Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /e ia r

Determining Vulnerability Importance in Environmental Impact AssessmentThe case of Colombia

Javier Toro a, Oscar Duarte b, Ignacio Requena c, Montserrat Zamorano d,⁎a Institute of Environmental Studies, National University of Colombia, Bogotá, Colombiab Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, National University of Colombia, Bogotá, Colombiac Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, Spaind Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, Spain

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil EnginE.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, CampGranada, Spain. Tel.: +34 958 249458; fax: +34 958 2

E-mail addresses: jjtoroca@unal.edu.co (J. Toro), ogdurequena@decsai.ugr.es (I. Requena), zamorano@ugr.es (M

0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Aldoi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.06.005

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 December 2010Received in revised form 20 June 2011Accepted 20 June 2011Available online 3 August 2011

Keywords:VulnerabilityEnvironmental Impact AssessmentEnvironmental Impact ProcessColombia

The concept of vulnerability has been used to describe the susceptibility of physical, biotic, and social systemsto harm or hazard. In this sense, it is a tool that reduces the uncertainties of Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) since it does not depend exclusively on the value assessments of the evaluator, but rather is based on theenvironmental state indicators of the site where the projects or activities are being carried out. The concept ofvulnerability thus reduces the possibility that evaluators will subjectively interpret results, and be influencedby outside interests and pressures during projects. However, up until now, EIA has been hindered by a lack ofeffective methods. This research study analyzes the concept of vulnerability, defines Vulnerability Importanceand proposes its inclusion in qualitative EIA methodology. The method used to quantify VulnerabilityImportance is based on a set of environmental factors and indicators that provide a comprehensive overviewof the environmental state. The results obtained in Colombia highlight the usefulness and objectivity of thismethod since there is a direct relation between this value and the environmental state of the departmentsanalyzed.

eering, University of Granada,us de Fuentenueva s/n, 1807146138.artev@unal.edu.co (O. Duarte),. Zamorano).

l rights reserved.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The scientific use of the concept of vulnerability is central to manyareas of knowledge, and is a basic tool for the analysis of envi-ronmental problems (Adger, 2006; Füssel, 2007; Gallopín, 2006; Smitand Wandel, 2006; Tran et al., 2010; Turner, 2010). For this reason,interdisciplinary research has begun to explore vulnerability as ap-plied to the analysis of problems that arise in economy, sociology,ecology, agriculture, climate change, and natural risks. Vulnerability isalso an expression of how the natural and human environment canrespond to external events (Adger, 1999; Becker, 2001; Berry et al.,2006; Burdge et al., 1995; Cutter et al., 2003; Downing et al., 2001;Metzger et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2008a; Smith and Zollner, 2005;Turner et al., 2003; Wei et al., 2004).

According to Bradley and Smith (2004), vulnerability refers to thepossibility that future conditions will become worse. Other authorsdefine vulnerabilitymore generally as susceptibility to damage, due tothe sensitivity or exposure of a system, people, or places to impacts,stresses, or perturbations. It has also been applied to the state of the

system relative to a threshold of damage and the system's ability toadapt to changing conditions (Kelly and Adger;, 2000; Luers et al.,2003; Smith and Pilifosova, 2002; Turner et al., 2003). Even thoughthere is no agreement on the definition of vulnerability or how it canbe applied to all environmental assessments (Füssel, 2007; Gallopín,2006), it is a crucial component in the analysis of the interrelation ofecosystems and society.

Vulnerability is also regarded as the potential for the change ortransformation of a system when confronted with a perturbationrather than as the outcome of this confrontation. (Gallopín, 2006).Apart from general vulnerability or biophysical vulnerability, there isalso social vulnerability, which is related to the characteristics andexperiences of communities and people who must respond to andrecover from the environmental hazards or stressors to which theyare exposed. Such characteristics include age, race, health, income,type of dwelling unit, and education. Other relevant characteristics tobe considered are access to resources, political power, and socialrepresentation as well as beliefs and customs, values, type and densityof infrastructures, and lifelines (Cutter et al., 2003). Social andbiophysical vulnerability also interact and produce general vulnera-bility in a given place (Tran et al., 2010).

Social vulnerability has various connotations depending on researchorientation and perspective. However, vulnerability research has thefollowing three basic tenets: (i) the identification of conditions thatmake people as well as physical and biotic factors vulnerable; (ii) the

108 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

assumption that vulnerability is a social condition, a measure of socialresistance, or resilience to hazards; (iii) the integration of potentialexposures and social resilience to a specific stressor on a particular placeor region (Cutter et al., 2000; Cutter et al., 2003).

Disciplines or knowledge areas have different conceptions ofvulnerability, and this has led to different methods of measuring it(Tran et al., 2010). Within the context of our research, EnvironmentalImpact Assessment (EIA) is regarded as the evaluation of the naturalor acquired susceptibility of all physical, biotic, social, and economicenvironmental factors to impacts from the construction, operation, ordismantling of projects, building structures, or activities. This sus-ceptibility is directly related to the resilience of the environmentalfactor and the nature of the stressor or disturbance.

Regarding vulnerability assessment, the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) has created a program known asRegional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) to deal with problemsresulting from environmental decision-making processes, such asbudget reductions, time restrictions, and lack of information. ReVAmethods allow users to devise scenarios for the analysis of possiblechanges in environmental vulnerability, while taking into accountregional variations in factors such as population growth, economicconditions, land use, transportation infrastructure, etc. The ReVAapproach allows decision-makers to evaluate current conditions andvulnerabilities by using variables and indices. Variables are collectedand made available to the public by the EPA through the ReVA pro-gram. This approachmakes it possible to evaluate net change and thusvisualize the positive and negative changes in future conditions andenvironmental vulnerabilities (Smith et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2008b).

Evidently, vulnerability analysis can alsobeused to integrate EIA intothe context of global change (Kates et al., 2001) and more objectivelydetermine the impact of human actions and activities on theenvironment (Kværner et al., 2006;Wang et al., 2008a, 2008b;Weston,2004). Subjectivity in Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as inthe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), where certain impacts maybe ignored or regarded as insignificant, has brought vulnerability intothe spotlight within the EIA process (Kværner et al., 2006; Wang et al.,2008a). Environmental Impact Assessments that include vulnerabilityare generally less subjective than those that do not (Kværner et al.,2006). Nevertheless, if vulnerability is to be an integral part of the EIA, itmust first be measured. Since it is a phenomenon that is often notdirectly observable, interdisciplinary methods should be proposed inthe spatiotemporal context of the countries that apply them (Kværneret al., 2006).

Colombia is located in the northwestern corner of South America,and has a surface area of 1,141,748 km2. It is a constitutional republic,divided into 32 departments, which are subdivided in 1089 cities ormunicipalities. Ten of these municipalities have been designated asdistricts because of a distinguishing characteristic related to political,commercial, historical, scenic, cultural, industrial, or environmentalimportance. Other important features that give these municipalitiesthe status of districts can be the fact that they are the seat of pre-stigious universities, or that they are strategic port or border cities. Forexample, the city of Bogotá, the capital city of Colombia, is the CapitalDistrict (Toro, 2009).

Toro et al. (2010) evaluated the EIA process in Colombia, andconcluded it had the following characteristics: (i) the exclusion of aconsiderable number of potentially high-impact environmental sectors;(ii) moderate control by the government of the methods used to iden-tify and assess impacts; (iii) infrequent auditing of the EIA system;(iv) discrimination in community involvement. According to thisresearch, the methods used were based on evaluations that dependedsolely on the personal criteria of the evaluator. As a result, many en-vironmental impacts were not identified, and this was conducive tothe progressive deterioration of the ecosystem (Toro, 2009; Toro et al.,2010). In order to correct deficiencies, modifications were proposed,whichwouldpresumably lead to compensation effects in the calculation

of the global impact. These compensation effects included theintegration of vulnerability in the EIA process.

