The rationale for and practice of EIA follow-up: an analysis of Finnish road projects

Follow-up is often considered to be a weak or even missing element in environmental impact assessment (EIA). Though it is recognized that follow-up practices could provide useful opportunities to learn from projects' actual consequences, the practice is criticized for not achieving this goal. In this paper, we aim to clarify the relationship between the theoretical rationale for EIA follow-up and the actual practices carried out in a Finnish EIA context. An empirical analysis was performed with follow-up documents. The findings indicate that follow-ups focused on dealing with environmental impacts related to the physical environment, e.g., flora, fauna, and ground and surface waters. Social impacts were monitored less often, though in most of the cases, traffic noise impacts were given special attention. To some extent, various interest groups were involved with follow-up practices, especially by surveying the impacts experienced. The evidence also suggests that EIA predictions were usually successful, whether the actual impacts were negative or positive. It is concluded that more systematic approach to EIA follow-up would enhance the possibilities to protect the environment.