Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

A complex network approach to environmental

impact assessment

Liven Fernando Martínez, Javier Toro & Carmelo J. León

To cite this article: Liven Fernando Martínez, Javier Toro & Carmelo J. León (2018): A complex
network approach to environmental impact assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2018.1552442

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1552442

Published online: 07 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1552442

A complex network approach to environmental impact assessment

a b c
Liven Fernando Martínez , Javier Toro and Carmelo J. León
a
PhD Student in Tourism, Economics and Management. Instituto Universitario de Turismo y Desarrollo Económico Sostenible Tides,
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain; bUniversidad Nacional de Colombia – Sede Bogotá,
Instituto de Estudios Ambientales IDEA, Bogotá, Colombia; cInstituto Universitario de Turismo y Desarrollo Económico Sostenible,
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article proposes a complex network methodology for the process of Environmental Received 22 June 2018
Impact Assessment (EIA) that limits subjectivity and reduces uncertainty by incorporating Accepted 20 November 2018
elements of complex systems theory in the stages of identification and assessment of the KEYWORDS
significance of environmental impacts. The proposed methodology reduces the sources of Environmental impact
uncertainty, which emerge from the use of simplified models that analyse the environment- evaluation; complexity;
activity interactions in a unidirectional fashion. This proposal determines the significance of uncertainty; subjectivity;
environmental impacts through multidirectional or complex causal relationships. Likewise, it complex systems;
limits the subjectivity of the evaluator by using these causality relationships instead of criteria methodology; modelling;
based on the impacts’ attributes. The application of the proposed methodology demonstrates network
the advantages of (i) prioritizing the impacts according to their capacity to interact with other
impacts, and (ii) the possibility to redirect the environmental management plans towards the
prevention of impacts of higher complexity and to reduce the importance of derived impacts.
The application of the proposed methodology reveals that the percentage of irrelevant
and moderate impacts is reduced, whereas the percentage of severe and critical impacts
increase, in comparison to the conventional methodologies.

1. Introduction The methodologies for evaluating the significance

of environmental impacts have a predictive approach
‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a systematic
because they aim at analysing the interaction
process that examines the environmental consequences
between Projects, Works or Activities (PWAs) and the
of development actions, in advance. The emphasis,
features of the environment in order to build
compared with many other mechanisms for environ-
a representation of future events, such as environ-
mental protection, is on prevention. Of course, planners
mental impacts. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly
have traditionally assessed the impacts of develop-
establish the difference between predictive and
ments on the environment, but invariably not in the
anticipatory systems. Anticipation is a future-oriented
systematic, holistic and multidisciplinary way required
action, decision or behaviour based on a prediction
by EIA’ (Glasson et al. 2012, p. 5).
(Pezzulo et al. 2008). In the context of EIA, predictions
The EIA aims at improving environmental awareness
are made with regard to the environmental impacts,
and attitudes and seeks to guarantee that the environ-
and those impacts are also anticipated through the
mental values are included in the decision-making pro-
use of corrective measures.
cesses. These are steps towards the achievement of
Most of these methodologies are based on the
ecological sustainability and the conformation of sus-
unidirectional analysis of the link between activities
tainable communities (Arts et al. 2012; Bond 2015).
and environmental factors (Leopold et al. 1971; Sadler
The EIA involves the generation of information about
1996; Pastakia and Jensen 1998; Conesa 2010; Gómez
possible changes that may occur in the environment (Jha-
Orea 2013; Suyono et al. 2016). They normally ignore
Thakur and Fischer 2016; Therivel and Wood 2018) and
that environmental impacts are the result of complex
sustainable development (Loomis and Dziedzic 2018).
multidirectional interactions between activities, envir-
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the docu-
onmental factors and impacts (Figure 1).
ment that presents the findings of a EIA (including pro-
The results of the conventional methodologies can
posed mitigation measures) and is submitted to the
be biased and/or easily manipulated because they
competent authority responsible of the decision-making
lack objective indicators, so the significance of the
if the project, civil work or activity is approved and put
environmental impacts is assessed solely according
into operation (Glasson et al. 2012; Therivel and Wood
to the evaluator’s criteria (Sadler 1996; Wood 2003;
2018).

CONTACT Javier Toro jjtoroca@unal.edu.co Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Instituto de Estudios Ambientales IDEA, Campus Bogotá, Carrera
45 N 26–85, Bogotá, Colombia
© 2018 IAIA
2 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.
Figure 1. Comparative approach to the EIA.
Toro et al. 2013; Drayson et al. 2017; Loomis and
Dziedzic 2018). This potential manipulation acts nor-
mally in favour of the proposed PWAs and in detri-
ment of the natural resources and communities
(Sadler 1996; Loomis and Dziedzic 2018).
The conventional methodological approaches have
significant limitations, especially when predicting the
environmental impacts that PWAs can generate
(Sadler 1996; Canter and Sadler 1997). To this respect,
Morgan (2012) affirms that in spite of the methodolo-
gical progresses, the evidence confirms the necessity
of strengthening the methodologies for the evalua-
tion of the impacts’ significance.
This is because the environment is a complex sys-
tem, characterized by a high number of components
(Boccaletti et al. 2006; Okpara et al. 2018) of various
types (physical, biotic, social, economic and cultural)
and with particular intrinsic features (Therivel and
Wood 2018). For this reason, the EIA requires the
participation of multidisciplinary teams.
A major concern of EIA is related with the uncertain-
ties of the methodologies for identifying and evaluating
environmental impacts (Tennoy et al. 2006; Chivat 2016;
Leung et al. 2016). Audit studies show that the actual
environmental impacts of PWAs may differ significantly
from the expected or assessed impacts in EIAs (Tennoy
et al. 2006), a situation recently confirmed by Leung
et al. (2015) and Jones and Fischer (2016). As a result,
the assessment of the impacts may be smaller than the
actual impact. This may explain why the corrective mea-
sures do not correspond to the intensity or significance
of the impacts, therefore ‘increasing the risk of environ-
mental deterioration in the area of influence of the
project’ (Toro et al. 2013, p. 9).
This paper presents a methodology for EIA based
on complex network theory, particularly a technique
based on network analysis, which was developed by
the authors and can be used independently or as
a complement for qualitative methodologies, such as
those proposed by Leopold et al. (1971), Pastakia and
Jensen (1998), Gómez Orea (2013), Conesa (2010), and
Suyono et al. (2016).
This methodology helps reduce some of the main
uncertainty sources of EIA identified by Lohani et al.
(1997, p. 52), such as the use of theoretical frameworks
that fail at grasping the environmental complexity and
methodological models for evaluating the significance of
environmental impacts that analyse the environment-
anthropogenic activity interactions in a simplified fashion
and not from a complex and multidirectional perspective.
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 3