In this paper,weanalyzevulnerability in the context of the EIAwithaview to subsequently including it in qualitative methods for En-vironmental ImpactAssessment. For those caseswhere there is a limitedquantity of environmental information and/or a lack of economicresources to generate such information, we propose and describe amethod for calculatingVulnerability Importance. Thismethod indirectlymeasures vulnerability by analyzing the loss of function of theenvironmental factor studied within the legal, social, physical, andbiotic context in Colombia. Thefinal section of thepaper shows how thismethod was applied to a Colombian context, and presents the researchresults.

This should be regarded as a preliminary study that will pave theway to subsequent research in which the Vulnerability Importancevalues obtained will be used to calculate the magnitude of environ-mental impacts in Colombia.

2. Vulnerability in the EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) entails the examination,analysis, and assessment of planned activities in order to ensureenvironmentally sound and sustainable development. EIA can thus beregarded as an effective planning and management tool (Hollick,1981; Ortolano and Sheperd, 1995; Samarakoon and Rowan, 2008;Snell and Cowell, 2006; Wathern, 1994; Wood, 1993). As such, it canbe used to identify the type, magnitude, and potential changes in theenvironment as a result of an activity or policy. It also helps to trans-mit this information to decision-makers. Evidently, the adoption andimplementation of Environmental Impact Assessment depends on theinstitutional framework and political context of the decision-makingprocess (Ortolano et al., 1987).

Based on this description of the EIA, the inclusion of vulnerability inEnvironmental Impact Assessment coincides with recurrent recom-mendations to reduce uncertainty in EIAmethods (Weston, 2004). Thisuncertainty is present in processes that are largely made up of pre-dictions of future scenarios in which there is a proliferation of valueassessments and the subjective opinions of project managers, govern-ment officials, and the general public (Barker andWood, 1999). The useof environmental vulnerability, combinedwith amethod for objectivelymeasuring it, would reduce the subjectivity of EIA methods, especiallythose with a qualitative approach.

In traditional EIA methods, environmental vulnerability has onlybeen considered very superficially when project alternatives areproposed. However, the general tendency is to exclude it or ignore italtogether in the EIS (Kværner et al., 2006). Even though there seem tobe methods for measuring vulnerability, especially in the context ofclimate change, little research has been carried out on this subject. Infact, at best, it is in an embryonic stage since it is not a legal require-ment in the EIA (Annandale, 2001; El-Fadl and El-Fadel, 2004; Paliwal,2006).

For example, in Norway, vulnerability is regarded as a secondaryconcept in the EIA, and is included in legislation to estimate envi-ronmental impacts on the landscape through comparisons that in-clude diversity and singularity. For Norway, Kværner et al. (2006)proposed including vulnerability within the context of an alternativeapproach known as the Integrated Vulnerability Model (IVM). Despitethe fact that the IVM has only been used in certain pilot studies, theidea is to make it an integral part of all EIS phases, even though noquantitative calculation is involved.

Luers et al. (2003) and Luers (2005) developed a generic formulato measure vulnerability in agriculture and land use, based on thesensitivity of environmental factors to stress and the state of theenvironmental factor as related to the threshold of change.

Wang et al. (2008a; 2008b) describe a method in which remotesensing and Geographic Information Systems are used to analyze eco-

environmental vulnerability and the changes in the ecosystem studied.They developed a mathematical model based on the Spatial PrincipalComponentAnalysis (SPCA). Thismodel includes variables pertaining toland use, soil erosion, topography, climate, and vegetation. It classifiesvulnerability in six categories: potential, slight, light, moderate, heavy,and very heavy.

According to Füssel (2007), the inclusion of vulnerability in the EIAshould take into account the following basic aspects:

i) The identification of the system,which canbe a coupled human-environment system, a population group, an economic sector,a geographic region, or a natural system. Generally speaking,vulnerability can be applied to any system that is potentiallythreatened by a hazard.

ii) The attribute. This refers to the properties of the system thatcan be threatened by exposure to a hazard. Examples of attri-butes include human health, income, the cultural identity of acommunity, biodiversity, potential carbon capture, and timberproduction.

iii) The situation of danger or risk. This refers to a potentiallyharmful influence on the system being analyzed or an influencethat can adversely affect an attribute of the system.

iv) The temporal reference. This is a point or period of time whenthe analysis will be carried out.

In their evaluation of the EIA in Colombia, Toro et al. (2010)concluded that proposals were necessary that would guarantee theobjectivity, context, and effectiveness of the EIA in order to reduce theenvironmental deterioration that currently affects human health andproductivity in Colombia. For this reason, vulnerability in the EIAprocess should be taken into account in the Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS), particularly in the description of the environment,assessment of impacts, and revision of the EIS by the government. Itespecially should be considered in the verification of the contingencyplan. This plan includes part of the corrective measures to be carriedout and specifically deals with emergencies that can arise during theuseful life of the project, structure, or activity. This verification revealsif the plan takes into account the analysis of the project's vulnerabilityas shown in Fig. 1.

Consequently, vulnerability can be measured by many methodsand conceptual approaches, depending on the social and ecosystemcontext of the site where the EIS is being carried out. We have definedvulnerability as the predisposition of an environmental factor to sufferthe impact of a human activity, disturbance, or perturbation. This isin accordance with authors such as Luers et al. (2003), Smith andPilifosova (2002), Turner et al. (2003), Gallopín (2006) and Walkeret al. (2004). Vulnerability can thus be measured by a series ofparameters related to the stress towhich the factor is exposed becauseof pre-existing impacts, environmental pollution, vulnerable rarespecies, sensitive populations, or another type of stressor that reducesthe resilience of the socio-ecological system (SES). The SES is definedas a system that includes societal (human) and ecological (biophys-ical) subsystems in mutual interaction (Gallopín, 1991).

Resilience is a concept that originated within ecology to definepersistence and change in ecosystems or the capacity of a system toabsorb perturbations and reorganize itself in order to maintain es-sentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedback. Re-silience is also applicable to social systems, where it is defined as thecapacity of groups or communities to deal with external aggressionsand disturbances as the result of social, political, and biophysicalchanges (Adger, 2000; Gallopín, 2006; Walker et al., 2004).

Resilience in engineering contexts refers to the return speed of asystem to equilibrium (Holling, 1996). Even though this concept isrelated to ecological resilience, it cannot be regarded as a way ofmeasuring resilience. The concept of resilience as applied to the SEShas three meanings: (i) the response of a system to perturbations;

(ii) its capacity to organize itself; (iii) its capacity to adapt (Carpenteret al., 2001; Folke, 2006; Folke et al., 2002). When these threemeanings are applied in ourmethodology, resilience can be defined asthe degree of perturbation or disturbance that a system can absorband still remain in the same state (Turner, 2010). Examples of actionsthat generate perturbation or disturbances and which can reduce theresilience of an SES are the seepage of liquid waste into surface orground water, deforestation and poaching (Adger, 2006; Toro, 2009).

The vulnerability analysis proposed and its inclusion in the EIAcould be a valuable tool for identifying what Tran et al. (2009) affirmis the basic issue in environmental evaluation, namely, the identifi-cation of the resources that are most sensitive to negative impact. Thisidentification is crucial since these resources should be the focus ofthe corrective measures specified in the environmental managementplan. The vulnerability analysis described in this paper will alsoimprove the evaluation of the importance of the impact in qualitativeEIA methodology. This methodology calculates the importance of theimpact by using the mathematical expression 1, where Imp stands forthe Importance of Impact; α refers to the weighting of the Importanceof Iimpact; I is the Intensity; Ex is the Extension;Mo is theMoment; Peis the Persistence; Rv is the Reversibility; Si is the Synergy; Ac is theAccumulation; Ef is the Effect; Pr is the Periodicity; and Rc is theRecovery (Conesa, 1996). Since the attributes in this method havebeen assigned a value by an evaluator, the level of uncertainty is high.

