Road-corridor planning in the EIA procedure in Spain. A review of case studies

Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Road-corridor planning in the EIA procedure in Spain. A review of case studies Manuel Loro a,b,c,⁎, Rosa M. Arce a,b,c, Emilio Ortega b,c,d, Belén Martín b,c,d a

Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Environment, Civil Engineering School, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Prof. Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain Transport Research Centre (TRANSyT-UPM) Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Prof. Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain Centro de investigación del transporte, TRANSyT-UPM, ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Prof. Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain d Department of Construction and Rural Roads, Forestry Engineering School, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 14 December 2012 Received in revised form 23 July 2013 Accepted 15 August 2013 Available online 13 September 2013 Keywords: Road-corridor planning Territorial carrying capacity Territorial variables EIA procedure

a b s t r a c t The assessment of different alternatives in road-corridor planning must be based on a number of well-defined territorial variables that serve as decision making criteria, and this requires a high-quality preliminary environmental assessment study. In Spain the formal specifications for the technical requirements stipulate the constraints that must be considered in the early stages of defining road corridors, but not how they should be analyzed and ranked. As part of the feasibility study of a new road definition, the most common methodology is to establish different levels of Territorial Carrying Capacity (TCC) in the study area in order to summarize the territorial variables on thematic maps and to ease the tracing process of road-corridor layout alternatives. This paper explores the variables used in 22 road-construction projects conducted by the Ministry of Public Works that were subject to the Spanish EIA regulation and published between 2006 and 2008. The aim was to evaluate the quality of the methods applied and the homogeneity and suitability of the variables used for defining the TCC. The variables were clustered into physical, environmental, land-use and cultural constraints for the purpose of comparing the TCC values assigned in the studies reviewed. We found the average quality of the studies to be generally acceptable in terms of the justification of the methodology, the weighting and classification of the variables, and the creation of a synthesis map. Nevertheless, the methods for assessing the TCC are not sufficiently standardized; there is a lack of uniformity in the cartographic information sources and methodologies for the TCC valuation. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the last 25 years, Spain has undergone an intense period of modernization of its linear transport infrastructures. According to González et al. (2011), this phenomenon is borne out by the increase in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) associated with the construction of new roads and the widening of existing ones, which represents 45% of the total activity assessed by the Spanish Environment Ministry at the national scale in 2007. This fact highlights the importance of a highquality preliminary environmental assessment study, since EIA studies will prolong the error until the conclusion of the EIA procedure if roadcorridor alternatives are wrongly defined throughout the study. Corridor studies help to select a specific corridor out of a range of alternatives, and can thus reduce the impact of future transportation improvements (Arce et al., 2010).

⁎ Corresponding author at: Centro de investigación del transporte, TRANSyT-UPM. ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Prof. Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain. Tel.: +34 91 336 6795. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Loro), [email protected] (R.M. Arce), [email protected] (E. Ortega), [email protected] (B. Martín). 0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.08.005

According to Geneletti (2003), a feature of road-corridor planning is that it assesses different alternatives based on a number of well-defined territorial variables that form the decision-making criteria. To assign values to these variables, the approach most commonly used by practitioners is to apply a qualitative assessment based on the value judgments of experts (Geneletti, 2003; Gontier et al., 2006). The main problem with this method is that it gives rise to perceptions of subjectivity, as these judgments are not clearly explained and justified (Villarroya and Puig, 2013). Quantitative assessment derived from baseline studies of certain variables are rare and poorly developed by practitioners, and involve map scales with values of over 1:50 K that are not always sufficiently detailed for the purposes of road-corridor planning. There is also a lack of direct feedback between the EIA process and emerging science indicators (Gontier et al., 2006; Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino, 2010a). In the study of natural habitats, practitioners of biodiversity assessments tend to emphasize detailed environmental variables in formally protected sites and for protected species, but rarely define how these sites are connected together on the landscape scale, where there may be barrier effects caused by road and railway projects (Antonson, 2009; Byron, 2000a; Geneletti, 2003; Gontier et al., 2006; Rescia et al.,

12

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

2006; Trocmé et al., 2002). The main reason for this omission is that landscape assessment within the EIA process is restricted to esthetic values, sometimes divided into landscape character and visual effects, and thus does not contain information on aspects of biodiversity (Gontier et al., 2006). Quality of habitat as a biotope for wildlife tends to be assessed according to the area and degree of naturalness, but omits more detailed weighting characteristics such as ecosystem singularity (‘relictic islands’ of native plants), core area, habitat patch shape, population density or distribution, and multi-species inventories (Fernandes, 2000; García-Montero et al., 2010; Geneletti, 2003). The esthetic quality of the landscape through which the linear infrastructure will pass is studied irregularly by practitioners (Antonson, 2009). In a minority of cases it is analyzed in terms of its extrinsic visual fragility – the capacity of landscape elements to hide the road – , and its intrinsic visual fragility — the distribution of potential observers in the territory (Antonson, 2009; Transit New Zealand, 2006). In most cases it is assessed using simple methods based on value judgments. More complex techniques involving viewshed and landscape character studies are becoming more frequent with the help of GIS tools (Arce et al., 2010). The land-use variables overlooked by practitioners tend to include the effect of changes in the basic infrastructure (e.g. local trails and roads) and ownership of the land (Rescia et al., 2006), particularly with regard to the impact on soils with high agricultural productivity. Another common omission in road and railway infrastructure planning concerns the scant attention given to the cumulative effects (CE) of new construction within an area anthropized by existing infrastructures (Folkeson et al., 2013). One cause may be a lack of practitioners' awareness of the technical and scientific methodologies for predicting environmental impacts, such as establishing causality across the hierarchy of impacts to quantify their potential cumulative effect (Trocmé et al., 2002). The most sustainable and efficient road design is closely linked to an accurate knowledge of the study area, which can be supplied by an objective characterization of its territorial elements (Byron, 2000a). If this analysis is done in sufficient detail, and takes account of all the possible constraints affecting the infrastructure, it will yield a proper design that identifies the corridor layout with the lowest environmental impact (reduced ecosystem fragmentation, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, etc.). The Territorial Carrying Capacity (TCC) for human activities is the environment's capability to absorb the change induced by a specific action with no significant loss of environmental values (Gómez-Orea, 2003). This analysis is known as model-impact aptitude. Fig. 1 shows the general scheme usually applied in Spain, as proposed by GómezOrea (2003). In road construction projects, the most common method involves establishing different levels of TCC for each study area by plotting territorial variables on thematic maps, grouping them into a composite map, and then tracing and assessing alternative corridor layouts (Arce et al., 2010). In the literature, the creation of composite maps to find the best location for a road is frequently based on multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques. These may or may not use weighted criteria and compensatory techniques (Rapaport and Snickars, 1999), but a normalization function is always applied to combine these criteria into a common scale (García-Montero et al., 2010). In non-compensatory MCA techniques, the TCC level is established as being inversely proportional to the constraints defined, and the most restrictive scores are added to the global study map (Fig. 2). Thus areas that are critical or sensitive to any of the variables are transferred to the global synthesis map. For instance, if one single pixel value receives a very low TCC for a variable i and a very high value for a variable j, the highest restrictive value, i.e., a very low TCC, must be assigned in the global synthesis map. In this MCA technique, a low score on one criterion cannot be offset or balanced by a high score on other criteria (Gómez and Barredo,

Planning activities

Study area

Variable i dentification to determine the activities best localization

Mapping variables

Creating territorial carrying capacity (TCC) matrix under variable classification

Definition of different levels of TCC (quantitative and qualitative methodologies)

Aggregation to define global TCC

Different alternatives to locate activities Fig. 1. Territorial carrying-capacity model based on factor quantification. Source: modified from Gómez-Orea (2003).

