Thesis (M. Environmental Management)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

Thesis (M. Environmental Management)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

For certain shellfish species, a mechanical harvester has the potential to greatly reduce harvesting costs. Traditionally, hand rakes are used in shellfish harvesting in British Columbia. In order to determine if it is environmentally feasible to use a mechanical harvester, an environmental assessment on mechanical harvesting and traditional harvesting needs to occur for comparison. In July 2008, a preliminary oceanographic assessment was conducted at three study sites in Baynes Sound. Each of the three study sites contained a mechanical and manual harvest plot and reference stations. Sampling stations were established at fixed positions within each plot and at four positions along a downstream transect (following the dominant current direction.) Surveys were conducted 24 hours pre-harvest, immediately post-harvest, and 24 hours post-harvest. Parameters included in situ sediment sulphides, eH (REDOX), sediment grain size (SGS), visual condition (digital imagery), sedimentation (silt flux) and sediment macro-fauna. Results show only localized environmental effects associated with each harvest approach; with no significant difference documented between the manual and mechanical harvesting methods on the study beaches. These results indicate the use of a mechanical shellfish harvester is as environmentally sound as the traditional method of hand harvesting, and poses no additional environmental risks. Introducing mechanization in shellfish harvesting will allow shellfish producers to reduce costs and increase profits, making the British Columbian shellfish industry more competitive with other suppliers. / Graduate

Thesis (M.Sc. (Technology of Environmental Management))--Mahidol University, 1978.

No description available.

An economic valuation methodology was developed in order to monetarily quantify the benefits resulting from the Indian River Lagoon - South (IRLS) $995 million Everglades restoration project. Service flows of the IRLS were identified and their associated economic baseline values were estimated utilizing existing research. A water quality baseline for the IRLS was also established and compared with the best available standards. Benefits accruing beyond the baseline values given the completion of the IRLS restoration were estimated via benefit transfer to be approximately $159 million annually, importantly factoring in the established IRLS water quality baseline. Given these benefit results of a lower bound estimate, the project was determined not to be economically feasible, i.e., NPV < $0, via a cost-benefit analysis. However, Monte Carlo analyses provided further insights into the probability of an economically feasible restoration (36%) given the uncertainty surrounding the benefit estimation, as well as specific variables to focus on to improve this probability. This research highlights the potential significant economic value of the IRLS and the importance of properly estimating this value given the magnitude of costs.

It is widely accepted that design changes, occurring during construction projects, can account for a significant proportion of the engineering design consultant’s total cost. Projects with multidisciplinary, distributed and virtual project teams, working on technically challenging problems, make the impact of design changes increasingly difficult to predict. Existing guidance suggests ‘best practice’ protocols for recording, reporting and communicating design changes. However, best practice protocols do not provide guidance for predicting the impact in terms of project cost and duration. Impact assessments are essential in the decision to implement changes and subsequently being in a position to justify fee claims to clients. Decisions in the construction process are normally based on experience and professional knowledge of practitioners, such as architects, engineers, project managers and contractors. There is evidence, however, that, in design management, sharing of professional knowledge tends to be tacit and socially constructed (where team members draw on their own experience and the experience of those around them). Although practitioner experience and intuition is invaluable in determining the impact of a design change, this research is based on the position that a more structured process is required. It is argued that a software based approach, to better inform practitioners’ existing knowledge, is required to improve the quality and accuracy of impact assessments. The current practice for managing and assessing change was examined through studying the operations of the case study organisation, undertaking a literature review and conducting interviews with representatives from organisations in other industries. A new project management tool was then developed which provides support for practitioners to make better-informed impact assessments. This is achieved through providing: (a) a process map to visualise rework, (b) instant access to previous similar impact assessments and (c) an embedded, standardised method for knowledge sharing. The concept for this tool was developed by combining appropriate techniques and tools found in the design management and knowledge management literature. Users are further encouraged to use the software tool through a system to automate the updating of Microsoft Project schedules, thus eliminating time currently spent scheduling rework. The validation and verification stages consisted of formal interviews with potential users and preliminary user testing. Regular feedback on the support tool was obtained from a wide range of peers and potential users and this was then used to develop its functionality. Positive feedback has included comments about the concept of the tool, user-friendliness and need for implementation.

This thesis contributes to the understanding of the most effective ways to promote sustainable and inclusive development. It uses public private partnerships in infrastructure projects as a case study for demonstrating that a holistic approach of development that incorporates human rights considerations is needed to achieve sustainable and inclusive development outcomes. The dissertation explores different notions of development and how they have influenced the regulatory frameworks for and the structuring of Infrastructure projects and their effectiveness in achieving their intended development outcomes. It demonstrates that public-private partnerships add several layers of complexity to infrastructure finance, planning and implementation, and that they can result in a significant gap between the project’s intended and actual developmental outcomes. The thesis proposes that governments and other project sponsors use human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) to address the challenges created by public-private partnerships in infrastructure projects and shows that this will help increase the possibility that infrastructure PPPs lead to sustainable development outcomes. The thesis also analyses a number of established human rights impact assessment methodologies and proposes a new approach that is specifically designed for the particular context of public-private partnerships in infrastructure projects. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2020. / National Research Foundation (NRF) / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted

Environmental Impact Assessment is a procedure that ensures that the environmental consequences of development proposals are understood and adequately considered in the planning process. This important project planning requirement is often inadequately addressed in many developing countries - especially with regard to dam projects. Lesotho is a small developing country in Southern Africa which is currently engaged in a multi-phased dam project - the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) - in order to utilize its most abundant natural resource - water. Planning for the LHWP incurred some irregularities, particularly with regard to environmental implications. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the environmental impact assessment procedures of the LHWP, Phase lA. This includes review of the environmental studies that were carried out and the findings of these studies; assessment of the familiarity of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) staff with EIA procedures; and examination of the extent to which the communities in the project area were consulted regarding this project. The study is based on two surveys: firstly, within the Environment Division of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority to assess the familiarity of staff members with proper EIA procedures. In this survey 28 self-administered questionnaires were issued, and 23 were collected. Secondly, structured interviews and unstructured group discussions were carried out in 14 villages to examine the extent to which the communities affected by the LHWP had been involved in the environmental impact assessments of Phase lA; and whether the impacts they experienced and the subsequent. Mitigation efforts had been considered comprehensively by the project proponents. Eighty interviews were conducted in six of the 14 villages selected in the study, in the remaining villages data was collected through group discussions. The groups consisted of 10 - 12 members (usually prominent persons) from the community. The study revealed that EIA for Phase 1 A of the LHWP was not carried out according to recognized standards. Environmental studies that were undertaken were done too late in the EIA process, and did riot facilitate the project planning. The study also found that the majority of LHDA staff members are not familiar with the details of the EIA process, and did not participate in Phase lA project planning. The communities affected by the LHWP were not given the opportunity to raise their concerns about the project. This is manifested by the magnitude and type of impacts which they have incurred because of the LHWP. Members of these communities therefore regard their livelihoods as being worse than before the project. It is thus recommended that LHDA should revise and significantly improve its project planning approaches - especially for the subsequent phases of the project. It is imperative· to incorporate public participation in the EIAs of these phases. Formulation of guideline sand legislation - in Lesotho as a whole - will ensure enforcement and compliance with sound environmental assessment procedures, and improve on LHDA's manpower capabilities with regard to EIA and environmental management. This in turn will enhance an environmentally sustainable development.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is subject to challenges that undermine this process as an effective safeguard to biodiversity. Internationally, effective EIA is hindered by the following issues: a low priority assigned to the consideration of biodiversity and a limited capacity to carry out assessments; a lack of formalised procedures and inconsistent methodologies to address biodiversity within the EIA framework; and a lack of formal requirements for post-project monitoring of biodiversity aspects. Traditionally effectiveness studies in this regard have focused on evaluating the procedural aspects of EIA, and have focused less on the substantive outcomes of the post-authorisation phase of a proposed project. While South Africa has a considerable body of literature pertaining to the procedural aspects of EIA, there remain two substantial gaps in the literature. Firstly, there is an evident absence of effectiveness studies in South Africa that focus primarily on biodiversity-specific procedure. Secondly, almost no research has been conducted in South Africa which investigates the outcomes of mitigation measures, mandatory monitoring, reporting and compliance with biodiversity aspects of EIA. This research therefore aims to fill these gaps by investigating the quality of information generated in five EIAs in the Western Cape. It also examines the implementation success of mitigation measures aimed at managing unavoidable impacts in the post-authorisation phase of these projects. This research has adopted a case study methodological approach. Five EIAs were selected from a sample of 9. In no order of significance, the variables considered most important in the sampling protocol were: the presence of a biodiversity-related specialist report; availability of environmental assessment documentation; overall cases to represent at least two different local jurisdictions; and the uniqueness of adopted biodiversity-related mitigation measures. The primary method used to evaluate the quality of biodiversity-related information is a Key Performance Indicator analysis, whereby the performance of cases is measured against legal and best-practice reporting principles. The substantive outcomes of EIA have been investigated by means of site inspections and interviews with key stakeholders. This research has found that the five cases performed well with complying with best-practice EIA procedure, indicating a 53% full compliance, 29% partial compliance and 18% of best-practice principles were not complied with at all. This research has shown that direct impacts on biodiversity (such as the physical removal of indigenous vegetation) are adequately identified, and indirect impacts (typically those impacting off-site and on ecological processes) are poorly identified in EIA. Therefore, the information required to avoid impacts on biodiversity is available, but this research has found that it is underutilized in this regard. Notably, avoidance of impacts was undermined inadequate site and layout alternatives and poor decision making in terms of the regular authorisation of irreversible impacts on biodiversity. Conversely, only 18% of mitigation measures were fully complied with, 36% were partially complied with, and 45% of mitigation measures were not complied with. These results indicate a poor performance of EIA in the implementation stage of a project lifecycle. This research has concluded this is most likely due to a poor conversion of recommended mitigation measures into conditions of authorisation and a limited capacity of the competent authority to perform compliance monitoring.