Imp = α 3I + 2Ex + Mo + Pe + Rv + Si + Ac + Ef + Pr + Rcð Þð1Þ

Qualitative EIA methodology is applied throughout the world(Canter and Sadler, 1997; Sadler, 1996) as well as in Colombia. It hasthe advantage of being economical and easy to use, and it is a rapidsource of information. Nonetheless, it has been criticized becauseattributes are assigned values largely on a subjective basis. Opinionsregarding the importance of certain environmental impacts can dif-fer greatly, depending on the personal values and attitudes of theinterested parties (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Duinker and Beanlands,

GENERAL CONTENT OF THEENVIRONMENT IMPACT

STATEMENT EN COLOMBIA

1. General description of the project

2. Environmentalcharacterization of the area of

influence

4. Demand for natural resources3. Environmental zoning

5. Environmental impact assessment

6. Environmental managementplan

7. Tracking and monitoring plan

8. Contingency plan

9. Dismantling plan

Include analysis ofenvironmental

VULNERABILITY

Fig. 1. Inclusion of the concept of vulnerability in the EIA process in Colombia. Shadedareas should be affected by vulnerability analysis.

109J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

110 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

1986; Ijäs et al., 2010; Kotchen and Reiling, 2000; Kværner et al.,2006; Lawrence, 2007; Smith et al., 2003; Stern et al., 1993; Weston,2004). This is often conducive to the manipulation of results, espe-cially in countries such as Colombia, where legislation permits the useof any method or choice of evaluation criteria (Toro et al., 2010). Inthis respect, there are various studies and/or methods that can beused to identify and quantify the values as well as the attitudes of theinterested parties (Barker and Wood, 1999; Ijäs et al., 2010; Modakand Biswas, 1999; Pastakia and Jensen, 1998; Sadler, 1996).

In this sense, vulnerability could be included in Eq. 1, such that itsevaluation would depend exclusively on the measurable characteris-tics of the environmental factor without being influenced in any wayby the judgments of the evaluators. This quantitative approach wouldsubstantially reduce its subjectivity. With a view towards a moreobjective evaluation, Toro (2009) proposed modifying Eq. 1 and cal-culating the importance of the impact with the mathematical ex-pression (2), where β is the value selected for the weighting of theVulnerability Importance and where ImpVul is the Vulnerability Im-portance, whose value is determined by themethodology described inthe following section.

Imp = α 3I + 2Ex + Mo + Pe + Rv + Si + Ac + Ef + Pr + Rcð Þ+ β ImpVul

ð2Þ

Eq. (2) can be interpreted within the information aggregationframework. Themain issue addressed by this theory is how to combineinformation that comes from different sources, is of different types,and has different qualities into a single space (see, for example, Fodorand Rudas, 2009). Rudas (2001) gives a survey of the aggregationconnectives, most of which are based on the fuzzy set theory (Zadeh,1965). A very useful set of aggregation operators are the OrderedWeighted Averaging (OWA) family of parametric operators, whichhave been extensively studied by Yager (Yager, 1988, 2010, 2009;Yager and Kacprzyk, 1997; Filev and Yager, 1998). Simple average,maximum, and minimum are special cases of the OWA family.

Regarding the selection of the most suitable aggregation operatorfor complex systems, the incompatibility principle (Zadeh, 1973)should be taken into account. According to this principle, the precisionand significance (or relevance) of our statements about very complexsystems are almost mutually exclusive characteristics. The environ-ment is a very complex system, and in an EIA, the goal is to makerelevant statements about the overall impact. As a result, we need touse simple aggregation operators, even if they are less precise thanmore sophisticated choices. The weighted average of Eq. (2) is simpleenough to maintain the interpretability of the importance of eachindividual impact. In Eq. (2), Vulnerability Importance can be under-

Table 1Indicators for environmental factors (Toro, 2009).

Factor Indicator

Wildlife habitat (WH) Vegetation cover/ecosystem surface changesWildlife diversity (WD) Number of endangered speciesFlora diversity (FD) Number of endangered speciesSurface water quality(SWQ)

Percentage of municipalities using wastewatertreatment systems

Land use change (LUC) Percentage of land with overexplotationAir quality (AQ) Air quality index (AQI)Social security (SS) Life quality index (LQI)Population (Pp) Population density in relation to the threat to diversity

Employment (Ep) Unemployment rateEducational system(Edu)

Average years of education of the population over 15 years

stood as the importance of a single impact due to the vulnerability ofthe impacted factor.

3. Method for determining Vulnerability Importance

Once Vulnerability Importance was defined, a method had to befound to measure it. The procedure followed in our study consistedof the following four phases: (i) definition of environmental factors;(ii) definition of indicators; (iii) qualitative determination of thevulnerability of environmental factors; (iv) assignment of quantita-tive values to Vulnerability Importance.

3.1. Definition of environmental factors

Human activities evidently have an important effect on the en-vironment. The significance of an environmental impact largelydepends on the spatial distribution of the effects of the action aswell as on the affected environmental factors. An environmentalfactor in the EIA is any environmental element or component that canbe potentially affected, either positively or negatively, by a project,building construction, or activity. The first step in the evaluation ofVulnerability Importance is the identification of any environmentalfactors at the site that may be sensitive to this impact. Advances in thedevelopment of methods to identify and quantify these receptors areextremely valuable since they are useful as guidelines or as genericlists that can be adapted to fit the conditions at each site (Canter et al.,1985; Canter and Sadler, 1997; Dee and Baker, 1973; Leopold et al.,1971). These factors can be of two types: (i) biophysical environ-mental factors; (ii) social environmental factors (Canter et al., 1985;Long Gen and You, 1995). Relevant examples of such factors includeair quality, biological populations, communities and habitats, waterquality, and biota (Antunes et al., 2001; Donnelly et al., 2007).

For the vulnerability analysis in this research, ten environmentalfactors were selected that provided relevant data regarding SESfunctions, and which have been used in similar studies (Leopold et al.,1971; Long Gen and You, 1995; OECD, 1993; 2004; Wang et al., 2008a,2008b). A further consideration was the fact that digital informationwas available for each factor. The following ten factors were chosen:(i) wildlife habitat; (ii) flora diversity; (iii) air quality; (iv) land usechange; (v) surface water quality; (vi) social security; (vii) population(migration, emigration); (viii) employment (temporary and perma-nent); (ix)wildlife diversity; (x) educational system. These factorswereorganized with the purpose of finding a more encompassing and ef-fective evaluation pattern of environmental impacts. The first column ofTable 1 shows the ten indicators used. It should be underlined thatwildlife diversity and education system are two factors that are not

References

Márquez, 2005; Pereira et al., 2004; Smith and Zollner, 2005Carrete et al., 2009; Mazaris Antonios et al., 2008; IUCN, 2006Carrete et al., 2009; Mazaris Antonios et al., 2008; IUCN, 2006Diario Oficial del Estado Colombiano, 1984; Gandini et al., 2000

Metzger et al., 2006; Rounsevell and Reay, 2009; Yan et al., 2009Cheng et al., 2007; U.S. EPA, 1999a, 1999b; Liu, 2002.Nathwani et al., 2008; Pandey and Nathwani, 1996, 2003; Pandey et al., 2006Delgado et al., 2008; Burgess et al., 2007; Luck, 2007a; Luck, 2007b; Pautasso, 2007;Urquiza-Haas et al., 2009Frenkel and Ros, 2006; Gan and Zhang, 2006; Jacques and Walkowiak, 2009Canter et al., 1985; Burdge, 1987; Tarabini, 2010; Tilak, 2007; US DOE, 1978;Wedgwood, 2007; Wisc SPO, 1975.

111J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

generally included in vulnerability analysis. Nevertheless, they are veryimportant in the Colombian context.

The inclusionofwildlife diversity is justifiedbecause its conservationand sustainability is currently a worldwide priority, given the reper-cussions of its loss on the productivity and recovery capacity of eco-systems. Needless to say, such a loss also affects the livelihood ofmillions of peoplewhodependonwildlife diversity (Carrete et al., 2009;IUCN, 2006; Mazaris Antonios et al., 2008). Furthermore, it should behighlighted that Colombia is the fourth most biodiverse country in theworld. In fact, it is the first most important in amphibians and birds, thethird in reptiles, and the fifth in mammals (Delgado et al., 2008).