2005; Jankowski and Richard, 1994). The benefit of non-compensatory techniques is that they require the technical consultant to have less knowledge of inherent constraints, and do not assign a TCC that is greater than the territory due to its having a certain combination of values in it (Huang et al., 2011). However, the drawback of these techniques is that they may occasionally recommend a comparatively worse alternative as they are based on a reductive strategy (Gómez and Barredo, 2005). Weighting factor methodologies are used in the case of compensatory MCA techniques. These values can be generated though a pairwise comparison of criteria, also known as analytic hierarchy process-AHP (Saaty, 1980) and based on the opinion of a panel of experts (e.g. Geneletti, 2003; Neri et al., 2010); by using fuzzy membership functions in order to perform a sensitivity analysis of assigned weight factors (e.g. Atkinson et al., 2005); or by avoiding partial compensation among factors with extreme values (e.g. Vía and Gutiérrez, 2006). The objective of this paper is to analyze the selected variables and constraints assigned to define TCC in road-corridor studies in Spain. We have designed a methodology to evaluate the homogeneity and suitability of the selected variables, and to assess the quality of the scientific and technical justifications used by planners to assign their TCC. A complete review of road-planning projects has been conducted for this purpose. The following sections are structured as follows: Section 2 describes the regulations governing this process in Spain and provides a description of the road-corridor planning process defined by the General Directorate of Roads (Dirección General de Carreteras). Section 3 describes the actual road-corridor projects selected and analyzed and presents the methodology used in our research. Section 4 describes and discusses the results; and finally, Section 5 offers conclusions for future applications and improvements.

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

Fig. 2. Multicriteria analysis (MCA). Process for road allocation based on the highest carrying capacity of the territory (TCC) in areas with a lower level of restriction for two constraints i and j.

2. EIA procedure for linear infrastructures in Spain Planning reports are essential for preventing environmental impacts in the preliminary stages of road-corridor tracing. The civil and environmental consultants currently employed by the road authorities in Spain have redoubled their efforts to develop methodologies that integrate the environmental impacts of infrastructure construction as a preventive measure in the preliminary planning and design phases of a construction project (Arce et al., 2010). Under Spanish law, an environmental impact assessment has been required for transport infrastructures since 1988 (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino, 2008; Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo, 1988). Although the international scientific literature contains methodological proposals for sustainable road corridors, there are very few studies on the criteria and variables used in actual road-corridor studies conducted by government administrations in Spain. The Spanish Ministry of Public Works offers a regulated process known as an “Informative Study”, which covers several stages of road design from planning through to the detailed construction project (Arce and Gullón, 2000). This planning process follows a very precise procedure, with specific management tasks and technical instructions to be considered throughout its course, as indicated in the “Recommendations for drafting Road Studies. Informative Study” published by the Ministry of Public Works (Ministerio de Fomento, 1983). The aim of the Informative Study is to define the most suitable alternative corridor, after analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of each option using environmental, socio-economic and functional criteria. Environmental criteria are accorded great importance in this study, since one of its phases consists of an environmental impact study. Therefore, the higher the quality of the study, the more successful the road design will be in terms of the environment and the integration of the infrastructure into the surrounding landscape. Currently, both the General Directorate of Roads (Ministry of Public Works) and the regional councils responsible for road planning divide these Informative Studies into three phases (A, B and C), with different scales and increasing levels of detail (1:50,000, 1:5,000 and 1:1,000, respectively). These phases are termed A (initial works for defining the alternative corridors after the screening process, the basis for the scoping process); B (baseline studies and the environmental impact assessment study report according to EIA references or guidelines); and C (complementary works proposed as part of the public participation process) (see Fig. 3). The organization of the Informative Study into these three phases entails a step-wise decision-making process in which the level

13

of detail is increased from one phase to the next, in order to achieve greater accuracy in defining the road layout. The Highway Administration is responsible for overseeing the Informative Study process in all these phases, and enforcing the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the environmental authority for the selected alternative. Once the process for the Informative Study is complete, the definitive construction project can be addressed. The aim of Phase A is to define corridors that are consistent with functionality, and with environmental (biotope protection, landscape, water quality), territorial (land use, urban planning under existing legislation) and construction (topography, geology and geotechnical) criteria. This phase of the Informative Study is very important as it assigns TCC values to different territorial variables in order to identify the areas where an infrastructure with these characteristics would have a minimal environmental impact from both the physical, territorial and cultural point of view (Gómez-Orea, 2004). The most suitable territory for the road construction should be chosen with a view to reducing construction costs and travel time, and must locate the most favorable (geotechnical) conditions for construction and road safety. The result of this work is also the basis for the scoping phase, and involves selective public participation. Thematic maps of an adequate size for the scale of the work are used to characterize the territory and assess the carrying capacity. The General Directorate of Roads (Ministerio de Fomento, 1983) specifies that these thematic maps should include the following: • Partial synthesis of physical environment: slope, weather and geotechnical hazards. • Partial synthesis of environmental protection: vegetation composition, biodiversity habitats, fauna and landscape. • Partial synthesis of cultural heritage: architectural heritage, sites of cultural interest, cattle trails, archeological and paleontological sites, ethnographic elements, routes with recreational or cultural interest, etc. • Partial synthesis of territorial issues: urban planning maps, protected natural areas, land-use and land-planning limitations. Once these partial synthesis maps have been grouped in homogeneous units, their TCC is calculated with a one-dimensional value function, reflecting the different degrees to which the objective is achieved, and considering the level of constraint with regard to environmental sustainability, technical requirements, socio-cultural protection and land-use planning criteria (Arce and Gullón, 2000). A global synthesis map is obtained from the four partial synthesis maps, which evaluates the total TCC of the study area. The methods used to develop this global synthesis or composite map are based on multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques. Compensatory techniques are not accepted by the Spanish General Directorate of Roads for national road planning (Ministerio de Fomento, 1983, 2009). In these MCA analyses, the correct selection of the territorial variables that inform the decision-making criteria is crucial for a proper definition of the territorial conditions. It should be noted that the formal specification of technical requirements for drafting the Informative Study defines the constraints to be considered, but not how they must be analyzed and ranked. The assessment procedure therefore differs from one Informative Study to another, and our proposed methodology reviews the Informative Studies on road corridors carried out in Spain in order to evaluate the homogeneity and suitability of the variables used to define the TCC. This approach is explained below. 3. Methodology We consulted reports of road-corridor planning studies (also known as the Initial Document Process for the EIA, IDP) from 22 roads (around 733 km in total) and highways/freeways. This document contains the methodology and results of phase A of the Informative study, where road-corridor alternatives are planned and assessed, as described in

