- Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
- Received 26 May 2015, Revised 15 February 2016, Accepted 15 February 2016, Available online 26 February 2016
- Reviewed current EIA procedures in Thailand, Japan and China
- The EIA database is getting improved so as to generate profile of EIAs in the past.
- Thailand needs to empower the local EIA authority within the EIA system.
- The potential impacts should be more concerned than their scale in Japanese EIA.
- Time limits and transparency should be reconsidered in China's EIA system.
This paper aims to find ways to streamline the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system in Thailand to increase its effectiveness by comparative analysis with China and Japan. This study is mainly focused on review, update and comparison of EIA systems between these three countries. It is intended to clarify fundamental information of the EIA systems and characteristics of the key elements of EIA processes (screening, consideration of alternatives, prediction or evaluation of impact, and public participation). Moreover, the number of the EIA projects that have been implemented in all the provinces in Thailand are presented. The results identified the similarities and differences of the EIA processes among the three aforementioned countries. The type of EIA report used in Thailand, unlike those in China and Japan, is an Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA), which is concerned with the health and environmental impacts that could occur from the project. In addition, EIA reports in Thailand are made available to the public online and the shortcomings of the process have details of barriers resulting from the projects to help future projects with reconsideration and improvements. In this study, it is pointed out that Thai's EIA system still lacks local EIA authority which needs to be empowered by implementing a set of laws or ordinance.
- Environmental impact assessment
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.