The inclusion of the educational system was considered necessarybecause of its preventive and remedial function in society today. It hasa preventive function because it facilitates entry into the labor marketby guaranteeing access to a wide range of high-quality educationalresources as well as the acquisition of a set of basic competences. It hasa remedial function because it provides compensatory measures that

Table 2Ranges of the qualitative assignment of the vulnerability of different factors. Air quality is s

Factor CategoryName

Wildlife Habitat (WH)

High

Veget

Ecosy

chang

Medium-High

Medium

Medium Low-Low

Wildlife Diversity (WD)

Low-Medium Low

Numb

specie

Medium

Medium-High

High

Flora diversity (FD)

Low-Medium Low

Numb

specie

Medium

Medium-High

High

Surface Water Quality (SWQ)

High

Perce

muni

waste

system

Moderate

Severe

Very Severe

Land Use Change (LUC)

High

Perce

with o

Moderate

Severe

Very Severe

Air Quality (AQ)Air Qu

(AQI)

Good

Aceptable

Bad

Very Bad

Social Security (SS)

High

Life Q

(LQI)

Medium-High

Medium

Low

Population (Pp)

LowPopul

relati

to div

Moderate

Moderately High

High

Employment (Ep)

Null or Low

UnemModerate

Moderately High

High

Educational System (Edu)

High Avera

educa

popul

years

Moderately High

Moderately High

Low

ensure equal opportunity (Tarabini, 2010; Tilak, 2007; Wedgwood,2007). The educational systemhas been regarded as an environmentalfactor in the EIA in a variety of research studies. In this respect, the USDepartment of Energy (US DOE). (1978) and the Wisconsin StatePlanning Office (Wisc SPO) (1975) require impacts on the educationalsystem to be annually calculated for each school district within thearea of influence of the project, construction work, or activity. Otherresearch studies that discusse the educational system in the context ofEIA are Burdge (1987), Canter and Sadler (1997), Canter et al. (1985),Canter et al. (1985) and Sadler (1996). These factors and theirindicators are listed in Table 1.

3.2. Definition of indicators

Once the environmental factors are specified, each factor musthave a series of indicators that provide a vision of the environmentalstate, and which include physical, biotic and socioeconomic informa-

haded in grey.

IndicatorVulnerability

Value

ation cover /

stem surface

es

> 60 VL

> 40 − 60 VML

> 30 − 40

VMH0 − 30

VH

er of threatened

s

0 − 9 VL

10 − 44 VML

45 − 98 VMH

> 98 VH

er of threatened

s

0 − 9 VL

10 − 44 VML

45 − 98 VMH

> 98

>50 − < 60

< 50

VH

ntage of

cipalities using

water treatment

s

80 − 100 VL

≥ 60 − < 80 VML

VMH

VH

ntage of land

verexplotation

< 10 VL

10 − 20 VML

21 − 40 VMH

> 40 VH

ality Index

0 − 49 VL

50 − 99 VML

100 − 150 VMH

> 150 VH

uality Index

ICV ≥ 80 VL

75 ≥ ICV < 80 VML

65 ≥ ICV < 75 VMH

ICV < 65 VH

ation density in

on to the threat

ersity

≤ 25 VL

≤ 50 VML

> 50 − ≤ 100 VMH

> 100 VH

ployment rate

< 5.0 VL

5.5 − 7.5 VML

7.5 − 10 VMH

> 10 VH

ge years of

tion of the

ation over 15

≥ 10 VL

< 8 − 10 VML

< 7 − 8 VMH

≤ 7 VH

Table 3Ranges of the indicators of environmental factors for the quantitative assignment ofVulnerability.

Qualitative vulnerabilityvaluation

Quantitativevulnerability valuation

Vulnerabilityimportance value

High vulnerability VH 5 100Moderately highvulnerability

VMH 4 80

Moderatelyvulnerability

VML 2 40

Low vulnerability VL 1 20

Table 4Qualitative determination of air vulnerability in Colombia for regions under thejurisdiction of CARs.

Autonomous corporation AQI Vulnerability qualitative valuation

AMVA 151 VH

CAR 132 VMH

CORPOBOYACÁ 139 VMH

CARDER 81.5 VML

CDMB 156.3 VH

CORPOGUAJIRA 78.3 VML

CORNARE 81.8 VML

CORPAMAG 72.3 VML

CORPOCALDAS 133.8 VMH

CORPONOR 104 VMH

CORTOLIMA 91.5 VML

CRC 95.3 VML

CVC 106 VMH

CDA 167.3 VH

DAGMA 80.5 VML

CORALINA 60.2 VML

DAMAB 112.2 VH

DAMA 81.24 VML

CAS 100 VMH

CORANTIOQUIA 175 VH

CRQ 38 VL

CAM 71.36 VML

CORPOCESAR 109.6 VMH

112 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

tion. These indicators supply evidence of different types of situation orexplicitly reflect a tendency that otherwise would be very difficult toperceive, much less calculate (Niemeijer and De Groot, 2008). Thisinformation permits the qualitative measurement of the vulnerabilityof environmental factors at the sites studied. The purpose of theseindicators is to provide relevant information which is timely, com-prehensive, and reliable. Such information is the basis for in-depthresearch, planning, policy-making, and decisions that are less biasedand considerably more objective (Tegler et al., 2001).

The vulnerability indicators adopted in this study are based on theinformation available in the Colombian environmental informationsystem, known as the Sistema de Información Ambiental de Colombia(SIAC). The SIAC (www.siac.gov.co) is the integrated set of agents,policies, processes, and technologies involved in environmental infor-mation management in Colombia. It contains data, indicators, andindices of the following: (i) environmental state (quality, quantity, andsustainability of natural resources and the environment); (ii) anthro-pogenic pressure on natural resources (extraction of resources andgeneration of pollution); and (iii) informationmanagement to facilitateknowledge generation, decision-making, education, and social partic-ipation for economic sustainable development.

In our proposal, we include indicators that are available in theSIAC. The same methodology may be applied in different contexts,depending on the information available. Generally speaking, the stateindicators of environmental factors are direct. Examples of suchindicators are the number of endangered species for wildlife and theAir Quality Index for air (IDEAM, 2004; 2007). The second column ofTable 1 shows the indicators that were identified for each factor.

For instance, in the case of the air quality factor, the indicator is AirQuality Index (AQI). This scale for the estimation of atmospheric con-tamination has the following objectives: (i) to inform and warn thegeneral public of the risk of exposure to levels of air pollution; (ii) tomake all stakeholders comply with environmental regulations con-ducive to an instantaneously positive impact on the immediate con-text. The greater the value of the AQI, the higher is the level of airpollution and, consequently, the risks to human health (Gurjar et al.,2008; Stieb et al., 2005).

Thepopulationdensity in relation to the threat-to-diversity indicatorwas used for the population factor. It refers to the pressure exerted bypopulation on high-priority areas of great biological diversity.

The average education indicator refers to the Educational Systemfactor, and has been used in various research studies (Tarabini, 2010;Tilak, 2007; Wedgwood, 2007). This indicator is the average numberof years of formal education of the population over 15 years of age. Ithas been included because access to education is one of the basicrights of citizens. Similar justifications were also used in the selectionof the other indicators. Table 1 shows some of the bibliographicreferences that justify our choices.

3.3. Qualitative determination of the Importance of Vulnerability ofenvironmental factors

The qualitative assessment provides an estimate of the Vulnera-bility of the environmental factors. The levels established are HighVulnerability (VH), Moderately High Vulnerability (VMH), ModeratelyLow Vulnerability (VML), and Low Vulnerability (VL). As an illustrationof the qualitative determination of Vulnerability Importance, the fol-lowing paragraphs describe the Air Quality Index (AQI) that evaluatesthe vulnerability of the atmosphere factor.

