Show simple item record

The role of data in the EIS process: Evidence from the BLM wilderness review

dc.contributor.authorGinger, Clareen_US
dc.contributor.authorMohai, Paulen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-10T15:51:34Z
dc.date.available2006-04-10T15:51:34Z
dc.date.issued1993-03en_US
dc.identifier.citationGinger, Clare, Mohai, Paul (1993/03)."The role of data in the EIS process: Evidence from the BLM wilderness review." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 13(2): 109-139. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/30930>en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9G-48YX559-5W/2/c3a277e44ff55cda39a7982e7f8c325fen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/30930
dc.description.abstractVarious propositions have been offered about the role of the environmental impact statement (EIS) in agency decision making. These include statements that agencies are (1) using the information collected in the EIS to make rational decisions; (2) justifying decisions made a priori; (3) using the EIS to gain support or consensus for projects; or (4) simply fulfilling a legal mandate, with the EIS having no substantive impact on decisions. Previous studies regarding the role of EIS data have focused on the quality of the data in the EIS and whether or not the data are related to decisions. The role of site-specific information in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wilderness EIS process is analyzed and the results are used to reflect on the impact of the EIS in agency decision making. These results are compared with an earlier analysis of the Forest Service's Second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II).The results of the statistical analyses of three sets of BLM wilderness EISs indicate that although some of the site-specific information about resource potential is statistically related to agency wilderness recommendations, the vast majority of the information is not. In addition, in some cases, the information was related to wilderness recommendations in a counterintuitive direction. Overall, of the 190 measures of resource potential found in these documents, only 17 (9%) were statistically related to BLM recommendations in an intuitive direction. The fact that most of the information in these EISs is not statistically related to decisions lends support to the proposition that the agency was primarily fulfilling the legally mandated procedure of the National Environmental Policy Act in producing these EISs, rather than achieving the spirit of the law. Results from the analysis of the Forest Service's RARE II wilderness review are similar. Although these analyses may provide support for proposals to improve the EIS through shortening of the documents, more research is needed before it can be assumed that shorter EISs will ensure a link between the remaining information and agency decisions.en_US
dc.format.extent1237484 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.titleThe role of data in the EIS process: Evidence from the BLM wilderness reviewen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNatural Resources and Environmenten_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelCivil and Environmental Engineeringen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelChemical Engineeringen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelEngineeringen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, USAen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan, USAen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/30930/1/0000600.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(93)90015-4en_US
dc.identifier.sourceEnvironmental Impact Assessment Reviewen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.