Likewise, this methodology allows analysing cumula- 2. Uncertainty and subjectivity in EIA
tive impacts, defined as the result of the presence of
Uncertainty is defined as the lack of certainty due to
multiple projects (Franks et al. 2013); the interaction of
incomplete information, statistical variability, contin-
several activities; the sum of the total effects on
gency of the explanatory models and randomness
a resource, ecosystem or human community (U.S.
(Institute of Medicine 2013, p. 38). From a metrological
Environmental Protection Agency 1999); or the impacts
perspective, uncertainty considers all possible sources of
that increase progressively when the action generating
error that can take part in a result. The ISO defines it as
them is persistent (Conesa 2010).
‘an estimate linked to the result of a trial that charac-
These features are incorporated in the proposed
terizes the range of values within which the true value is
methodology: it allows establishing the interaction
placed’ (International Organization for Standardization
between activities by determining the possible
1993). Although this definition has little practical appli-
impacts on the same environmental factor and facil-
cation since the ‛true value’ cannot be accurately
itating the identification of additive effects, thus
known, it points out that uncertainty implies doubts
improving the quality of the studies (Connelly 2011).
about the veracity of a result (Institute of Medicine
The complex network theory has been utilized for
2013).
the research in the fields of engineering, medicine,
Academics widely recognize that uncertainty is
economics, computing, aviation and mathematics
rooted in at least two conditions (Kamal and Burkell
(Zhao et al. 2006; Ya-Juan et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2011;
2011): (i) internal uncertainty, which is related to
Pan et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2012; Papo et al. 2014).
a lack of knowledge about a particular event or phe-
However, its application in the field of environmental
nomenon and can be reduced or eliminated by
impact assessment is scarce.
improving knowledge, and (ii) external uncertainty,
Networks have been generally used in EIA (Glasson
which is comparable to random uncertainty, and can-
et al. 2012) but only as a graphic representation of
not be reduced by the stochastic characteristics of the
simple relationships between activities and environ-
behaviour of complex natural phenomena.
mental impacts. The scope of this work is wider
Uncertainty in EIA usually emerges because most
because it goes further and uses the network analysis
EIS are conducted in a ‘without project’ scenario,
to determine the significance of the impacts, thus
especially regarding the identification and evaluation
becoming a tool that allows identifying the most
of environmental impacts. Research about the accu-
representative impacts generated by the PWAs.
racy of EIAs has shown that ‘42% of the predictions
The proposal made by this work revealed a higher
were deemed accurate, 29% nearly accurate and 29%
objectivity in the evaluation of the impacts’ signifi-
inaccurate, indicates that the prediction performance
cance in comparison with other methodologies
of EIA is not satisfactory’ (Tennoy et al. 2006, p. 52).
(Conesa 2010). We include as evidence the results of
One aspect that increases uncertainty in EIA is the
the application of this methodology in a real project
use of qualitative methodologies for the evaluation of
validated by the Colombian environmental authority.
the significance of environmental impacts. These con-
Additionally, the application of this methodology for
ventional approaches are based on the qualification
the evaluation of environmental impacts in wetlands
of attributes (intensity, magnitude, recoverability) and
was approved by the environmental authority of
do not have a clear conceptual framework, therefore
Bogotá, capital city of Colombia.
lacking scales that can be adapted to any project. In
This article is divided into six sections. After this
this manner, the scales and assessments can be inter-
introduction, the second presents the concept of
preted and applied by practitioners without comply-
uncertainty and subjectivity, together with the
ing with any technical justification, thus implying an
sources in EIA. Section three presents the conceptual
additional difficulty when comparing projects. To this
foundations of complex networks and how this
respect, Therivel and Wood (2018, p. 46) affirm:
approach can be used to reduce uncertainty and
‘Finally, all [predictive methods] have a degree of
limit the subjectivity in EIA. The fourth section pre-
uncertainty should be validated throughout the life
sents the methodology for EIA based on network
of a project’, and Morris and Therivel (2009, p. 9) state
analysis and explains the procedure for its application.
that ‘impact prediction is not an exact science.’
In the fifth section an application of the proposed
methodology is presented in order to analyse its Regarding the use of these attributes, it is impor-
scope and performance; in addition, the results are tant to point out that the lack of indicators and scales
compared with those of a qualitative methodology in for their qualification does not allow incorporating the
EIS. Finally, section six presents the conclusions and complexity of the environment, since most of them
discusses the advantages and limitations of the pro- correspond with adjectives such as low, partial, high
posed methodology. and very high, chosen according to evaluation criteria
4 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.
that also have a quantitative equivalent. For example,
for the appraisal of the intensity of the impact in the
methodology proposed by Conesa (2010), the options
of qualitative qualifications are low, medium, high,
very high or total, with quantitative correspondences
1, 2, 4, 8 and 12, respectively. ‘The qualitative calcula-
tion of Impact Importance is carried out by applying
a generic mathematical formula (Equation 1) com-
posed of a series of attributes that have been graded
by an evaluator’ (Toro et al. 2013). The numerical
result evaluates the impact significance as irrelevant
(0≤ Imp<25), moderate (25≤ Imp<50), severe
(50≤ Imp< 75) or critical (Imp≥75) (Conesa 2010).
Imp ¼ þ=  ð3I þ 2Ex þ Mo þ Pe þ Rv
þSy þ Ac þ Ef þ Pr þ RcÞ (1)
Where Imp: importance, I: intensity, Ex: extension,
Mo: moment, Pe: persistence, Rv: reversibility, Sy:
synergy, Ac: accumulation, Ef: effect, Pr: periodicity,
Rc: recoverability. For a detailed explanation of this
methodology, please consult Conesa (2010) or Toro
et al. (2013, p. 11).
Lawrence (2007) states that the evaluation of the
significance of impacts is one of the hardest and most
complicated processes, due mainly to the evaluators’
subjectivity. The imprecision of primary information is
another factor that explains uncertainty in EIA, since
often the critical data necessary to make forecasting
consist of assumptions about the future. Thereby,
predictions involving links between interacting
assumptions can lead to relevant uncertainties.
Furthermore, the project dynamics may involve
unforeseen changes leading to a gap from planned
to implemented predictions, therefore affecting miti-
gation measures formulated to avoid or reduce unde-
sirable environmental impacts (De Jongh 1988;
Teigland 2000; Glasson et al. 2012).
With respect to subjectivity, there is consensus on
the fact that it is a quality of being based on personal
feelings, tastes, or opinion.1 A main affirmation from
the theory of evaluation is that the evaluators’ sub-
jectivity is associated with emotions and values which
are characteristic of the personal meaning attributed
to external events (Pezzulo et al. 2008). Values are
beliefs regarding what is important in a process; in
EIA, these values are used to decide which methodol-
ogy should be applied and how to approach the
evaluation. Values also influence the scope, data and
budgets used in the EIA (Wilkins 2003).
Zhang et al. (2018) affirm that EIA is always asso-
ciated with uncertainty and subjectivity, particularly in
the identification, prediction and evaluation of
impacts. Subjectivity in EIA highlights the values,
scopes and origins of the impacts; however, the nat-
ure of the decision-making process is political because
the EIA can be used to publicly support or oppose
a project, and it can be biased in favour or against
environmental sustainability. Therefore, a crucial step
in the EIA process is not eliminating subjectivity, but
rather establishing limits or guidelines (Bojórquez-
Tapia and García 1998) aimed at guaranteeing sus-
tainable development (Therivel and Wood 2018).
Subjectivity without limits may generate simplified
assumptions and structural errors through the use of
models that simplify the systems (De Jongh 1988). It
may bias the researcher and block the objective
understanding of reality. Subjective information con-
tains the point of view of the person exposing it and
is influenced by their interests and wishes (Tagliani
and Walter 2018).
Other factors that can reduce uncertainty and limit
subjectivity may be the use of better quality baseline
information, mathematical modelling, and the devel-
opment of models and methodologies that develop
causal relationships and effects (De Jongh 1988;
Teigland 2000).
3. Complex network analysis to reduce
uncertainty and bias in EIA
Complex networks are an effective tool for this pur-
pose, because they allow predicting the occurrence of
events in the environment, which as a chaotic system
is characterized by a high sensitivity to its initial con-
ditions (i.e. it can be affected by the smallest distur-
bance) and by the emergence of new properties. This
approach allows grasping the complexity of the envir-
onmental systems and enables the analysis of multi-
directional interactions between all of its components,
including those that generate impacts (Barabási, 2012;
Ren et al. 2018).
Regarding complex networks, Ch and Zhao (2016,
p. 15) state:
Complex network comprises an emerging interdisci-
plinary research area. Complex network structures
describe a wide variety of systems of high technolo-
gical and intellectual importance, such as the Internet
coupled biological and chemical systems, financial,
social and communication.
According to Cárdenas (2016), the network analysis is
a theoretical and methodological approach focused
on the study of relationships. This approach allows
processing, examining and visualising a wide spec-
trum of elements and their possible relationships by
using the theory of graphs.
A complex network is a ‘system of nodes with
connecting links’ or a graphic representation of a set
of elements (nodes) and their multidirectional inter-
actions (links or connections). It is named ‘complex’
due to the non-lineal, multidirectional interaction
between the elements, and also because the beha-
viour of the analysed system cannot be predicted by
isolating its components (Munguía-Rosas and Montiel