We adopted Madrid's air quality index, which is simple to use andcomplies with the guidelines of the European Union. The calculationof this index is in accordance with Law 34, enacted on 15 November2007 regarding Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere in Spain,published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE, 2007) [Official Gazetteof the Spanish Government]. It is also compatible with Resolution 601regarding air quality in Colombia, published in the Diario Oficial del

Estado Colombiano (DOE, 2006) [Official Gazette of the ColombianGovernment]. This index establishes a partial value for each of thefollowing atmospheric pollutants: PM10, carbon monoxide (CO),nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ozone (O3). Thissignifies that the global index corresponds to the most unfavorable airquality value. The index for a concentration is calculated by usingEq. 3, where AQI stands for the Air Quality Index; Ci is the con-centration of the pollutant; and Li is the permissible limit value of thepollutant.

AQI = 100 × Cið Þ= Li ð3Þ

A zero AQI value corresponds to a zero concentration of thepollutant. The values b100 are associated with the limit value abovewhich it is necessary to inform the population of possible danger so thatthey can take the necessary measures to prevent potential healthproblems. Based on these considerations, Table 2 (shaded area)shows the ranges of the AQI as well as the qualitative assignment ofatmospheric vulnerability. Each numerical range of the AQI correspondsto anair quality category,which is takenasa reference for thequalitativeevaluation of the vulnerability, corresponding to the previouslymentioned levels (High Vulnerability, Moderately High Vulnerability,Moderately Low Vulnerability, and Low Vulnerability).

The same procedure was followed for the other indicators. Theranges thus obtained are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, at times

113J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

when the indicator takes high values, vulnerability is greater (e.g.Wildlife Diversity), whereas at other times, vulnerability is lower (e.g.Wildlife Habitat). This is due to the nature of the indicator and to theconcept of vulnerability adopted in the methodology used in thisresearch study.

The environmental factors and indicators in Table 2 are appropri-ate since they are based on available information sources in Colombia,such as the SIAC. For other contexts or specific EIAs, it is necessary togenerate a table of factors and indicators that fit the requirements ofthe geographic scale where the project is located. If the values as-signed to each indicator come from regional studies, our methodologycan be used in the scoping (which is not part of the EIA process inColombia). If they come from local studies, the values that can be usedare those that were directly assigned in the detailed evaluation of theimpacts. Moreover, the application of the methodology in othercountries could imply the revision of current legislation in relation tothe indicator in question.

Fig. 2. Air vulnerability in areas under the juris

3.4. Assignment of quantitative values for Vulnerability Importance

Finally, the qualitative values of Vulnerability Importance for eachenvironmental factor were transformed into quantitative values. Forthis purpose, we applied the method developed by Dean and Nishry(1965), which compares each factor to each of the other factors. Oneof the advantages of this method is that it can be applied by one useror a group of users. This technique has been used to assign categoriesas well as to weight environmental factors in the EIA (Canter, 2000;Dean and Nishry, 1965; Dee and Baker, 1973).

After analyzing the relative importance of each vulnerabilitycategory, quantitative values were assigned. VH was assigned a valueof five (5), and VMH, was assigned a value of four (4) because of theimportance of these categories in the EIA. The VML and VL receivedvalues of two (2) and (1), respectively, because they were consideredless crucial. Each factor was consistently compared to each of theothers. Table 3 shows the values obtained.

diction of CARs in Colombia (Toro, 2009).

Table 5Calculation of Vulnerability Importance of the environmental factors of the departments ofValle, Chocó, Antioquia, and Guajira.

Autonomous CorporationIndicators

WH WD FD SWQ LUC SS Pp Ep Edu

AMVA VH VML VML VH VH VL VL VH VH

CAR VH VMH VMH VH VH VMH VH VH VMH

CORPOBOYACÁ VML VMH VH VH VML VH VMH VHVMH

CARDER VMH VMH VML VH VMH VML VML VH VH

CDMB VMH VML VML VH VMH VML VMH VH

CORPOGUAJIRA VL VML VL VH VML VMH VL VH VH

CORNARE VH VML VML VH VH VL VL VH VH

CORPAMAG VMH VMH VML VH VMH VML VML VH VH

CORPOCALDAS VH VMH VML VH VMH VML VL VH VH

CORPONOR VH VML VMH VH VMH VML VML VMH VH

CORTOLIMA VH VMH VLM VH VH VML VML VH VH

CRC VML VMH VMH VH VL VML VML VMH VH

CVC VML VMH VMH VH VMH VL VML VH VML

CDA VL VL VL VH VL VL VL VH VH

DAGMA VH VML VML VH VMH VL VH VH VH

DAMAB VH VH VMH VH VMH VML VH VH VH

DAMA VML VML VLM VH VH VML VH VH VL

CAS VMH VML VMH VH VH VML VL VH VH

CORANTIOQUIA VMH VMH L VH VMH VL VL VH VMH

CRQ VMH VMH VML VH VMH VL VML VH VH

CAM VMH VML VML VH VMH VML VH VH VH

CORPOCESAR VH VML VML V ML VMH VMH VL VH VH

VH High VulnerabilityVMH Moderately High VulnerabilityVML Moderately VulnerabilityVL Low Vulnerability

VH

114 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

The quantitative vulnerability values given to each category weretaken as reference values. Values referring to Vulnerability Impor-tance were then assigned. The values had to be confirmed by thevalues of Importance of Impact in the qualitative methodology. Thesevalues ranged from 13 to 100. When this same criterion was followed,the Vulnerability Importance values were found to lie between 20 and100. In this way, each quantitative vulnerability value had the valuesshown in Table 3.

Table 6Calculation of Vulnerability Importance of the environmental factors of the de-partments of Valle, Chocó, Antioquia, and Guajira.

Factor Vulnerability qualitative valuation Vulnerability Importance

Valle Choco Antioquia Guajira Valle Choco Antioquia Guajira

WH VML VL VMH VL 40 20 80 20WD VMH VML VMH VML 80 40 80 40FD VMH VML VMH VL 80 40 80 20SWQ VMH VL VH VML 80 20 100 40LUC VMH VL VMH VML 80 20 80 40AQI VH VH VH VH 100 100 100 100SS VL VH VL VMH 20 100 20 80Pp VML VL VL VL 40 20 20 20Ep VH VH VH VH 100 100 100 100Edu VML VH VMH VMH 40 100 80 80

4. Results

The quantification of environmental vulnerability in Colombia isan initial approximation to a more in-depth study of the regionalvulnerability of environmental indicators and their integration in EIAprocesses. This proposal is followed by other institutions, such as theAlexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute(IAvH) in its research on biodiversity in Colombia (Delgado et al.,2008). Other government agencies that carry out research in thissame line are the Colombian Ministry of Environment, Housing, andTerritorial Development and the Colombian Administrative Depart-ment of Statistics. From an international perspective, we can alsohighlight the United Nations Program for Latin America and theCaribbean and its proposal for indicators of environmental monitor-ing. The following sections present and discuss the results obtained inColombia.

4.1. Qualitative determination of Vulnerability Importance

Each of the indicators selected for the environmental factors con-sidered was analyzed with the purpose of establishing its qualitativevaluation according to the procedure described in the previous section.Continuingwith theprevious example, this studypresents thequalitativevulnerability of the atmospheric environmental factor in Colombia, asreflected inAQI values and the vulnerability assessment shown in Table 2.

Once the ranges were established, we then made a qualitativeassessment of air vulnerability for the different regions in the country.In this case, these regions were Autonomous Regional Corporations(ARC), which are official administrative entities that are in charge ofthe planning and implementation of projects related to the conser-vation, decontamination or recovery of renewable natural resourcesthat have been affected in the area under their jurisdiction. Since ARCshave jurisdiction over one or various departments, this means that thevulnerability assigned to an ARC corresponds to the EnvironmentalVulnerability Factor of the departments located within its scope.Accordingly, we took into account the measurements of atmosphericpollutants made by the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology, andEnvironmental Studies of Colombia (IDEAM, 2004; 2007).