14

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

ROADS LAW

INFORMATIVE STUDY

Road development process

Phases in developing a road stretch (Roads Law and Ministry of Infrastructures regulations)

PLAN

Previous Studies

Phase A: PREFEASIBILITY STUDY • Territorial assessment under territorial carrying capacity criteria for road construction. • Road corridors tracing (wide of 1-5 km). • Generation of road location alternatives inside of all proposed corridors (commonly >10 road alternatives) following construction regulations. • MCA and Selection of 2 -3 road corridors.

EIA LAW

Initial document Early Public Consultation

SCOPING Informative Study

Preliminary design

Phase B: FEASIBILITY STUDY • Recompilation of territorial information for the selected corridors: Photogeological and geotechnical profile studies. Economic evaluation of alternatives. Environmental impact study. Cost-benefit studies. • New MCA with these new studies. • Selecting 2-3 road alternatives.

Environmental Impact Study

Phase C Informative meeting and workshops Re-evaluation works suggested by environmental agency until the emission of Record of Decision (ROD).

PUBLIC INFORMATION

Construction Project

RECORD OF DECISION

Dotted line box: phases not always developed Fig. 3. General schema of the Informative Study process for road planning and project design defined by the Ministry of Public Works (Ministerio de Fomento, 1983). The figure also shows the places for EIAs, and when public consultations should be held under Spanish legislation.

Section 2. This document also marks the start of the EIA procedure. All the documents reviewed are road projects transacted by the Ministry of Public Works for 2006–2008, the period prior to the financial crisis in Spain and a time when a number of linear infrastructures were planned. We studied all the complete Informative Studies available on the website of the Ministry of Public Works at the time this research was conducted (2012). The IDP documents are accompanied by cartography showing the TCC. In this cartography, the study area is usually established by consultants as a buffer of 10 to 30 km around a straight line between a road's origin and destination. After defining the carrying capacity for road construction, alternative corridors are traced with an average width of 1 to 5 km. Table 1 describes the main characteristics of the reviewed Informative Studies. They include three types of projects with different objectives: new road layouts, conversion of roads to highways, and road widening. All of these must undergo the same process for the Informative Study, which must then be submitted to the EIA process as specified in the EIA regulation. The following information was collected from each report in order to complete our review: • Cartography information sources, in particular thematic maps. • Selected criteria to define territorial constraints from a physical, environmental, land-use and cultural point of view.

• Methodologies to define TCC according to selected criteria. • Quality of the technical and scientific methodologies used in the reports. 3.1. Review of the variables used to define the TCC The first step involved analyzing the variables used to define the TCC in the reports. Although there may be a wide range of variables present in the territory, most are very common and offer a sample of the types of variables that can be evaluated with the constraint level assigned. We grouped the variables applied by the practitioners according to physical, environmental, land-use and cultural constraints to compare the TCC values assigned in the studies. The structure consistently followed the drafting regulations of the Ministry of Public Works for the definition of planning restrictions. Given that the thematic maps also applied different categories in the same type of map, we homogenized similar conditions depending on their characteristics and their TCC values for road construction. For instance, when a category was specified as “wheat crops” or “barley crops”, both were clustered as “rainfed cereal crops”. Once the variables had been identified, the frequency of use of each variable was checked in the reports in order to quantify the global importance assigned to each variable (see Table 2).

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

TCC scales had different ranges in the reports. In order to make them comparable, TCC was re-scaled from 0 to 100 (see Table 2), where 0 is the lowest level of restriction (highest TCC for road construction) and 100 the highest level of restriction (lowest TCC). This homogenization allows the values assigned to be compared using Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process-AHP, as suggested by several authors (Atkinson et al., 2005; Gómez and Barredo, 2005; Pomerol and Barba-Romero, 2000; Saaty, 1980). Once the scales were homogenized, the average constraint values was calculated for each variable. This value allows us to compare the relative importance assigned to each variable used to define TCC. 3.2. Review of the quality of assessments of TCC by practitioners of roadplanning projects in Spain The studies were evaluated in four categories, based on the quality of the analysis of TCC. An aggregative conventional linear function was defined to evaluate the studies quality based on recommendations given by several publications on linear infrastructure planning with GIS tools (Council on Environmental Quality, 1993; Gómez and Barredo, 2005; Herrero-Jiménez, 2011) see Eq. (1). QA ¼ CSM þ VCNW þ CD þ DJ þ JQ

ð1Þ

Where, QA: quality of analysis in the definition of TCC by practitioners. CSM (Methodology for obtaining the Composite Synthesis Map): proper definition of the global synthesis map by preserving the most restrictive classification of each constraint. As established in the recommendations for the drafting of Informative Studies (Ministerio de Fomento, 1983, 2009), a correct global summary should incorporate the most restrictive values of each constraint. VCNW (Variable classifications with no weighting in the MCA process): this means that all variables have the same importance in the TCC definition. CD (Constraint disaggregation): constraints are divided into clearly defined criteria. DJ (Detailed justifications): well-justified carrying capacity values are assigned to each variable. JQ (Justification quality): the justifications given by practitioners are supported by scientific and technical criteria cited in the Informative Study. We have assigned a different quality score to the different parameters. One point was assigned if the equation components were successfully met. A score of 0.5 was assigned if they were partially met. A score of 0 was assigned if the criteria were not met at all. Below, the global analysis of each study is shown as a final result obtained with the proposed aggregation quality function (see Table 3). These results have been clustered under different equation components as shown in Table 3, assigning a different score range interval for the quality of analysis in the TCC definition for each study. 4. Results and discussion Results have been divided into two sub-sections. Section 4.1 presents the most frequent variables applied in the Informative Studies to define TCC. Section 4.2 examines the quality and level of detail of the justifications given to these variables under technical and scientific criteria. 4.1. Review of variables considered for the definition of the TCC The following Sub-sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 show the different results obtained in the review of the reports following the