2013; Ch and Zhao 2016), which is the regular proce-
dure followed by the traditional or qualitative meth-
odologies proposed by Leopold et al. (1971); Dee
et al. (1973); Pastakia and Jensen (1998); Gómez
Orea (2013) and Conesa (2010).
An adjacency matrix is used to elaborate the net-
work. This is a logical and systemic approach that
emerged from combinatorics and helps analysing
and understanding the system by providing a simple
way to represent relationships, and thus characteris-
ing their organisation or structure (Geetha and Sekar
2016). For a more thorough mathematical description
of complex networks, please consult Boccaletti et al.
(2006); Ch and Zhao (2016), Geetha and Sekar (2016)
or Ren et al. (2018).
The graphic representation of a complex network
depicting the actions of a project and the generated
impacts is presented in Figure 2. The nodes can be
either actions (triangles) or environmental impacts
(circles). The size of the node indicates its total degree
(number of relationships) and the arrows represent
the relationship between the nodes and its direction.
The network analysis allows reducing (not eliminat-
ing) uncertainty in EIA by enabling a more accurate
identification and evaluation of the impacts’ signifi-
cance, because it focuses on the analysis of interac-
tions between the environmental components
affected by the impacts defined in the scoping stage
of the EIA (Therivel and Wood 2018) and not on the
evaluators’ criteria, thus attenuating the bias and
improving the decision-making processes related to
management measures.
The use of causality networks in EIA has been
reported in specialized literature (Perdicoúlis and
Glasson 2006; Perdicoúlis 2010). However, in these
studies the evaluation of impacts is analysed in
a simple, unidirectional fashion, for example graphs
depicting relationships between activities and
impacts and cause-effect charts.
In this sense, the proposed methodology is relevant
because it offers an analytical method that allows analys-
ing the complex interrelationships between the projects
Figure 2. Environmental impact network modelled as a graph.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 5
and the environment, and it evaluates the impacts as
consequences of activities, and at the same time, as the
cause of subsequent impacts. Therefore, the methodol-
ogy contributes to solving the difficulties in the analysis
of cumulative impacts, which according to Connelly
(2011) and Pavlickova and Vyskupova (2015) has had
a moderate progress.
4. Network analysis of EIA: methodological
proposal
4.1. General characteristics
The EIA methodology based on network analysis uti-
lizes an adjacency matrix in which the activities and
the environmental impacts are shown in rows and
columns, allowing the assessment of environmental
impacts based on their ability to interact with other
impacts, thereby guiding Environmental Management
Plans (EMP) towards prevention, correction and miti-
gation. This implies broadening the concept of envir-
onmental impact as an element generating new
impacts, which can be secondary, tertiary, and not
only seen just as a consequence of project activities.
Since this methodology does not use attributes to
evaluate the environmental impacts the possibility of
influencing the results is limited and the actions are
focused on answering the question: is the analysed
impact a direct repercussion of another impact or of
a peculiar activity? Similarly, the subjective evaluations
of impacts are limited, because the methodology avoids
questions based on the assessment of qualitative attri-
butes, for example whether the impact intensity is low,
medium, high, very high or total. Further, the results of
the evaluation can be analysed graphically, in order to
facilitate decision-making and the consultation of
results by all the interested stakeholders.
4.2. Application procedure
The EIA methodology based on network analysis has
three stages, as described below.
6 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.