The previously described criteria for the qualitative quantificationof this indicator were then applied. Table 4 shows the AQI valuesobtained as well as the qualitative vulnerability assessment for eachcorporation in accordance with the values in Table 3. Fig. 2 shows thevulnerability of the different areas in Colombia. This vulnerabilitymeasurement or analysis should be a requirement in the spatiotem-poral context of the project that is the focus of the EIS. A detailedanalysis should be made in all cases, though in the case of individualstudies, the analysis can be on a smaller scale.

This same procedure for determining the vulnerability of airquality was performed for the rest of the indicators. Table 5 shows theresults obtained for the regions under the jurisdiction of the mostimportant ARCs.

4.2. Calculation of Vulnerability Importance in Colombia

Using the qualitative vulnerability values obtained with thismethod, we then determined Vulnerability Importance in the ter-ritory of our study. As an example of the differences observed, de-pending on the environmental characteristics of the project site,Table 6 shows the results for the departments of Antioquia, Chocó,Guajira, and Valle del Cauca, which are under the jurisdiction of thecorporations CORANTIOQUIA, CODECHOCO, CORPOGUAJIRA and CVC,respectively. These departments were selected because they are re-presentative of the nature areas of Colombia, besides having sig-nificant ecosystem, economical, and cultural differences (Table 6).

Fig. 3 compares the vulnerability value of environmental factors.As can be observed, the Vulnerability Importance value is directly

related to the state of each factor in the departments. For example, thedepartment of Choco was found to have one of the lowest levels ofeducation and quality of life in Colombia. Consequently, it had agreater vulnerability in factors such as Social Security and Education.However, it has the lowest level of atmospheric pollution because ofits lack of industrial development and low population density. Thisdepartment thus has a low atmospheric vulnerability.

Exactly the opposite occurred in the departments of Valle andAntioquia, which have a higher level of industrial development and agreater population density. In this case, the Vulnerability Importancefor the atmosphere, flora, and wildlife was in direct correlation withthe state of the natural resources and industrial activities, especiallywith the large quantity of polluting emissions generated by stationaryand mobile sources and the destruction of wildlife habitats.

The quantitative vulnerability values, generated on the sole basisof the state of environmental factors, can be used as a component ofthe EIA. It can thus be incorporated in the quantitative calculations forthe analysis of the Importance of Impact in the mathematical formulaproposed (Eq. 2) for each of environmental factors considered.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed the concept of vulnerability and justifies itsuse within the context of the EIA with the purpose of reducinguncertainty and the influence of the subjective assessments ofevaluators in the calculation of Importance of Impact in qualitativeEIA methodology. In this sense, this study considered the use ofecological concepts, such as environmental services. This permittedthe inclusion of vulnerability in the EIA process, even in those caseswhere primary information was difficult to obtain or was notavailable.

To integrate vulnerability in the EIA process, we first definedVulnerability Importance, and then included it in the mathematicalformula, used to calculate the magnitude of environmental impact inqualitative EIA methodology. This method is widely used because it iseconomical and easy to apply. It also has the advantage of providingrapid results.

Vulnerability Importance is directly related to the state of envi-ronmental factors. In our study, it was determined on the basis of a setof environmental state indicators or indicators of the loss of eco-system function. All value assessments of participants in the EIS wereexcluded since they are the main weakness of methods for En-vironmental Impact Assessment. Moreover, the elimination of sub-jective assessments has the advantage of making the evaluation of

impacts more objective and reliable. Authorities and policy-makersare thus obliged to develop corrective measures.

Since the measurement of vulnerability depends on quantitativeindicators, it can easily be included in methods that use equations tocalculate the importance and/or the magnitude of impacts, especiallythose derived from matrixes (symbolized matrix, simple numericalmatrix, escalation matrix, etc.). It can also be integrated into bothqualitative modelling and quantitative modelling processes with aview to improving the general effectiveness of the EIA. Evidently, adecrease in subjectivity produces a corresponding increase in theaccuracy of the evaluation of impacts and improves the comprehen-sion of results.

The application of thismethod in Colombia has allowed us to quantifyVulnerability Importance in thisnational context for all the environmentalfactors considered. The results obtained in this study reflect theusefulnessandobjectivity of themethodology. This research shouldbeunderstood asan introduction to another publication in which the VulnerabilityImportance values obtained in this study will be used to determine themagnitude of the environmental impact in the qualitative methodology.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a predoctoral grant from theCAROLINA Foundation of Spain and the Universidad Nacional deColombia as well as by the Ministry of Innovation and Science of theAndalusian Regional Government in Spain. It was carried out withinthe framework of the research project, Intelligent System for the Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment of Human Activities (SINTEIA), funded bythe Andalusian Regional Government in Spain.

References

Adger WN. Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 2006;16:268–81.Adger WN. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geog 2000;24:

347–64.Adger WN. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam.

World Dev 1999;27:249–69.Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New York:

Prentice Hall; 1980.Annandale D. Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment system for

small developing countries. Impact asses proj apprais 2001;19:187–93.Antunes P, Santos R, Jordao L. The application of Geographical Information Systems to

determine environmental impact significance. Environ impact asses rev 2001;21:511–35.

Barker A, Wood Ch. Evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries.Environ Impact asses Rev 1999;19:387–404.

Becker H. Social impact assessment. Eur J Oper Res 2001;128:311–21.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

WH WD FD AQI LUC SWQ SS Pp Ep Edu

ImpV

ul

Environmental Factors

Valle-CVC Choco-CODECHOCO Antioquia-CORANTIOQUIA Guajira-CORPOGUAJIRA

Fig. 3. Comparison of the vulnerability of environmental factors in departments in Colombia.

115J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

116 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

Berry PR, Rounsevell, Harrison P, Audsley E. Assessing the vulnerability of agricultural landuse and species to climate change and the role of policy in facilitating adaptation. EnvSci Policy 2006;9:189–204.

Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) [Official Gazette of the Spanish Government], no 275 de2007. Act 34 of 2007 November 15 Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere.

Bradley M, Smith E. Using science to assess environmental vulnerabilities. EnvironMonit Asses 2004;94:1–7.

Burdge R, Fricke P, Finsterbusch K, Freudenburg W, Gramling R, Holden A, Llewellyn L,Petterson J, Thomson J, Williams G. Guidelines and principles for social impactassessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;15:11–43.

Burdge R. The social impact assessment model and the planning process. EnvironImpact Asses Rev 1987;7:141–50.

Burgess N, Balmford A, Cordeiro N, Fjeldså J, Küper W, Rahbek C, Sanderson E,Scharlemann J, Sommer J, Williams P. Correlations among 683 species distributions,human density and human infrastructure across the high 684 biodiversity tropicalmountains of Africa. Biol Conserv 2007;134:164–77.

Canter L, Atkinson S, Leistritz FL. Impact of growth. Chelsea: Mich.:Lewis Publishers;1985.

Canter L. Environmental impact assessment. 2nd ed. Bogotá: McGraw-Hill; 2000.Canter L, Sadler B. A tool kit for effective EIA practice: review of methods and

perspectives on their application. A Supplementary Report of the InternationalStudy of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. USA: EnvironmentalGround Water Institute University of OklahomaInstitute of Environmental Assess-ment, UK, International Association for Impact Assessment; 1997 June.

Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies J, et al. From metaphor to measurement: resilience ofwhat to what? Ecosyst 2001;4:765–81.

Carrete M, Tella J, Blanco G, Bertellotti M. Effects of habitat degradation on the abun-dance, richness and diversity of raptors across Neotropical biomes. Biol Conserv2009;142:2002–11.

Cheng Wan-Li, Chen Yu-Song, Zhang Junfeng, Lyons TJ, Pai Joy-Lynn, Chang Shiang-Hung. Comparison of the Revised Air Quality Index with the PSI and AQI indices. SciTotal Environ 2007;382:191–8.

Conesa V. Guía metodológica para la evaluación del Impacto Ambiental. 3ª ed. Madrid:Mundi-Prensa Libros; 1996.