15

methodology described in Section 3.1. Table 2 shows a summary of the most common variables applied by Spanish practitioners to define TCC in a road-planning process. 4.1.1. Physical constraints As is shown in Table 2, the most common variables of this group are: slope intervals (directly related to higher earthworks), soil-bearing capacity (geotechnical soil quality for road construction) and flood risk. The frequency with which the variables were applied ranges from 62.5% to 75% of the total studies reviewed. We found different slope interval classifications among the studies, making it impossible to establish common intervals in the TCC definition that would allow comparison between them. The same problem was found in comparing variables such as soil bearing capacity or slope instability risk in the analysis of physical constraints. The variables for climate hazards and road safety concerns were poorly studied (only 25% of studies use this variable), assigning a medium level as the most common constraint value of TCC. These variables were estimated considering frequency of snowfalls and periods of frost or fog due to geographical location and altitudinal thresholds. This information is taken from weather stations located in the study area. It is worth pointing out that the inclusion of these variables is related to road safety and the expected additional cost of infrastructure maintenance. The inclusion of these variables in the partial synthesis of physical constraints is useful in the case of roads located in mountain ranges in certain regions. Another variable included in some studies was the potential erosion risk or soil loss rate (t/ha-year). This variable complements the risk of slope instability and helps to establish areas with a greater potential erosion hazard in the absence of vegetation cover according to the RUSLE model (Renard et al., 1991). In Spain, a good reference for considering this variable is the “National Soils Erosion Inventory” (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2002). However, none of the study cases used this official cartography information. Physical constraints for road projects are described fairly heterogeneously in the studies which specifically define the level of carrying capacity depending on slope intervals. Although detailed intervals are stipulated in technical regulations such as the Spanish law on road layout design (Jefatura del Estado, 1988; Ministerio de Fomento, 1999) and the AASHTO recommendations (AASHTO, 2004), the studies establish different TCC in heterogeneous intervals. There are therefore some projects where very low carrying capacity is given to areas with an average slope of over 50%, whereas others set the limit at 30%. Statistical parameters such as standard deviation, mode or extreme values of slope variable were not used to justify different slope range criteria and complete the analysis. In some minor projects, land was defined as a qualitative “rugged relief”, e.g., but this was not supported by any quantitative values. With the exception of two projects (see Table 2, ID. 11 and ID. 21), no flood risk studies were done in any of the studies; and a standard buffer of 100 m was mostly defined as a protection zone around rivers and wetlands in both studies. It was also noted that there is no reference to technical regulations with regard to load-bearing capacity based on lithological and geological categorization under geotechnical standardization. An exception was road ID 21, with specific references to the Spanish Road Construction Standards (Ministerio de Fomento, 1976). It is worth noting that this regulation is always taken into account in the Construction Project, but not in the previous phases, which reduces the efficiency of the planning process. 4.1.2. Environmental constraints Among the environmental variables found in the studies reviewed, landscape is the most common (75%), in addition to variables related with the quality of biotopes, which are frequently subdivided into crop types (75%), wetlands (53%) or presence of natural areas (50%), among others.

16

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

Table 1 Main characteristics of the Informative Studies. ID no.

Budget for consulting works

Year of implementation

Action

Name

Length Consulting company (km)

Region of Spain

1

2,367,601.70 €

2006

New road construction

175

Andalusia

2

1,222,965.38 €

2006

3

936,415.05 €

2007

Road conversion to highway New road construction

Highway Ruta de la Plata (A-66)-Huelva. National road EX-101 y N-435 Highway A-2. Road section: Alfajarín–Fraga

4

709,500.00 €

2008

5

110,220.00 €

2006

6

450,686.80 €

2006

7

510,162.71 €

2006

Increasing number of road lanes Increasing number of road lanes Road conversion to highway New road construction

8

Information not available 935,221.00 € 366,022.21 €

2006

New road construction

2007 2006

New road construction New road construction

2006

Increasing number of road lanes New road construction

9 10 11

2007

13

Information not available Information not available 262,908.09 €

14 15

144,198.88 € 135,265.01 €

2007 2007

16

Information not available 99,775.20 €

2007

12

17

18

2008

Increasing number of road lanes New road construction New road construction

2007

Increasing number of road lanes New road construction

2006

New road construction

19

Information not available 1,734,472.00 €

2006

20

138,978.20 €

2006

Road conversion to highway New road construction

21

307,009.00 €

2008

New road construction

22

157,808.00 €

2007

New road construction

Highway to connect A1 (Madrid) to A2 (Guadalajara) Highway A-66 (Oviedo–Serín) and A-8 (Gijón–Avilés) Valencia ring road, A7

91

Joint venture company1 and 2 Company 3.

50

Company 4

50

Company 5

Madrid and Guadalajara Asturias

14

Region of Valencia Andalusia Region of Valencia Murcia

Aragon

CN-442. Road section: Tinto river — intersection H-620 N-332. Road section: Oliva–Gandía.

7

Joint venture company 6 and 7 Company 8

10

Company 9

Murcia ring road, MU-30. Road section: Reguerón highway. A-63. Road section: La Espina–Canero Highway A-2. Road section: Diversion of Guadalajara. Highway A-3. Road section: Buñol–Valencia.

14 30 30

Joint venture company 10 and 11 Company 12 Company 13

22

Company 14

Access from Peinador airport to Highway AP-9

2

Company 15

Asturias Madrid and Guadalajara Region of Valencia Galicia

N-603. Road section: San Rafael–Segovia

35

Company 14

Madrid

N-631. Road section: Montamarta–Mombuey N-420. Road section: Utrillas-Intersection with N-211 road. N-338. Access to Alicante airport.

55 3

Company 16 Information not available

Castile-León Castile-León

5

Company 11

5

Company 17

Region of Valencia Aragon

8,7

Company 10

112

Company 18

6

Company 17

Region of Valencia Guadalajara y Teruel Aragon

10

Company 19

Segovia

7

Company 10

Region of Valencia

Diversion of Calanda in N-211 road between Guadalajara to Alcañíz and Lérida to N-420 road, from Cordoba to Tarragona. N-330, Diversion port of Chirrichana N-211. Road section: Alcolea del Pinar–Monreal del Campo. N-211. Road section: Guadalajara–Alcañíz and Lérida. N-240. Road section: Mata de los Olmos (Teruel). N-VI. Madrid–A Coruña. Road section: San Rafael. N-330. Road section: Ayora

Despite the widespread use (75%) of the landscape variable, no clear and consistent criteria were found among the studies analyzed. We therefore failed to determine any trend for the allocation of TCC values. Only two studies (ID 9 and 12) included a viewshed1 analysis with GIS as suggested by Hadrian et al. (1988), among others. Units of landscape rarity were frequently highlighted as having a higher TCC, although no methodology was applied to assess landscape visual quality, as suggested by Otero et al. (2007), e.g., in the Atlas of Spanish Landscapes (Mata et al., 2003). In the definition of the quality of the biotope, the most frequent variable for defining environmental constraints was the level of ecosystem complexity and its potential to host wildlife, especially if they were protected. Consequently, areas with low or very low TCC values were located in wetlands, areas with mixed species and good forest stand structure, riparian forest or rocks and screes, in order to conserve biotope biodiversity. The TCC was assigned to a combination of crop types in half the cases analyzed, allocating the same value of TCC to irrigation and