Stage 1. Identification of potentially impacting
project actions.
In this stage the possible positive and negative
impacts generated by the project are identified.
Activities are likely to generate impacts if they (Conesa
2010; Therivel and Wood 2018):
● Modify the use of land.
● Generate emissions of pollutants into the atmo-
sphere, surface water and groundwater and/or soil.
● Involve overexploitation of raw materials, energy
consumption and/or water consumption.
● Involve under-exploitation of agricultural.
● Act on the biotic environment.
● Lead to the deterioration of the landscape.
● Affect infrastructures; modify the social, eco-
nomic and cultural environment.
● And involve non-compliance with current envir-
onmental regulations.
Stage 2. Identification of potentially impacted envir-
onmental factors.
This stage consists of identifying the environmental
factors on which changes (positive or negative) can
be generated by the actions of the PWAs. A checklist
is proposed for this step (see Table 1).
The objective of this stage is to create a list of
environmental factors susceptible of being impacted,
and grouped according to the category to which they
belong.
Stage 3. Hierarchical ranking of impacts
The third stage seeks to rank environmental
impacts according to their Potential Impact (PI), e.g.
the ability to interact with other impacts. This stage
consists of four steps:
i) Identification of potential environmental
impacts. A ‘double-entry matrix’ is used to identify
environmental impacts. For this step, the components
and environmental factors on which impacts can be
generated should be located in the first and second
columns, and in rows 1 and 2, column 3 onwards, the
potentially impacting stages and activities of the pro-
ject (Table 2). Subsequently, for each cell it should be
determined whether or not the activity interacts with
the environmental factor; in the case of an interaction,
the impact type should be classified (positive or
negative).
The result of this step is the identification of envir-
onmental impacts. For example, Table 2 shows how
activity A1 interacts with environmental factor F1,
leading to environmental impact I1. Similarly, it can
be interpreted that activity A2 interacts with factor F2,
leading to environmental impact I2.
Once all the environmental impacts have been
identified by finding out all elements in Table 2,
a list of impacts should be elaborated, eliminating
those that are duplicated, and assigning them
a code, for example I1, I2, In.
ii) Elaboration of the adjacency matrix. The adja-
cency matrix is obtained after all the potential envir-
onmental impacts have been identified. This is
a squared matrix where impacts are located
(Boccaletti et al. 2006). The adjacency matrix analyses
the causal relationships between all elements, unlike
the matrices used by conventional methodologies
(Leopold et al. 1971; Conesa 2010), that only focus
on the simple relationships between activities and
impacts (see Table 3).
It is important to note that the adjacency matrix
must be developed by an interdisciplinary profes-
sional team. In addition, the community affected
should be involved in this process (Funtowicz and
De Marchi 2000).
To obtain the adjacency matrix, the codes assigned
to the activities and impacts are entered in the col-
umns and rows. Subsequently, in each of the cells, it is

Table 1. Environmental components and factors (Morris and Therivel 2009; Conesa 2010).
Environmental
Categories Component Environmental factors
Physical Geoforms Geology, morphology, morphodynamics and morphostructure
Landscape Visibility, structure, physiognomy, diversity of units and aesthetic characteristic
Soil Use, texture, structure and fertility
Water Hydromorphology, flow, volume of water, physical-chemical and bacteriological quality, drainage pattern, hydrological
regime and water table
Atmosphere Air quality, temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, radiation, climate, microclimates and noise
Biotic Flora Plant coverings, plant composition, distribution of flora and plant diversity
Fauna Diversity of fauna, food chains, habitat, population and aquatic fauna
Social Community Migrations, occupation of territory, human groups, citizens’ values, citizen participation and social welfare
Infrastructure Transportation, health, education, social services and public services
Culture Cultural values and practices, use and management of the environment, normative framework, archaeology
Economy Structure of the property, productive systems, extractive systems, technification, markets, trade and employment

Table 2. Impact identification matrix (Conesa 2010).

Project activities
Environmental component Environmental Factors A1 A2 An
C1 F1 F1×A1=(I1)
F2 F2×A2=(I2)
Fn

Table 3. Adjacency matrix (own elaboration).
A1 A2
A1 0
A2 0
An
I1
In
established whether there is a direct causal relation-
ship between the elements of the columns and the
rows. A direct causal relationship is 1 when the impact
is totally attributable to the cause, without an inter-
mediate circumstance intervening. If there is a causal
relationship, then 1 must be entered, whereas 0 is to
be entered if there is no causal relationship. The
relationship of an element to itself is 0.
This matrix will be useful later for the construction
of a chart that illustrates with lines the causal relation-
ships between the activities and the impacts, while
the significance of the relationships is represented
through the size and colours of the nodes.
iii) Impact assessment. Once the adjacency matrix is
completed, the relationships between the activities and
the impacts are analysed in order to rank them accord-
ing to their Potential Impact (PI). The PI represents the
capacity of an impact to generate other types of impacts
and depends on the number of additional elements that
can impact the effect within the network. With this
approach, an impact can be the cause of higher order
impacts and not only a consequence of human activity,
as considered in conventional methodologies.
To calculate the PI, all rows and columns of the adja-
cency matrix should be added. The total of the rows is
called the out-degree and represents the frequency to
which the activity or the impact is the cause of other
impacts, whereas the total of the columns is called the in-
degree and corresponds to the frequency to which the
activity or impact is a consequence of other activity or
impacts. The PI of each impact will be the result of adding
its in-degree and out-degree, for example its total degree.
This approach allows determining the significance of
the impacts according to causality relationships in order
to prioritise management measures, so it can be com-
plementary to other methods, such as modelling (i.e.
dispersion of pollutants in water and air) or the spatial
analysis with Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
In order to establish a scale that allows comparing
the results obtained from both the proposed and the
conventional methodologies, we suggest the defini-
tion of four categories of impact significance, as
explained below:
(a) Calculation of the PI range: The PI range is calcu-
lated according to Equation (2)
RPI ¼ Dmax  Dmin (2)
Where RPI is the PI range, Dmax is the maximum total
degree, and Dmim is the minimum total degree.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 7
An I1 In
0
0
0
(b) Calculation of amplitude for the categories: The
range divided by four will indicate the amplitude of
the categories of environmental impact Equation (3)
RPI
Ac ¼ (3)
4
Where Ac is the amplitude of the category.
(c) Definition of the categories of environmental
impact: The criteria defined in Table 4 must be
employed to determine the segments.
(d) Categorisation of impacts: The environmental
impacts located in the first segment will be assigned
the category of irrelevant, those located in the second
will be moderate, those in the third will be considered
severe, and the critical will be those in the last seg-
ment. In cases where a result is within the limit value
of two segments, it is suggested to assign the cate-
gory of highest significance to that impact.
Therefore, environmental impacts with fewer cau-
sal relationships belong to the less complex cate-
gories (irrelevant, moderate), while those with the
highest number of relationships are located in the
most complex categories (severe and critical). This
interpretation is based on the assumption that the
complexity of an impact increases in proportion with
the number of relationships it establishes; however, it
is possible that an impact has a high significance even
when it has a low number of relationships. Therefore,
it is recommended to use this methodology as
a complement to other methods, such as spatial ana-
lysis and modelling of environmental parameters.
(e) Graphical representation of impacts. This metho-
dology generates a graphic result that allows to differ-
entiate project activities and environmental impacts from
two perspectives: (i) the relationship ‛to be a cause’ and
(ii) the relationship ‛to be a consequence’. This serves the
purpose of formulating corrective measures focusing on
the activities that are causes of impacts.
A specific software for the elaboration of networks2
can be used to elaborate the diagram that represents
the interactions between the activities and the envir-
onmental impacts.
Table 4. Criteria for the definition of impact categories.
Category Minimum value Maximum value Colour
Irrelevant Dmin Dmin+Ac Green
Moderate Dmin+(Ac) Dmin+(2Ac) Yellow
Severe Dmin+(2Ac) Dmin+(3Ac) Orange
Critical Dmin+(3Ac) Dmax Red
8 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.