Cutter S, Boruff B, Shirley W. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc SciQuart 2003;84:242–61.

Cutter S, Mitchell J, Scott M. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case studyof Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2000;90:713–37.

Dean V, Nishry J. Scoring and profitabilitymodels for evaluating and selecting engineeringprojects. Oper Res 1965;13:550–69.

Dee N, Baker N. Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. WaterResour Res 1973;9:523–35.

Delgado M, Cabrera E, Ortiz N. Informe sobre el estado de la biodiversidad en Colombia.IAvH (Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute); 2008.Available at: http://www.humboldt.org.co.

Diario Oficial del Estado Colombiano. (DOE) [Official Gazette of the ColombianGovernment]. Decree 1594 which regulate partially title I of the Law 9 of 1979,and the chapter II of the tile II of title VI-part III book II and the title III of the part IIIof book I of the Decree 2811 of 1974 about water and liquid waste [In Spanish].Bogotá; 1984. p. 36700.

Diario Oficial del Estado Colombiano. (DOE) [Official Gazette of the Colombian Govern-ment]. Resolution 601 which established the Air Quality Standard or Level ofSusceptibility. Bogotá; 2006. p. 46232.

Donnelly A, Jones M, O'Mahony T, Byrne G. Selecting environmental indicator for usein strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2007;27:161–75.

Downing T, Butterfield R, Cohen S, Huq S, Moss R, Rahman A. Climate changevulnerability: linking impacts and adaptation. Oxford: University of Oxford;2001.

Duinker P, Beanlands G. The significance of environmental impacts: an exploration ofthe concept. Environ Manage 1986;10(1):1–10.

El-Fadl K, El-Fadel M. Comparative assessment of EIA systems in MENA countries:challenges and prospects. Environ Impact asses Rev 2004;24:553–93.

Filev D, Yager R. On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets andSystems 1998;94:157–69.

Fodor P, Rudas IJ. Associative aggregation functions representing different scale types. IEEE7th International ConferenceonComputational Cybernetics •November 26–29. Spain:Palma de Mallorca; 2009.

Folke C, Carpenter S, Emqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling C, Walker B. Resilience andsustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations.Ambio 2002;31:437–40.

Folke C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for socialecological systems analyses.Glob Environ Chang 2006;16:253–67.

Frenkel R, Ros J. Unemployment and the real exchange rate in Latin America. World Dev2006;34:631–46.

Füssel H. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climatechange research. Glob Environ Chang 2007;17:155–67.

Gallopín G. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. GlobalEnv Chang 2006;16:293–303.

Gallopín GC. Human dimensions of global change: linking the global and the localprocesses. Int Soc Sci J 1991;130:707–18.

Gan L, Zhang Q. The thick market effect on local unemployment rate fluctuations. J Econ2006;133:127–52.

Gandini M, Pérez M, Madera A. Política de control de la contaminación hídrica enColombia. Elementos de discusión asociados a objetos de tratamiento [Policy waterpollution control in Colombia. Items of discussion related to treatment goals] (In

Spanish). I Latin American Conference in waste stabilization ponds and reuse.Colombia: Universidad del Valle; 2000.

Gurjar B, Butler T, Lawrence M, Lelievel J. Evaluation of emissions and air quality inmegacities. Atmospheric Environ 2008;42:1593–606.

Hollick M. Environmental impact assessment in Australia: EIA and environmentalmanagement in Western Australia. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1981;2:116–9.

Holling CS. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Schulze PC, editor.Engineering within Ecological Constraints. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress; 1996. p. 31–43.

IDEAM (Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies. Annual reporton the state of the environment and renewable natural resources. Bogotá: IDEAM;2004. Available at: http://www.ideam.gov.co.

IDEAM (Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies. Informe anualsobre el estado del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales renovables enColombia: calidad del aire [Annual report on the state of the environment andrenewable natural resources in Colombia: air quality] Bogota: IDEAM; 2007.Available at: http://www.ideam.gov.co.

Ijäs A, Markku Kuitunena M, Jalava K. Developing the RIAM method (rapid impactassessment matrix) in the context of impact significance assessment. Environimpact asses rev 2010;30:82–9.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature Resources). Red list of threatenedspecies. Geneva; 2006.

Jacques J, Walkowiak E. Low wages and high unemployment rates: the role of socialinteractions in hiring discrimination. J Soc Econ 2009;38:456–63.

Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ,Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Gruebler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, JodhaNS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore D, O'Riordan T, SvedinU. Sustainability science. Sci 2001;292:641–2.

Kelly P, Adger WN. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change andfacilitating adaptation. Clim Chang 2000;47:325–52.

Kotchen M, Reiling S. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuationof nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecol Econ 2000;32:93–107.

Kværner J, Swensen G, Erikstad L. Assessing environmental vulnerability in EIA—thecontent and context of the vulnerability concept in an alternative approach tostandard EIA procedure. Environ Impact asses Rev 2006;26:511–27.

Lawrence DP. Impact significance determination— back to basics. Environ Impact AssesRev 2007;27:755–69.

Leopold L, Clarke F, Hanshaw B, Balsley J. A procedure for evaluating environmentalimpact. Washington: circular 645, Geological Survey, United States Department ofthe Interior; 1971.

Liu Chung-Ming. Effect of PM2.5 on AQI in Taiwan Environmental. Model Softw2002;17:29–37.

Long Gen Ying, You Ci Liu. A model of objective weighting for EIA. Environ Monit Asses.1995;36:169–82.

Luck G. A review of the relationship between human population density andbiodiversity. Biol Rev 2007a;82:607–45.

Luck G. The relationships between net primary productivity, human population densityand species conservation. J Biogeogr 2007b;34:201–12.

Luers AL. The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examiningenvironmental change. Glob Environ Chang 2005;15:214–23.

Luers A, Lobella D, Sklard L, Addamsa L, Matsona P. A method for quantifyingvulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. GlobEnviron Chang 2003;13:255–67.

Márquez G. Transformación de ecosistemas y condiciones de vida en Colombia. PhDdissertation to obtain the title of Doctor in Tropical Ecology. Universidad de losAndes, Venezuela, 2005

Mazaris Antonios D, Athanasios S, Kallimanis Stephanos P, Sgardelis John D, Pantis.Does higher taxon diversity reflect richness of conservation interest species? Thecase for birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles in Greek protected areas. Ecolindic 2008;20:664–71.

Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schröter D. The vulnerabilityof ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006;114:69–85.

Modak P, Biswas A. Conducting environmental impact assessment in developingcountries. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 1999.

Nathwani J, Lind N, Pandey M. The LQI standard of practice: optimizing engineeredsafety with the Life Quality Index. Struct Infrastructure Eng 2008;5:327–34.

Niemeijer D, De Groot R. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicatorsets. Ecol indic 2008;8:14–25.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD. Core set ofindicators for environmental performance reviews: a synthesis report by theGroup on the State of the Environment. Environment Monographs N° 83. Paris:OECD; 1993.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD. Structure of theOECD indicators core set by environmental issue. OECD: Paris; 2004.

Ortolano L, Jenkins B, Abracosa R. Speculations on when and why EIA is effective.Environ Impact Asses Rev 1987;7:285–92.

Ortolano L, Sheperd A. Environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportuni-ties. Environ Impact asses Rev 1995;13:3–30.

Paliwal R. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis. Environ Impactasses Rev 2006;26:10–492.

Pandey M, Nathwani J, Lind N. The derivation and calibration of the life-quality index(LQI) from economic principles. Struct Saf 2006;28:341–60.

Pandey M, Nathwani J. A conceptual approach to the estimation of societal willingness-to-pay for nuclear safety programs. Nucl Eng Design 2003;224:65–77.

117J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

Pandey M, Nathwani J. Measurement of socio-economic inequality using the life-quality index. Soc Indic Res 1996;39:187–202.

Pastakia Ch, Jensen A. The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for EIA. EnvironImpact Asses Rev. 1998;18:461–82.