1 Viewshed is defined as those parts of landscape that can be seen from a particular point.

rainfed crops. Different carrying capacity scores were found in only 25% of cases. Table 2 shows how different patterns are commonly applied for TCC scoring. From an ecological point of view, it is also noteworthy that all crops obtained a medium TCC score, without any distinction between irrigated or rainfed crops. Forestry plantations with native or alien species and forest areas mainly in maquis or scrubland areas obtained the same TCC values, revealing a poor classification of the different land-use units. With the exception of ID 9, none of the study cases define any indicator for rating the conservation importance of wild fauna or natural vegetation species, especially those that are related to trophic level, habitat requirements, natural rarity, sensitivity or the vulnerability of different ecosystems. These indicators have been widely used in roadplanning assessments (Geneletti, 2002, 2006). In Spain there are sufficient databases containing information to enable these parameters to be calculated easily; for example: • Potential vegetation map of Spain on a scale of 1:400,000 (RivasMartínez, 2007), with information on vegetation types that could potentially grow in a given area on the basis of its climate, soil, water conditions, lithology and topography (also known as climax vegetation map).

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

• Forest Map of Spain, MFE50, on a scale of 1:50,000 (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2007a). • Third National Forest Inventory of Spain, IFN3, on a scale of 1:50,000, with information on strata, density and degree of complexity of forestlands, plus information on biodiversity conservation (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2007b). • SIOSE Project on a scale of 1:25,000 (Spanish Land Use and Land Cover Information System), with information from the databases on land cover and use in the regional and national governments for the period 2005–2010 (Ministerio de Fomento, 2005). None of the cases reviewed included an evaluation of fragmentation, even if alternative road layouts were traced through a nature reserve (see ID. 21, Table 2). Another important shortcoming detected was the absence of the quality of transitional ecosystems such as patches connecting natural habitats of special importance. Road projects affect landscape diversity (especially at the ecosystem level, which is where the most significant impact is observed) and is consequently an area that needs to be fully investigated in earlier phases when dealing with road projects (Byron, 2000a, 2000b; Geneletti, 2003). Spanish EIA authorities consider that the costs of a cumulative assessment are the responsibility of the SEA, not of a single project. As concluded by other authors such as Herrero-Jiménez (2011), Lee (2005) and Söderman (2006), the inclusion of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) indicators in the earlier phases of the EIA procedure (as occurs in phase A of the Informative Study) improves the project assessments. Exceptionally, groundwater impact was evaluated by 13% of the studies. Unequal categories were defined, covering the aspects of soil permeability and the type of aquifer existing in the study area. This factor was only found in the region of Aragon. The most commonly used environmental variables were associated to regulations contained in European, national or regional legislation. In all the studies, preventive measures were taken in the case of Natura 2000 sites covered by categories of protected areas such as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds (CEC, 2009); Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated for species other than birds, and for habitats (CEC, 1992); and Sites of Community Importance (SCI), which contribute significantly to maintaining or restoring the favorable conservation status of a natural habitat type or species (CEC, 1992). The presence of priority or non-priority habitats was taken into account for 88% and 63% of the studies respectively. Important Bird Areas for LIFE programs (IBAs), which establish conservation strategies using birds as indicators of the richest natural areas (Heath et al., 2011), were taken into account in 50% of the study reports. An important shortcoming was located in the assessment of ID.2. In this case study, the practitioner mentioned the environmental importance of the territory due to a plan for the recovery of a protected botanical species, but this limitation was ultimately disregarded for the unjustified reason that “the legal regulations do not explicitly consider the presence of a road as an incompatible activity”. Moreover, this factor was not included in the EIA assessment when the study area was defined as critical for the survival of the species Astragalus oxyglottis M. Bieb (listed as being under threat of extinction at the regional level) by the National Biodiversity Inventory (INB). The justification given was that the INB plots (grids of 10 x 10 km) were too large to delimit the protected species in sufficient detail, without providing any additional information in the study. Geological/geomorphological protected sites, known in Spain as Points of Geological Interest (PGI) and Protected Geomorphological Elements (PGE) (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2007c) which can be consulted in the PATRIGEO database on the Internet (IGME, 2008), were not frequently used (only in 13%) by consultants, and were assigned a low value of TCC. Other areas with special protection under regional legislation were taken into account by only a minority of studies. Examples of these

17

protection categories are: protected landscapes, natural monuments, unique trees, well preserved forest, etc. (see Table 2, ID. 9). In general, all the environmental variables based on any legal protection category obtained a low or very low level of carrying capacity in the studies reviewed, as expected.

4.1.3. Land-use constraints The most commonly used land-use constraints in the reports were directly related to the legislation established to protect areas or to monitor human actions in the territory. Additionally, some variables with a direct impact on economic and social development were also included in this constraint group. The land use variables associated to the economic and social development of territory, including urban planning areas (mostly listed as urban, and areas for urban development) received a very low TCC for road construction. In only 38% of the studies, rural land was distinguished into different subtypes defined by regional land-use regulations. In general, rural land was commonly rated as an area of medium TCC. The inclusion of areas regulated by natural resource management plans (under regional planning programs) is an useful tool for rating TCC, as established in the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Act (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2007c), but it was only used in one of the studies (ID.2). In contrast, urban planning was used in all study cases. In addition to land-use aspects, other variables concern infrastructure planning and land use, such as: presence of linear infrastructures of interest (rated as low carrying capacity), presence of areas for protection of the hydraulic public domain (medium carrying capacity), or a pre-planned infrastructure corridor in the study area. Because these factors were not always present in the territory, it is unsurprising that their frequency of use in the reviewed studies is not as high as the other land use variables (used in 13–38% of the reviewed studies). Finally, with regard to the variables associated to economic interests, the reports consider the impact on irrigated crops (63% with a medium level of TCC) and to a lesser extent, mining areas (existing or in the process of being approved, used by 38%), livestock farming (used by 25%, with a low TCC), rainfed cereals (25%) and woody (38%) crops, both with a high level of TCC. It is important to highlight other variables scarcely found in the review process (only 25%), but which are locally important for rural areas such as: presence of hunting grounds (medium TCC), soil fertility characteristics or agricultural productivity.

4.1.4. Cultural constraints Most of the cultural constraints used by consultants were related to legislative regulations. In conjunction with these requirements, very few studies include other constraints associated to the potential presence of resources of interest. Historical routes such as cattle trails and ancient itineraries (such as the “Camino de Santiago” pilgrimage route dating from the 9th century, or the Roman consular road known as the “Ruta de la Plata”) were most frequently considered (75% of study reports). In the case of traditional cattle trails, protected cultural element, the TCC value most frequently assigned was low — instead of very low. This is because legislation allows the modification of their layout, as long as the route is easily restored and its functionality remains unaltered (Jefatura de Estado, 1995). Another factor considered to establish a level of cultural constraints was the category of Properties of Cultural Interest (CIG), which is a form of legal protection for Spain's cultural heritage (Jefatura del Estado, 1985), and the presence of archeological and paleontological sites. In both cases, these areas were valued as areas of very low TCC.