5. Application The project had the following general stages:

The application illustrates the network approach and
(1) Adequacy and construction of roads and platforms
gives way for a discussion of its scope and limitations.
(2) Drilling
In this example the methodology prioritizes the envir-
(3) Production and transportation tests
onmental impacts by determining the degree that char-
(4) Dismantling and abandonment
acterizes the number of relationships that an element or
node has with the whole network, from the perspectives
The adequacy of roads included the paths for the
of ‛being cause’ and ‛being a consequence’.
access of equipment and staff to the facilities. For
the drilling the project used equipment with a range
5.1 Project information of 5.000 ft and tests of 1, 6 and 12 months
(Petrominerales Colombia Ltda 2012). Once the pro-
The proposed methodology was applied to a real
duction potentiality was evaluated, the fluids were
project of hydrocarbon exploration located in the
managed in flow lines and the production was con-
Casanare and Meta Provinces in Colombia (Figure 3).
centrated in some sectors for its treatment and trans-
This example was selected because the hydrocarbon
portation. The flow lines are main trunk lines (4–13 in
sector is the main contributor to the Gross Domestic
width) installed in the surface. Detailed activities and
Product and it is also developed in areas of high
the assigned codes are presented in Table 5.
ecological importance.

Figure 3. Location of the project.

 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 9

5.2 Identified environmental impacts
The analysed environmental impacts were obtained from
the EIS approved by the environmental authority
(Table 6).
5.3 Results
5.3.1 Analysis of impact significance by in-degree
The application of the in-degree analysis allowed to
establish the significance of the 38 identified impacts,
8 under the category of irrelevant (green), 25 moder-
ate (yellow), 4 severe (orange) and 1 critical (red)
(Figure 4).
Figure 4 shows how the activities are related to the
impacts, and how the impacts are related between
them. The nodes with smaller number of relationships
are located in the periphery, whereas the nodes with
a higher number of relationships are located in the
interior. The size of the nodes reflects the total degree
of the element, while the colour represents the poten-
tial importance. The activities are shown in pink and
represented by a triangle, as they do not have an in-
degree, for example they are not a consequence of
another element.
5.3.2 Analysis of the impact significance by
out-degree
Regarding the out-degree, the activities with greater
importance are the adaptations of access roads, the
disposal of treated wastewater, the construction of
geotechnical and environmental works, the removal
of vegetation cover, the recruitment of personnel,

Table 5. Project activities.

Step Activity Code
Preparation of the area Topography and geotechnical designs. A-01
Purchase of land and/or serfdom payments. A-02
Hire employees, products and services. A-03
Adequacy and construction of roads, locations and production facilities Location and redesign. A-04
Adaptation of access roads. A-05
Transportation of equipment and machinery. A-06
Preventive maintenance of equipment. A-07
Operation of temporary camp. A-08
Removal of vegetation cover and soil. A-09
Earth movement. A-10
Drainage crossing. A-11
Construction of civil, geotechnical and environmental works. A-12
Drilling Transportation of equipment and machinery. A-13
Preventive maintenance. A-14
Operation of camp. A-15
Water catchment. A-16
Disposal of treated wastewater. A-17
Disposal of solid waste. A-18
Handling of cuts and sludge. A-19
Drill operation and electric generators. A-20
Horizontal teas operation. A-21
Production tests Preventive maintenance. A-22
Operation of camp. A-23
Water catchment. A-24
Disposal of treated wastewater. A-25
Disposal of solid waste. A-26
Electric generators operation. A-27
Vertical teas operation. A-28
Purchase of land and/or serfdom payments. A-29
Installation and operation of flow lines Mobilization of equipment and piping. A-30
Removal of vegetation cover. A-31
Opening and conformation of the right of way. A-32
Collection, laying and folding of pipes. A-33
Crossing of drainage. A-34
Crossings of tracks. A-35
Water collection for hydrostatic test. A-36
Provision of water for hydrostatic test A-37
Construction of geotechnical and environmental works. A-38
Reconversion of the right of way. A-39
Transportation of hydrocarbons. A-40
Abandonment Social management for abandonment. A-41
Road maintenance Review of the current state of the tracks. A-42
Improvement of deteriorated sectors. A-43
Cleaning gutters and culverts. A-44
Withdrawal of equipment and infrastructure Disarmament, removal and transfer of equipment. A-45
Demolition of structures. A-46
Abandonment of flow lines. A-47
Land reconfiguration of operating areas Waste management. A-48
Closing of ponds. A-49
Compaction and shaping of areas. A-50
Definitive closure of the area Reforestation. A-51
Final cleaning of the area. A-52
Permanent abandonment of deteriorated operating areas. A-53
10 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.

