Pages 319-327 in R. K. Sharma, J. D. Buf-
fington, and J . T . McFadden (eds.), Proceedings, Work-
shop on the biological significance of environmental im-
pacts. NR-CONF-002. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
Buffington, J. D., R. K. Sharma, and J. T. McFadden. 1980.
Assessment of ecological damage: consensus. Pages 25-32
in Symposium proceedings, Biological evaluation of envi-
ronmental impacts. FWS/OBS-80/26, COuncil on Environ-
mental Quality, and Fish and Wildlife Service, US Depart-
ment of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Canada Wide Mines Ltd. 1981. Midwest project environ-
mental impact statement, 3 vols. Canada Wide Mines, Cal-
gary, Alberta.
Christensen, S.W., W. VanWinkle, and J. S. Mattice. 1976.
Defining and determining the significance of impacts: con-
cepts and methods. Pages 191-219 in R. K. Sharma, J. D.
Buffington, andJ. T. McFadden (eds.), Proceedings, Work-
shop on the biological significance of environmental im-
pacts. NR-CONF-002. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
Cooper, C. F., and P. H. Zedler. 1980. Ecological assessment
for regional development. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 10:285-296.
Dome Petroleum Ltd., Esso Resources Canada Ltd., and Gulf
Canada Resources Inc. 1982. Environmental impact state-
ment for hydrocarbon development in the Beaufort Sea-
MacKenzie Delta Region, 9 vols. Dome Petroleum and
others, Calgary, Alberta.
10 P.N. Duinker and G. E. Beanlands
Eberhardt, L.L. 1976. Quantitative ecology and impact as-
sessment. Journal of Environmental Management 4:27- 70.
Elliott, M. L. 1981. Pulling the pieces together: amalgamation
in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 2:11-38.
FEARO. 1979. Revised guide to the federal environmental
assessment review process. Federal Environmental Assess-
ment Review Office, Hull, Quebec. 12 pp.
Gordon, D. C., Jr., and A. R. Longhurst. 1979. The environ-
mental aspects of a tidal power project in the upper reaches
of the Bay of Fundy. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10:38-45.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 1980. The En-
vironmental Assessment Act. Government of Newfound-
land and Labrador, St. John's, Newfoundland.
Government of Ontario. 1977. The Environmental Assess-
ment Act, 1975. Statutes of Ontario, 1975, chap. 69. Gov-
ernment of Ontario, Toronto.
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods
for environmental biologists. John Wiley and Sons, To-
ronto, Ontario. 257 pp.
Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological sys-
tems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23.
Holling, C. S., and M. A. Goldberg. 1971. Ecology and plan-
ning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 37:221-
230.
Imperial Oil Limited, Aquitaine Co. of Canada Ltd., and
Canada-Cities Service Ltd. 1978. Summary: environmental
impact statement for exploratory drilling in Davis Strait re-
gion. Imperial Oil and others, Calgary, Alberta.
Kiell, D.J. 1984. Decision-making during planning, construc-
tion and early operation of the Upper Salmon Hydroelec-
tric Development in Newfoundland, Canada: a case study.
Paper presented at Facility Siting and Routing '84: Energy
and Environment, 15-18 April 1984, Banff, Alberta.
Longley, W.L. 19791 An environmental impact assessment
procedure emphasizing changes in the organization and
function of ecological systems. Pages 355-376 in Proceed-
ings, Ecological damage assessment conference. Society of
Petroleum Industry Biologists, Los Angeles, California.
Lower Churchill Environmental Assessment Panel. 1980.
Lower Churchill hydroelectric project: report of the envi-
ronmental assessment panel. Federal Environmental As-
sessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec. 68 pp.
Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environ-
mental Management. Undated. An environmental assess-
ment and review process for proposed provincial projects.
Manitoba Department of Mines, Resources and Environ-
mental Management, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 6 pp.
Martec Limited. 1980. Initial environmental evaluation for
delineation drilling, Sable Island Area. Mobil Oil, Halifax,
Nova Scotia.
Sharma, R.R. 1976. Determining biological significance of
environmental impacts: science or trans-science? Pages 3 -
10 in R. K. Sharma, J. D. Buffington, and J. T. McFadden
(eds.), Proceedings, Workshop on the biological significance
of environmental impacts. NR-CONF-002. US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Sharma, R. K., J. D. Buffington, and J. T. McFadden (eds.).
1976. The biological significance of environmental impacts.
Conference proceedings. NR-CONF-002. US Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission, Washington, DC. 327 pp.
Slave River Hydroelectric Power Development Environ-
mental Assessment Panel. 1982. Draft guidelines for the
preparation of an environmental impact statement. Federal
Environmental Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec.
28 pp.
US Congress. 1970. The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 1 January
1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, 3 July 1975, and Pub.
L. 94-83, 9 August 1975.
Washburn, O.V. 1975. New Brunswick government policy
for environmental impact assessment. New Brunswick De-
partment of Environment, Fredericton, N.B. 6 pp.
Wolf, P. 1983. Personal communication.
Zar, J. H. 1976. Statistical significance and biological signifi-
cance of environmental impacts. Pages 285-293 in R. K.
Sharma, J. D. Buffington, and J. T. McFadden (eds.), Pro-
ceedings, Workshop on the biological significance of envi-
ronmental impacts. NR-CONF-002. US Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission, Washington, DC.