18

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

Table 2 Summary of common variables applied by practitioners to define TCC in road-planning processes. Constraints

Evaluation variables

Physical

Slope Climatic hazards Geotechnical risk

Environmental

Quality of the biotope

Landscape Impact on water quality Natural areas protected under existing legislation

Territorial

Urban planning under existing legislation

Land use

Cultural

Protected sites under existing legislation. Potential cultural sites

Several slope intervals as there is no common pattern among the different studies. Areas with high probability of fog and snow Risk caused by slope instability Soil bearing capacity Potential erosion hazard (rates of soil loss) Flood risk Meadow Pastureland and scrub Wildlife areas Rocks or screes. Wetlands Riparian forests Hardwood forest Coniferous forest Mixed coniferous and hardwood forest Scrub and grassland with scattered woody Scrub with scattered trees. Forest plantations with local species: poplars, pines, etc. Forest plantations with alien species: eucalyptus Crops with scattered trees Irrigated crops Rainfed cereals crops Mix of rainfed cereals and irrigated crops Landscape in mountain, urban, natural and rural areas. Depending on soil permeability SPA, SCI, RAMSAR, National Parks Priority habitats under Council Directive 92/43/EEC No priority habitats under Council Directive 92/43/EEC Unique trees Protected flora by regional legislation Well-preserved forest Protected geomorphological elements Important Bird Areas for LIFE program (IBA) Public and Government Consortium forest Natural monuments Point of Geological Interest (PIG), protected caves. Landscape protected under regional legislation Urban areas Areas for urban development Rural land areas Rural land segregated into regional subtypes Linear infrastructures: pipelines, roads, train lines, water distribution, telecommunications, electricity power lines, etc Areas for protection of hydraulic public domain (from shore to 100 m). Pre-existing linear infrastructure corridors Livestock farming Mining (in operation and planned) Hunting grounds Trail for recreational or agricultural use Rainfed cereal crops Rainfed woody crops Irrigated crops Woodland Scrubland Unstocked forest areas High agricultural productivity areas related to soil characteristics Cultural Interest Goods (CIG) Historical trails: cattle trails, ancient trails, etc. Archeological and paleontological sites. High-potential archeological areas.

A variable that was considered only slightly was the presence of areas with a high archeological potential, depending on how close the study area was to zones with a high density of archeological sites of interest. In all cases, a buffer is established around cultural elements to define areas that cannot be affected by roads, but with no uniform

Frequency of use of variables (%)

Average of the constraint values assigned to each variable (0–100)

TCC qualitative score

75.00%

Several levels

–

25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 37.50% 62.50% 25.00% 62.50% 37.50% 25.00% 62.50% 37.50% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 37.50% 25.00% 25.00% 12.50% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 12.50% 100.00% 87.50% 62.50% 37.50% 12.50% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 37.50% 12.50% 12.50% 25.00% 100.00% 62.50% 37.50% 37.50%

Medium Several values Several values Medium Low Medium High Very low Very low Very low Very low Very low Very low Very low High Low High Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Several values Several values Very low Very low Very low Very low Very low Very low Very low Low Low Very low Low Very low Very low Very low Medium Very low

37.50%

26.38 Several values Several values 47.22 73.33 37.50 23.33 75.00 83.33 93.33 75.00 83.33 77.08 87.50 16.67 50.00 12.50 25.00 54.17 41.67 41.67 47.92 No possibility of categorizing. Several values 100.00 78.57 76.67 91.67 100.00 87.50 87.50 70.83 63.89 75.00 50.00 75.00 95.83 83.33 38.89 Several levels depending on regional classification 80.56

12.50%

33.33

Medium

25.00% 25.00% 37.50% 12.50% 37.50% 37.50% 25.00% 62.50% 37.50% 12.50% 12.50% 25.00%

0.00 62.50 61.11 25.00 36.11 11.11 29.17 48.33 30.56 11.11 33.33 87.50

High Low Low Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium High Medium Very low

50.00% 75.00% 50.00% 25.00%

79.17 51.39 85.42 45.83

Very low Low Very low Medium

Very low

pattern of justification between the different studies reviewed. In some cases, the distance value was justified by regulations in the local town-planning master plans or by supplementary regional town-planning guidelines. In other cases, no justification was given at all.

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

19

Table 3 Score quality defined for an appropriate methodology in the assessment of the TCC in road-corridor planning. Quality of analysis in the TCC definition (QA)

QA score range interval

Comments

Major potential for improvement

0–1

Improvable Acceptable Good Very good

1.01–2 2.01–3 3.01–4 N4

Variables were mixed, creating a distortion in the carrying capacity assessment for the selected variables. Absence of scientific and technical justification. Variables were not mixed, but detailed justification was not established by road-corridor developers. Scoring variables for TCC assessment were detailed, but important variables were overlooked. Complete and detailed variable selection for TCC assessment. Need to define some map data sources. Complete description of selected variables and sources used.

Fig. 4. Quality in the definition of TCC of the reviewed reports.

4.2. Results of the quality of territorial-carrying capacity assessment by practitioners in road planning projects in Spain The average quality of the studies reviewed is acceptable in terms of the evaluation function used (see Eq. (1)). Fig. 4 shows that studies number 3 and 7 obtained the highest score, compared to studies number 5, 8 and 15, with the lowest. It is important to note that 27.28% of the studies had below acceptable quality. The most common quality is acceptable or good (a total of 63% for both categories). No relation was found among study quality and the main characteristics of the highway (see Table 1), such as total length, type of action projected (new construction or road conversion to highway), region (which implies supervision by a different authority), or budget for consulting work. For example, ID. 1 study obtained a “medium” score (acceptable quality). This project was a new highway construction with a length of 175 km, a very large budget (over 2 million euros), and crossing a National Park. A higher quality score would be expected for a project of such characteristics. 5. Conclusions This paper presents a quality ranking methodology to analyze the variables and criteria used in road-corridor planning studies for highways/freeways in Spain. The methodology was applied to 22 reports of road-corridor planning studies, and yielded the following conclusions and indications for practitioners as to the quality of the assessments, the variables selected and the constraints assigned when evaluating roadcorridor alternatives. The results show that the quality of the practitioners' analysis in the definition of TCC is generally acceptable. There are good practices that should be positively reinforced: alternatives were plotted by referring to a general space-occupation buffer estimated from the available information; the constraint definitions were clear and well disaggregated; and, in the mapping process, the most restrictive classification of each of the partial constraints was preserved, and no overweight was included in the MCA process as defined by General Directorate of Roads.