Table 6. Environmental impacts of the project.

Environmental category Environmental component Environmental impact Code
Geosphere Geotechnics Activation of scouring processes at drainage margins I-01
Activation of erosive processes I-02
Landscape Change in landscape perception I-03
Geomorphology Modification of the shape of the terrain I-04
Soil Change in soil structure I-05
Change in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil I-06
Change in land use I-07
Hydric Hydrology Change in surface drainage pattern I-08
Alteration of surface flow I-09
Change in physicochemical and bacteriological characteristics I-10
Hydrogeology Change in physicochemical and bacteriological characteristics I-11
Change in the availability of groundwater I-12
Atmospheric Air quality Alteration of gases concentration I-13
Alteration in the particulate matter concentration I-14
Alteration in the thermal radiation levels I-15
Alteration of sound pressure levels I-16
Terrestrial ecosystem Vegetation Change in floristic composition and vegetation cover I-17
Fauna Change in the fauna composition I-18
Aquatic ecosystem Habitat Change in the composition and structure of the hydro-biological I-19
community
Demographics/Population Population dynamics Change in population dynamics I-20
Relocation of the population I-21
Economic dimension Working market Change in the employment dynamics I-22
Land tenure Change in the land value I-23
Change in land use I-24
Change in the structure of land ownership I-25
Economic activities Change in economic activities I-26
Change in the supply/demand of local products and services I-27
Change in socioeconomic infrastructure I-28
Speculation with prices of products and services I-29
Spatial dimension Public and social services Change in the supply/demand of public and social services I-30
Change in road accident rates I-31
Political-organisational Institutional presence and community Change in management capacity of municipal administration I-32
dimension organisation Presence of new actors in the local and regional scenario I-33
Change in community management capacity I-34
Cultural dimension Adaptive and cultural strategies Generation of expectations I-35
Generation of conflicts I-36
Change in the socio-cultural sphere I-37
Archaeological aspects Affectation of the archaeological heritage I-38

Figure 4. In-degree analysis result.

goods and services, the land movement, and the
opening and conformation of rights of pass.
On the other hand, the impacts with greater rele-
vance -because they act as agents that cause other
impacts- are the changes in land uses, surface
drainage patterns, socioeconomic infrastructures, the
supply/demand of goods and services, land tenure,
the economic activities, population dynamics, and
population relocations. These impacts should be man-
aged through measures that allow their elimination

(preventive) or the reduction of their effects (correc-
tive and mitigating measures), since they reinforce the
occurrence of other impacts. The network diagram
resulting is presented in Figure 5.
As shown in Figure 5, the elements with greater
weight are concentrated in the centre and arranged
from the point of view of causality, giving the observer
the possibility of understanding the magnitude of each
element as an agent that modifies the environment.
A relevant result of this analysis is precisely that it
allows an independent assessment of the relationships
‘being cause of’ (in-degree) and ‘being consequence of’
(out-degree). In this sense, the evaluator is able to notice
that impacts are not only a consequence, but they may
also be potentially harmful when they cause other sub-
sequent impacts. In this case, the preventive measures
should be focused on those impacts that are significant
from the perspective ‘being cause of’. On the other
hand, the impacts presenting a high in-degree are
a consequence of multiple causes and in turn, they are
harder to prevent.
Figure 5. Out-degree analysis result.
5.3.3 Comparison with qualitative methodology
When applying the methodology of network ana-
lysis, 39.47% of the impacts remained in the same
category, while 50% were included in a higher
category, and 10.53% were placed in a category
of lower significance. This implies that the EIA
based on network analysis is useful to evaluate
impacts of greater significance without using qua-
litative attributes. Figure 6 shows how by using
this methodology the percentages of irrelevant
and moderate impacts are reduced and the severe
and critical impacts increase.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 11
5.3.4 Advantages and limitations of the EIA
methodology based on network analysis
The advantages of the network analysis methodology
are the following:
(1) It does not require the qualification of attri-
butes to determine the importance of the
impacts, which may contribute to reduce the
evaluator’s subjectivity and the possibility of
overestimating or underestimating the impor-
tance by modifying the categories of attributes.
The analysis is focused on the determination of
the causality relationships between activities
and impacts and not on the qualification of
attributes, as proposed by Leopold et al.
(1971) and Conesa (2010). Therefore, the eva-
luator makes decisions based on a more robust
set of information regarding the interactions
between PWAs and environment, and may
attenuate the sources of uncertainty (Lohani
et al. 1997), so the final result of the evaluation
can be more pertinent.
Figure 6. Comparative results.
12 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.
(2) It does not use a fixed range for the definition
of impacts (critical, severe, moderate, compati-
ble or irrelevant), but provides a relative impor-
tance index that can be interpreted according
to the results obtained in each project. The
results in terms of the ‘degree’ depend on the
number of elements constituting the network,
so it is not possible to establish a fixed range of
relationships that determine if an impact is sig-
nificant or not. For example, an impact with
a total degree of 20 can be very significant if
the network is composed of 50 nodes, but less
significant if the network has 500 nodes. This
situation is overcome by the definition of the
impacts’ categories according to the range
obtained for the ‘total degree’ measure. Thus,
the impacts can be categorised in the same
scales regardless of the number of elements
constituting the network.
(3) By relying on the identification of direct causal
relationships, it can easily discern whether the
relationships do exist or not. This advantage is
related to the fact that the relationship
between several environmental parameters
has been technically documented; for example,
the increase in organic matter in the water may
lead to the decrease in the dissolved oxygen or
to the increase of biological oxygen demand.
Defining these causal relationships is less com-
plex in comparison to the qualitative methodol-
ogies, in which each attribute has a wide range
of options (e.g. the ‘moment’ attribute can be
assessed as immediate, short term or long
term).
(4) It facilitates the identification of the significant
impacts by gathering all the components (activ-
ities and/or impacts) of the project in a single
graph. This reduces the time required for the
analysis of the evaluation results and makes it
easier for the environmental authority to make
the decisions related to the environmental via-
bility of the project, because the methodology
identifies the most significant environmental
impacts and their associated activities. This
can be positive for the follow-up and control
stages because it is possible to prioritize the
impacts or elements of the environment that
need more attention.
(5) The graphical analysis allows for a higher
understanding of the causal relationships of
impacts in an extensive way (secondary, tertiary
impacts, etc.), pointing out relationships among
the components that are not easily detectable
through the use of matrices. This graphical
analysis can be used for designing preventive
measures for the impacts presenting the high-
est numbers of causality relationships, which
would increase the efficiency of the corrective
measures.
However, the network methodology presents the fol-
lowing limitations:
(1) The results of the analysis can be manipulated
by the omission of causal relationships. The
‘degree’ measure is directly related to the num-
ber of relationships that the node establishes
with the rest of the network, so omitting
a causal relationship leads to lowering its
degree, and therefore, the significance of the
impact.
(2) It is possible that relevant impacts are not con-
sidered significant because they present fewer
relationships, or that other impacts are cate-
gorised as significant due to a higher number
of relationships, even when they do not cause
any substantial change in the environment.
(3) The evaluators need to be trained in the meth-
odology, its theoretical framework and the use
of software. Although all the EIA methodolo-
gies require training, the use of additional com-
puter programs may represent higher costs in
terms of time and money.
(4) The evaluations have to be carried out by profes-
sionals from different areas, as well as by people
belonging to the areas of influence of the pro-
ject, so that the possible causal relationships are
established. This is an important element of this
methodology, because the interaction between
professionals from several academic back-
grounds is required to identify the possible caus-
ality relationships between the environmental
impacts, since these can be related to several
disciplines. An example of this is the relationship
between the alteration of air quality due to PM10
and the human health (ERD).
These limitations represent an opportunity to con-
tinue researching the applications of complex systems
modelling based on network analysis and its applica-
tion in environmental impact assessment, although
the exploration of other instruments that may over-
come these limitations would also be necessary.
6. Conclusions
The incorporation of elements of the theory of complex
systems and the use of modelling tools may contribute
to reduce uncertainty and limit subjectivity in EIS, com-
plementing the systemic analysis with the recognition of
the complex relationships between the components of
a project (activities, factors and environmental impacts).
Some of the uncertainty factors presented in the
process of environmental impact assessment can be

