Scientific quality of tourism environmental impact assessment

Abstract

1. The scientific quality of environmental impact assessment (EIA), as exemplified by major tourism developments in Australia, is very poor. 2. Methods are inadequately specified. 3. Sampling is inadequately replicated in space or time. 4. Significant parameters are often ignored. 5. Impact predictions are rarely quantitative or testable and frequently are inaccurate. 6. Monitoring programmes generally are inadequate to detect likely impacts. 7. As an exercise in applied science, EIA fails to meet the most fundamental quality criteria. 8. As a tool in public decision‐making, EIA needs much better applied science.