However the methodologies applied to assess TCC were not always correctly defined. In general terms, there were deficiencies in the description and references in the baseline studies and assessment methods. There is also a lack of homogeneity in the scientific-technical basis for the TCC definitions in the studies. Several areas were found with scope for improvement with regard to the four constraints analyzed for the definition of TCC: In the case of physical constraints, geotechnical variables are studied in depth. However, few studies consider variables relating to hazards (flood, climate, erosion etc.). Practitioners should incorporate riskrelated variables due to their importance in issues of safety and maintenance. The treatment of the scales, intervals and scientific bases were highly heterogeneous in all the variables. These methodological shortcomings could be improved by applying a common methodology to define specific scales and intervals following Spanish and international technical regulations; by including local site peculiarities in the study by means of complementary indicators related to local parameters; and by using specific thematic mapping such as the National Soil Inventory (especially with regard to potential erosion). The environmental constraints were measured mainly through quality of biotope and landscape using different quality variables and indicators. Areas with any form of protection under national legislation were given very similar values of TCC. In contrast, we found considerable divergence in the assessment of other factors such as landscape, biotope quality, and biodiversity richness. This variability is due to the fact that the specification of the General Directorate of Roads does not recommend any particular source of cartographic information for these environmental variables, nor does it establish clear evaluation criteria. A number of variables that are crucial to defining environmental constraints such as habitat fragmentation, groundwater impact, conservation importance of wild fauna or natural vegetation species are not taken into account in the EIAs due to the difficulties in assessing them. At present there are numerous methodologies available in the literature and data sources provided by the environmental authorities that allow these variables to be correctly considered when defining the TCC. The assessment of land-use constraints is in most cases limited to a qualitative classification of the territory. The quality of the EIA

20

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21

studies could be improved by taking into account important land-use variables – such as agricultural productivity, hunting grounds and soil fertility – in a quantitative way. Most of the cultural constraints considered in the reports involve legal regulations. There is no common standard pattern for defining cultural areas that cannot be affected by roads. A number of the shortcomings found in the EIA road procedures concern the fact that the methods for assessing TCC are not sufficiently standardized by the General Directorate of Roads. This public agency is currently taking steps in this direction with new review procedures for drafting road-corridor specifications, supplemented by the new technical guidelines published by the Ministry of the Environment for improving sustainability in road-corridor planning (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino, 2010a, 2010b). Several authors recommend establishing “a value system” supervised by the national and regional governments, which would provide their own standards or value functions to define the TCC for the planning of human constructions (Geneletti, 2003; Gómez-Orea, 2003; National Roads Authority of Ireland, 2006). To complement these functions, and according to Vanderhaegen and Muro (2005), practitioners who commonly prepare impact assessments using spatial data could be supported through additional thematic maps assessed by environmental agencies. Acknowledgments This article is the summary of the first phase of a larger project that the authors are conducting, the MILL project (TRA2010-18311 MILL path integration model of linear infrastructure in the landscape based on GIS), which is sponsored by the National R & D & i 2008–2011 CICYT Plan of the Ministry of Science and Innovation of Spain. We would like to thank the anonymous comments of the reviewers for the improvement of this work and Prof. Davide Geneletti (University of Trento, Italy) for his comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also thank Ms Prudence Brooke-Turner for her revision of the English manuscript. References AASHTO, American Association of State Highway. A policy on geometric design of highways and streets. 5th ed. Washington DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; 2004. Antonson H. Bridging the gap between research and planning practice concerning landscape in Swedish infrastructural planning. Land Use Policy 2009;26(2):169–77. Arce RM, Gullón N. The application of strategic environmental assessment to sustainability assessment of infrastructure development. Environ Impact Asses 2000;20(3):393–402. Arce RM, Ortega E, Otero I. Los sistemas de información geográfica aplicados a la evaluación ambiental en la planificación de infraestructuras del transporte. Ciudad y Territorio. Estud Territoriales 2010;165:513–28. Atkinson DM, Deadman P, Dudycha D, Traynor S. Multi-criteria evaluation and least cost path analysis for an arctic all-weather road. Appl Geogr 2005;25(4):287–307. Byron HJ. Biodiversity and environmental impact assessment: a good practice guide for road schemes. 1st ed. Sandy: RSPB, WWF-UK: English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts; 2000a. Byron HJ. Biodiversity issues in road environmental impact assessments: guidance and case studies. 1st ed. London: Imperial College. TH Huxley School of Environment, Earth Sciences & Engineering; 2000b. CEC, Commission of the European Communities. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora; 1992. CEC, Commission of the European Communities. Council Directive 2009/147/EEC of 30 November on the Conservation of Wild Birds. It replaces Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds; 2009. Council on Environmental Quality. Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact analysis under the national environmental policy act. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1993. Fernandes JP. Landscape ecology and conservation management—evaluation of alternatives in a highway EIA process. Environ Impact Asses 2000;20(6):665–80. Folkeson L, Antonson H, Helldin JO. Planners' views on cumulative effects. A focus-group study concerning transport infrastructure planning in Sweden. Land Use Policy 2013;30(1):243–53. García-Montero LG, López E, Monzón A, Otero I. Environmental screening tools for assessment of infrastructure plans based on biodiversity preservation and global warming (PEIT, Spain). Environ Impact Asses 2010;30(3):158–68. Geneletti D. Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Netherlands Geographical Studies nº 301. Utrecht: The Royal Dutch Geographical Society (KNAG); 2002.