avoided by using the EIA methodology based on net-
work analysis, since it is grounded on the determination
of causal relationships without using attribute ratings,
numerical labels or static interpretation ranges. This
overcomes the cause-effect analysis of activities and
environmental factors of the qualitative methodologies.
By defining the categorisation ranks of the impacts
based on the range amplitude of the results obtained
for the total-degree, the EIA based on network analy-
sis allows researchers to identify the relevant impacts
and compare them with the results obtained from
other conventional methodologies, such as those pro-
posed by Leopold and Conesa.
On the other hand, the use of the in-degree and out-
degree facilitates the identification of significant impacts
by determining if they are cause or consequence, thus
allowing to address the elimination of the impacts’ causes
(through preventive actions) or their mitigation (through
corrective or mitigation actions) in the EMP.
Notes
1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/subjectivity.
2. In this paper we employ the Ucinet® program designed
by Borgatti et al. (2002, https://sites.google.com/site/uci
netsoftware/home). However, the following options are
also useful: Gephi (https://gephi.org/), Graph-tool
(https://graph-tool.skewed.de/), Grapviz (http://graph
viz.org/), JUNG (http://jung.sourceforge.net/), SocNetV
(http://socnetv.org/), polinode (https://www.polinode.
com/), NodeXL (https://archive.codeplex.com/?p=
nodexl), among others.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Funding
This paper gratefully acknowledges the support and fund-
ing from the following projects: ‘Environmental Impact
Evaluation. Critical analysis and Improvement’, Cod.
Hermes: 13129; ‘Tourism and Environment’, Cod. Hermes:
33576 Universidad Nacional de Colombia; and Project
ECO2014–60058-P from the Ministry of Economy and
CompetivenessMinistry of Economy and Competiveness of
the Spanish Government through the FEDER European
Union funding [Project ECO2014–60058-P]; Environmental
Impact Evaluation. Critical analysis and Improvement;
Tourism and Environment [Cod. Hermes: 13129; Cod.
Hermes: 33576].
ORCID
Liven Fernando Martínez http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2117-3715
Javier Toro http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6675-5148
Carmelo J. León http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-4093
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL 13
References
Arts J, Runhaar H, Fischer T, Jha-Thakur U, Van LF,
Driessen P, Onyango V. 2012. The effectiveness of EIA as
an instrument for environmental governance. J Environ
Assess Policy Manag. 14:1–40.
Barabási A. 2012. Network science: luck or reason. Nature.
489:507–508.
Boccaletti S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Chavez M, Hwang D. 2006.
Complex networks: structure and dynamics. Phys Rep.
424:175–308.
Bojórquez-Tapia L, García O. 1998. An approach for evaluat-
ing EIAs-deficiencies of EIA in Mexico. Environ Impact
Asses Rev. 18:217–240.
Bond A. 2015. What is the role of impact assessment in the long
term? J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 17:1250025-(1–6).
Borgatti S, Everett M, Freeman L. 2002. Ucinet for windows:
software for social network analysis. Harvard (MA):
Analytic Technologies.
Canter L, Sadler B 1997. A tool kit for effective EIA practice:
review of methods and perspectives on their application.
IAIA. Norman, OK (USA).
Cárdenas J. 2016. Network analysis: definition, origins,
growth and future. Pensando Psicología. 12:5–10.
Available https://revistas.ucc.edu.co/index.php/pe/article/
view/1330/1469.
Ch ST, Zhao L. 2016. Machine learning in complex networks.
New York (Dordrecht, London): Springer.
Chivat I. 2016. Coping with uncertainty in environmental
impact assessments. Open Criteria and Techniques.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 60:24–39.
Conesa V. 2010. Methodological guide for environmental
impact assessment. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa.
Connelly R. 2011. Canadian and international EIA frame-
works as they apply to cumulative effects. Environ
Impact Asses Rev. 31:453–456.
De Jongh P. 1988. Uncertainty in EIA. In: Wathern P, editor.
Environmental impact assessment theory and practice.
1st ed. London: Routledge; p. 62–84.
Dee N, Baker J, Drobny N, Duke K, Fahringer D, Whitman I.
1973. An environmental evaluation system for water
resource planning. Water Res. 9:523–535.
Drayson K, Wood G, Thompson S. 2017. An evaluation of
ecological impact assessment procedural effectiveness
over time. Environ Sci Policy. 70:54–66.
Franks M, Brereton D, Moran C. 2013. The cumulative
dimensions of impact in resource regions. Resour Policy.
38:640–647.
Funtowicz S, De Marchi B. 2000. Post-normal science, reflec-
tive complexity and sustainability. In: Leff E, Funtowicz S,
editors. The environmental complexity. Spanish. Buenos
Aires: Siglo XXI; p. 54–85.
Geetha K, Sekar P. 2016. Graph theory matrix approach - A
review. Indian J Sci Technol. 9:1–4.
Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwik A. 2012. Introduction to
environmental impact assessment, built environment,
environment and sustainability. London: Routledge.
Gómez Orea D. 2013. Environmental impact assessment:
a preventive instrument for environmental management.
Madrid: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa.
Institute of Medicine. 2013. Environmental decisions in the
face of uncertainty. Washington (DC): The National
Academies Press.
International Organization for Standardization. 1993. ISO
3534–1 statistics-vocabulary and symbols, part 1.
Probability and general statistical terms. Geneva,
Switzerland.
14 L. F. MARTÍNEZ ET AL.