Pautasso M. Scale dependence of the correlation between human population presenceand vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol Lett 2007;10:16–24.

Pereira H, Daily G, Roughgarden J. A framework for assessing the relative vulnerabilityof species to land-use change. Ecol Appl 2004;14:730–42.

RounsevellM,ReayD. Landuseandclimatechange in theUK. LandUsePolicy2009;26:160–9.Rudas IJ. New trends in information aggregation. The 27th Annual Conference of the

IEEE Industrial Electronics Society; 2001.Sadler B. International study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment final

report environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice toimprove performance. Canada: Environmental Agency, International Associationfor Impact Assessment, Minister of Supply and Services Canada; 1996.

Samarakoon M, Rowan JS. A critical review of environmental impact statements in SriLanka with particular reference to ecological impact assessment. Environ Manage2008;41:441–60.

Smit B, Wandel J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Env Chang2006;16:282–92.

Smith B, Pilifosova O. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. ClimChang 2002;45:223–51.

Smith E, McKinnis P, Tran L, O'Neill R. The effects of uncertainty on estimating therelative environmental quality of watersheds across a region. Landscape Ecol2008a;21:225–31.

Smith ER, Tran LL, O'Neill RV. Regional vulnerability assessment for the Mid-AtlanticRegion: evaluation of integration methods and assessment results. EnvironmentalProtection Agency: Washington D.C; 2003.

Smith W, Zollner P. Sustainable management of wildlife habitat and risk of extinction.Biol Conserv 2005;125:287–95.

Smith ER, Mehaffey MH, O'Neill RV, Wade TG, Kilaru JV, Tran L. Guidelines to assessingregional vulnerabilities. Washington D.C: Environmental Protection Agency; 2008b.

Snell T, Cowell R. Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precautionand efficiency? Environ Impact Asses Rev 2006;26:359–76.

Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.Environment and Behavior 1993;25(5):322–48.

Stieb D, Doiron M, Blagden P, Burnett R. Estimating the public health burdenattributable to air pollution: an illustration using the development of an alternativeair quality index. J Toxicol Environ Health 2005;68:1275–88.

Tarabini A. Education and poverty in the global development agenda: emergence,evolution and consolidation. Int J Educ Dev 2010;30:204–12.

Tegler B, Sharp M, Johnson M. Ecological monitoring and assessment network'sproposed core monitoring variables: an early warning of environmental change.Environ Monit Asses 2001;67:29–56.

Tilak J. Post-elementary education, poverty and development in India. Intern J Educ Dev2007;27:435–45.

Toro J. Constructive analysis of the process of Environmental Impact Assessment inColombia. Proposals for improvement (in Spanish). PhD Dissertation. Granada(Spain): University of Granada, 2009.

Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: criticalanalysis and proposals for improvement. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2010;30:247–61.

Tran L, O'Neill R, Smith E. Determine the most influencing stressors and the mostsusceptible resources for environmental integrated assessment. Ecol Model2009;220:2335–40.

Tran L, O'Neill R, Smith E. Spatial pattern of environmental vulnerability assessment inthe Mid-Atlantic Region, USA. Appl Geogr 2010;30:191–202.

Turner II B, Matson P, McCarthy J, Corell R, Christensen L, Eckley N, Hovelsrud-Broda G,et al. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl AcadSci 2003;100:8074–9.

Turner II B. Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or paralleling approaches forsustainability science? Glob Environ Chang 2010;20:570–6.

U.S. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Federal register: rules and regulations. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, air quality index reporting; Washington; 1999a.

U.S. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Guideline for reporting of daily airquality-air quality index. Office of air quality planning and standards ResearchTriangle Park. EPA 451/K-94-001; Washington; 1999b.

Urquiza-Haas T, Peres CA, Dolman PM. Regional scale effects of human density andforest disturbance on large-bodied vertebrates throughout the Yucatán Peninsula,Mexico. Biol Conserv 2009;142:134–48.

US Department of energy (US DOE). Socioeconomic impact assessment: a methodologyapplied to synthetic fuel. Washington D.C: US Department of energy; 1978.

Walker B, Holling C, Carpenter S, Kinzig A, Ecology Society. Resilience, adaptability andtransformability in social–ecological systems 2004;9. Art 5. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.

Wang Si-Yuan, Liu Jing-Shi, Yang Cun-Jian. Eco-environmental vulnerability evaluationin the Yellow River Basin, China. Pedosphere 2008a;18:171–82.

Wang X, Zhong X, Liu S, Liu J, Wang Z, Li M. Regional assessment of environmentalvulnerability in the Tibetan Plateau: development and application of a new method.J Arid Environ 2008b;72:1929–39.

Wathern P. An introductory guide to EIA. In: Wathern P, editor. Environmental impactassessment: theory and practice. London: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King's Lynn;1994. p. 3–46.

Wedgwood R. Education and poverty reduction in Tanzania. Intern J Educ Dev 2007;27:383–96.

Wei Y, Fan Y, Lu C, Tsai H. The assessment of vulnerability to natural disasters in Chinaby using the DEA method. Enviro Impact Assess Rev 2004;24:427–39.

Weston J. EIA in a risk society. J Environ Plan Manag 2004;47:313–25.Wisconsin State Planning Office (Wisc SPO). Department of administration. Public

service costs and development. Madison, Wisc: Wisconsin State Planning Office;1975.

Wood C. Environmental impact assessment in Victoria: Australian discretion rules EA.J Enviro Manage 1993;39:281–95.

Yager RR. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteriadecision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1988;18:183–90.

Yager RR, Kacprzyk J. The ordered weighted averaging operators: theory andapplications. Norwell, MA: Kluwer; 1997.

Yager RR. On generalized Bonferroni mean operators for multi-criteria aggregation.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning September 2009;50(8):1279–86.

Yager RR. Lexicographic ordinal OWA aggregation of multiple criteria. InformationFusion October 2010;11(4):374–80.

Yan H, Liu J, Huang H, Tao B, Cao M. Assessing the consequence of land use change onagricultural productivity in China. Glob Planet Chang 2009;67:13–9.

Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 1965;8(3):338–53.Zadeh L. Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Syst.,

Man, Cybern., SMC-3, 1; 1973.

Javier Toro Calderón Lecturer in the Institute of Environmental Studies of the NationalUniversity of Colombia in Bogotá. His work area is related to environmentalmanagement and the main research lines are directed to methods of environmentalimpact assessment. He has more than Thirteen contributions in national papers andconferences and one paper international. Currently he works with research groupIDEA of the National University of Colombia and he is directing the research projectenvironmental impact assessment of the Institute of Environmental Studies.

Oscar Duarte Velasco Lecturer in the Department of Electrical and ElectronicsEngineering of the National University of Colombia in Bogotá and member of the PAASresearch group (Program in Signal Aquisition and Analysis). His work area includes thedevelopment of sotware tools based on soft computing techniques. He has developedsome software tools for the Environmental Impact Assessment based on fuzzyarithmetic. Another of his areas of interests is the modeling, simulation, analysis andcontrol of dynamical systems.

Ignacio Requena Ramos Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science andArtificial Intelligence, in the University of Granada in Spain. His work area is related tothe processing of imprecision problems and uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence andits application in Environmental Impact Assessment, using Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy SetsTheory as models for this purpose (fuzzy EIA). He has more than thirty contributionsin international papers and conferences. Currently he works with research group ARAIof the University of Granada and he is directing the research project Intelligent systemfor the environmental impact assessment of human activities (SINTEIA) funded by theAndalusian Government.

Montserrat Zamorano Toro Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering (Area ofEnvironmental Technology) in the University of Granada in Spain. Her work area isrelated to waste management and Environmental Impact Assessment. She has morethan twenty contributions in international papers and conferences. Currently sheworks with research group ARAI of the University of Granada and she is directing theresearch project Using biomass from agricultural waste in Andalucía to produce pelletsfor domestic thermal application funded by the Andalusian Government.