Geneletti D. Biodiversity impact assessment of roads: an approach based on ecosystem rarity. Environ Impact Asses 2003;23(3):343–65. Geneletti D. Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. Environ Impact Asses 2006;26(3):257–67. Gómez M, Barredo JL. Sistemas de información geográfica y evaluación multicriterio en la ordenación del territorio. 1st ed. Madrid: RA-MA Editorial; 2005. Gómez-Orea D. Evaluación de impacto ambiental. 1st ed. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa Editorial; 2003. Gómez-Orea D. Recuperación de espacios degradados. 1st ed. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa Editorial; 2004. Gontier M, Balfors B, Mörtberg U. Biodiversity in environmental assessment current practice and tools for prediction. Environ Impact Asses 2006;26(3):268–86. González S, Desdentado L, Espluga AP, Martínez JM, Sobrini IM, Casermeiro MA. Situación de la evaluación ambiental del sector del transporte en España. In: Casermeiro, et al, editor. Evaluación de impacto ambiental: responsabilidad, vigilancia, eficaciaVI Congreso Nacional de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental proceedings book; 2011. Hadrian DR, Bishop ID, Mitcheltree R. Automated mapping of visual impacts in utility corridors. Landscape Urban Plan 1988;16(3):261–82. Heath MF, Evans MI, Hoccom DG, Payne AJ, Peet NB. Important bird areas in Europe: priority sites for conservation 2 volume set. 2nd ed. Cambridge (UK): BirdLife International; 2011. Herrero-Jiménez CM. An expert system for the identification of environmental impact based on a geographic information system. Expert Syst Appl 2011;39(8):6672–82. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 2011;409(19): 3578–94. IGME. Geological and Mining Institute of Spain. PATRIGEO database 1978–2008; 2008. Jankowski P, Richard I. Integration of GIS-based suitability analysis and multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision support system for route selection. Environ Plann B 1994;21(3):323–40. Jefatura de Estado. Ley 3/1995, de 23 de marzo, de Vías pecuarias; 1995. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 16/1985, de 25 de Junio, del Patrimonio Histórico Español; 1985. Jefatura del Estado. Ley 25/1988, de 29 de Julio, de Carreteras; 1988. Lee SD. Strategic environment assessment and biological diversity conservation in the Korean high-speed railway project. JEAPM 2005;7(2):287–98. Mata R, Sanz C, Gómez J, Allende F, López N, Molina P, et al. Atlas de los paisajes españoles. 1st ed. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente; 2003. Ministerio de Fomento. Pliego de Prescripciones Técnicas Generales para Obras de Carreteras y Puentes de la Dirección General de Carreteras. PG-3. Orden de 6 de Febrero de 1976 y actualizaciones posteriores; 1976. Ministerio de Fomento. Recomendaciones para la redacción de los estudios de carreteras. Estudio Informativo. 1st ed. Madrid: MOPU editorial; 1983. Ministerio de Fomento. Norma de Trazado 3.1-I.C. Orden de 27 de diciembre de 1999 por la que se aprueba la Norma 3.1-IC. Trazado, de la instrucción de, carreteras; 1999. Ministerio de Fomento. SIOSE project, Spanish land use and land cover information system. Madrid: Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica (CNIG); 2005. Ministerio de Fomento. Pliego de Prescripciones Técnicas para la redacción del Estudio Informativo. Criterios de valoración. Autovía del Norte A-1. Tramo Burgos-Miranda de Ebro; 2009. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Inventario Nacional de Erosión de Suelos. 1st ed. Madrid: OAPN editorial; 2002. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Mapa Forestal de España. 3rd ed. Madrid: OAPN editorial; 2007a. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional. 3rd ed. Madrid: OAPN editorial; 2007b. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Ley 42/2007, de 13 de Diciembre, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente; 2007c. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino. Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2008, de 11 de enero, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental de proyectos. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino; 2008. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino. Indicadores de fragmentación de hábitats causada por infraestructuras lineales de transporte. Documentos para la reducción de la fragmentación de hábitats causada por infraestructuras de transporte nº 4. 1st ed. Madrid: OAPN; 2010a. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino. Prescripciones técnicas para la reducción de la fragmentación de hábitats en las fases de planificación y trazado. Documentos para la reducción de la fragmentación de hábitats causada por infraestructuras de transportes, nº 3. 1st ed. Madrid: OAPN; 2010b. Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo. Real Decreto 1131/1988 de 30 de septiembre, por el que se aprueba el Reglamento para la ejecución de Real Decreto Legislativo 1302/1986, de 28 de junio de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental; 1988. National Roads Authority of Ireland. Guidelines for assessment of ecological impacts of national road schemes. 1st ed. Dublin: NRA; 2006. Neri M, Menconi ME, Vizzari M, Vincenzo G, Mennella G. A proposal of a new methodology for best location of environmentally sustainable roads infrastructures. Validation along the Fabriano-Muccia road. Inf. Constr. 2010;62(517):101–12. Otero I, Mancebo S, Ortega E, Casermeiro MA. Mapa de calidad del paisaje de España. M + A. Rev Electrón Medio Ambiente 2007;4:18–34. Pomerol JC, Barba-Romero S. Multicriterion decision in management — principles and practice. 1st ed. London: Springer; 2000. Rapaport E, Snickars F. GIS-based road location in Sweden: a case to minimize environmental damage, building costs and travel time. In: Stillwell J, Geertman S, Openshaw S, editors. Geographical information and planning. Advances in Spatial Science. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg; 1999. p. 135–53. Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, Porter JP. RUSLE: revised universal soil loss equation. J Soil Water Conserv 1991;46(1):30–3.

M. Loro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 44 (2014) 11–21 Rescia AJ, Astrada EN, Bono J, Blasco CA, Meli P, Adámoli JM. Environmental analysis in the selection of alternative corridors in a long-distance linear project: a methodological proposal. Environ Manage 2006;80(3):266–78. Rivas-Martínez S. Mapa de series, geoseries y geopermaseries de vegetación de España. Revisión del mapa de vegetación potencial de España. Itinera Geobotánica 2007;17: 1–436. Saaty T. The analytical hierarchy process. 1st ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill; 1980. Söderman T. Treatment of biodiversity issues in impact assessment of electricity power transmission lines: a Finnish case review. Environ Impact Assess 2006;26(4):319–38. Transit New Zealand. Guidelines for highway landscaping. 1st ed. Wellington: National Standards Manager Editorial; 2006. Trocmé M, Cahill S, de Vries HJG, Farrall H, Folkeson L, Fry G, et al, editors. COST 341 Habitat fragmentation due to transportation infrastructure. The European Review. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2002. Vanderhaegen M, Muro E. Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies. Environ Impact Asses 2005;25(2):123–42. Vía M, Gutiérrez J. Propuesta metodológica para la generación de corredores de mínimo impacto ambiental de carreteras: Integración del paisaje. El caso de la autopista radial 5. Comunidad de Madrid. Sevilla: I Congreso de Paisaje e Infraestructuras Conference proceedings book. 1st ed. ; 2006. Villarroya A, Puig J. A proposal to improve ecological compensation practice in road and railway projects in Spain. Environ Impact Asses 2013;42:87–94.

21

Manuel Loro (Transport Research Centre, Technical University of Madrid-UPM) is developing his PhD on Environmental Impact Assessment and GIS planning in the Technical University of Madrid (Madrid, Spain). He focuses his research on GIS applications to reduce environmental impacts, especially associated to new roads building. Rosa Arce PhD is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Environment in the Civil Engineering School of the Technical University of Madrid (UPM). She has over 25 years of EIA experience as a project manager, and as a specialist advisor– peer reviewer in such areas as impact prediction and interpretation methodology, alternatives evaluation and the integration of sustainability in decision making. She has wide experience in applied EIA practice and research, taught EIA at the graduate and undergraduate levels, and published widely in the field. Emilio Ortega PhD work as assistant Lecturer on Topography, Cartography and GIS (Department of Construction and Rural Roads, Forestry Engineering School UPM). He is also member of Transyt (Transport Research Centre-UPM). His research topic is focused on Territorial Transport Planning and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Belén Martín works as Assistant Lecturer on Topography, Cartography and GIS (Department of Construction and Rural Roads, Forestry Engineering School UPM). She is also member of Transyt (Transport Research Centre-UPM). She has been doing research since 2007 on environmental assessment of transport linear infrastructures.