Jha-Thakur U, Fischer T. 2016. 25 years of the UK EIA system:
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Environ
Impact Assess Rev. 61:19–26.
Jones R, Fischer T. 2016. EIA follow-up in the UK-A 2015
update. J Environ Assess Policy Manag. 18:1–22.
Kamal A, Burkell J. 2011. Uncertainty: when Information is
Not Enough. Can J Inf Libr Sci. 4:384–396.
Lawrence D. 2007. Impact significance determination -back
to basics. Environ Impact Asses Rev. 27:755–769.
Leopold L, Clarke F, Hanshaw B, Balsley J. 1971. A procedure
for evaluating environmental impact. Washington DC:
Geological Survey, United States Department of the
Interior, circular 645.
Leung W, Noble B, Gunn J, Jaeger J. 2015. A review of
uncertainty research in impact assessment. Environ
Impact Assess Rev. 50:116–123.
Leung W, Noble JJAG, Gunn JAE. 2016. Disparate percep-
tions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure
practices in environmental assessment and opportunities
for improvement. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 57:89–100.
Liu H, Hu X-B, Yang S, Zhang K, Di Paolo E. 2011. Application
of complex network theory and genetic algorithm in air-
line route networks. Transp Res Rec. 2214:50–58.
Lohani B, Evans J, Everitt R, Ludwig H, Carpenter R, Tu S. 1997.
Environmental impact assessment for developing countries
in Asia. Mandaluyong: Asian Development Bank.
Loomis JJ, Dziedzic M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems´ effec-
tiveness: A state of the art. Environ Impact Assess Rev.
68:29–37.
Morgan R. 2012. Environmental impact assessment: the
state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 30:5–14.
Morris P, Therivel R.2009.Methods of environmental impact
assessment.3rd ed. Peter M, Rik T,editors. London:
Routledge.
Munguía-Rosas M, Montiel S. 2013. Ecology and social
sciences: complex networks in human ecology humana.
Ecol Austral. 23:135–142.
Okpara U, Stringer L, Akhtar-Schuster M, Metternicht G,
Dallimer M, Requier-Desjardins M. 2018.
social-ecological systems approach is necessary to
achieve land degradation neutrality. Environ Sci Policy.
89:59–66.
Pan W, Li B, Ma Y, Liu J. 2011. Multi-granularity evolution
analysis of software using complex network theory. J Syst
Sci Complex. 24:1068–1082.
Papo D, Buldu JM, Boccaletti S, Bullmore ET. 2014. Complex
network theory and the brain. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol
Sci. 369:20130520.
Pastakia CMR, Jensen A. 1998. The rapid impact assessment
matrix for EIA. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 18:461–482.
Pavlickova K, Vyskupova M. 2015. A method proposal for
cumulative environmental impact assessment based on
the landscape vulnerability evaluation. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 50:74–84.
Perdicoúlis A. 2010. Systems thinking and decision making
in urban and environmental planning. Cheltenham (UK):
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Perdicoúlis A, Glasson J. 2006. Causal networks in EIA.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26:553–569.
Petrominerales Colombia Ltda. 2012. Perforación explora-
toria de hidrocarburos “área de interés llanos 31.
Expediente 4751. Disponible en. [accessed 2018 Oct
15]. http://vital.anla.gov.co
Pezzulo G, Butz M, Castelfranchi C, Falcone R. 2008. The
challenge of anticipation. Berlin: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Ren Z, Zeng A, Zhang Y. 2018. Structure-oriented prediction
in complex networks. Phys Rep. 750:1–51.
Sadler B. 1996. Environmental assessment in a changing
world: evaluating practice to improve performance. Hull
(Quebec): Minister of Supply and Services Canada, CEAA,
IAIA.
Suyono RS, Tamin OZ, Wibowo SS, Heru Purboyo HP. 2016.
Application of modified rapid impact assessment matrix
(RIAM) for multi actor-sustainability appraisal of public
transport. Int J Appl Eng Res. 11:1960–1973.
Tagliani P, Walter T. 2018. How to assess the significance of
environmental impacts. WIT Trans Ecol Environ.
215:47–55.
Teigland J 2000. Impact assessments as policy and learning
instrument. Why effect predictions fail, and how rele-
vance and reliability can be improved. [dissertation].
Roskilde: Roskilde University.
Tennoy A, Kværner J, Gjerstad KI. 2006. Uncertainty in envir-
onmental impact assessment predictions: the need for
better communication and more transparency. Impact
Assess Proj Apprais. 24:45–56.
Therivel R, Wood G. ed. 2018. Methods of environmental
and social impact assessment. 4th Ed. New York:
Routledge.
Toro J, Requena I, Duarte O, Zamorano M. 2013.
A qualitative method proposal to improve environmental
impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 43:9–20.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration
of cumulative impacts in EPA review of NEPA documents.
A Office of Federal Activities. Washington, USA.
Wang N, Li D, Wang Q. 2012. Visibility graph analysis on
quarterly macroeconomic series of China based on com-
plex network theory. Phys A Stat Mech Its Appl.
391:6543–6555.
Wilkins H. 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as
a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact
Assess Rev. 23:401–414.
Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment:
a comparative review. 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Ya-Juan D, Yun-Feng Y, Rong-Guo M. 2010. Highway net-
work structure characteristics based on complex network
theory. China J Highw Transp. 23:98–104.
Zhang J, Kørnøv L, Christensen P. 2018. The discretionary
power of the environmental assessment practitioner.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 72:25–32.
Zhao J, Yu H, Luo J, Cao ZW, Li Y. 2006. Complex networks
theory for analyzing metabolic networks. Chinese Sci Bull.
51:1529–1537.