Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e i a r

Determining Vulnerability Importance in Environmental Impact Assessment

The 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, Colombia
b
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, National University of Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
c
Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, Spain
d
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The concept of vulnerability has been used to describe the susceptibility of physical, biotic, and social systems
Received 25 December 2010 to harm or hazard. In this sense, it is a tool that reduces the uncertainties of Environmental Impact Assessment
Received in revised form 20 June 2011 (EIA) since it does not depend exclusively on the value assessments of the evaluator, but rather is based on the
Accepted 20 June 2011
environmental state indicators of the site where the projects or activities are being carried out. The concept of
Available online 3 August 2011
vulnerability thus reduces the possibility that evaluators will subjectively interpret results, and be influenced
Keywords:
by outside interests and pressures during projects. However, up until now, EIA has been hindered by a lack of
Vulnerability effective methods. This research study analyzes the concept of vulnerability, defines Vulnerability Importance
Environmental Impact Assessment and proposes its inclusion in qualitative EIA methodology. The method used to quantify Vulnerability
Environmental Impact Process Importance is based on a set of environmental factors and indicators that provide a comprehensive overview
Colombia of the environmental state. The results obtained in Colombia highlight the usefulness and objectivity of this
method since there is a direct relation between this value and the environmental state of the departments
analyzed.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction system relative to a threshold of damage and the system's ability to

The scientific use of the concept of vulnerability is central to many
areas of knowledge, and is a basic tool for the analysis of envi-
ronmental problems (Adger, 2006; Füssel, 2007; Gallopín, 2006; Smit
and 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 is
also an expression of how the natural and human environment can
respond 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 the
possibility that future conditions will become worse. Other authors
define vulnerability more generally as susceptibility to damage, due to
the sensitivity or exposure of a system, people, or places to impacts,
stresses, or perturbations. It has also been applied to the state of the
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada,
E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Campus de Fuentenueva s/n, 18071
Granada, Spain. Tel.: + 34 958 249458; fax: +34 958 246138.
E-mail addresses: jjtoroca@unal.edu.co (J. Toro), ogduartev@unal.edu.co (O. Duarte),
requena@decsai.ugr.es (I. Requena), zamorano@ugr.es (M. Zamorano).
adapt to changing conditions (Kelly and Adger;, 2000; Luers et al.,
2003; Smith and Pilifosova, 2002; Turner et al., 2003). Even though
there is no agreement on the definition of vulnerability or how it can
be applied to all environmental assessments (Füssel, 2007; Gallopín,
2006), it is a crucial component in the analysis of the interrelation of
ecosystems and society.
Vulnerability is also regarded as the potential for the change or
transformation of a system when confronted with a perturbation
rather than as the outcome of this confrontation. (Gallopín, 2006).
Apart from general vulnerability or biophysical vulnerability, there is
also social vulnerability, which is related to the characteristics and
experiences of communities and people who must respond to and
recover from the environmental hazards or stressors to which they
are exposed. Such characteristics include age, race, health, income,
type of dwelling unit, and education. Other relevant characteristics to
be considered are access to resources, political power, and social
representation as well as beliefs and customs, values, type and density
of infrastructures, and lifelines (Cutter et al., 2003). Social and
biophysical vulnerability also interact and produce general vulnera-
bility in a given place (Tran et al., 2010).
Social vulnerability has various connotations depending on research
orientation and perspective. However, vulnerability research has the
following three basic tenets: (i) the identification of conditions that
make people as well as physical and biotic factors vulnerable; (ii) the

0195-9255/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.06.005
108 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117
assumption that vulnerability is a social condition, a measure of social
resistance, or resilience to hazards; (iii) the integration of potential
exposures and social resilience to a specific stressor on a particular place
or region (Cutter et al., 2000; Cutter et al., 2003).
Disciplines or knowledge areas have different conceptions of
vulnerability, and this has led to different methods of measuring it
(Tran et al., 2010). Within the context of our research, Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) is regarded as the evaluation of the natural
or acquired susceptibility of all physical, biotic, social, and economic
environmental factors to impacts from the construction, operation, or
dismantling of projects, building structures, or activities. This sus-
ceptibility is directly related to the resilience of the environmental
factor and the nature of the stressor or disturbance.
Regarding vulnerability assessment, the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has created a program known as
Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) to deal with problems
resulting from environmental decision-making processes, such as
budget reductions, time restrictions, and lack of information. ReVA
methods allow users to devise scenarios for the analysis of possible
changes in environmental vulnerability, while taking into account
regional variations in factors such as population growth, economic
conditions, land use, transportation infrastructure, etc. The ReVA
approach allows decision-makers to evaluate current conditions and
vulnerabilities by using variables and indices. Variables are collected
and made available to the public by the EPA through the ReVA pro-
gram. This approach makes it possible to evaluate net change and thus
visualize the positive and negative changes in future conditions and
environmental vulnerabilities (Smith et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2008b).
Evidently, vulnerability analysis can also be used to integrate EIA into
the context of global change (Kates et al., 2001) and more objectively
determine the impact of human actions and activities on the
environment (Kværner et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2008a, 2008b; Weston,
2004). Subjectivity in Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), where certain impacts may
be ignored or regarded as insignificant, has brought vulnerability into
the spotlight within the EIA process (Kværner et al., 2006; Wang et al.,
2008a). Environmental Impact Assessments that include vulnerability
are generally less subjective than those that do not (Kværner et al.,
2006). Nevertheless, if vulnerability is to be an integral part of the EIA, it
must first be measured. Since it is a phenomenon that is often not
directly observable, interdisciplinary methods should be proposed in
the spatiotemporal context of the countries that apply them (Kværner
et al., 2006).
Colombia is located in the northwestern corner of South America,
and has a surface area of 1,141,748 km 2. It is a constitutional republic,
divided into 32 departments, which are subdivided in 1089 cities or
municipalities. Ten of these municipalities have been designated as
districts because of a distinguishing characteristic related to political,
commercial, historical, scenic, cultural, industrial, or environmental
importance. Other important features that give these municipalities
the 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. For
example, the city of Bogotá, the capital city of Colombia, is the Capital
District (Toro, 2009).
Toro et al. (2010) evaluated the EIA process in Colombia, and
concluded it had the following characteristics: (i) the exclusion of a
considerable 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 this
research, the methods used were based on evaluations that depended
solely on the personal criteria of the evaluator. As a result, many en-
vironmental impacts were not identified, and this was conducive to
the progressive deterioration of the ecosystem (Toro, 2009; Toro et al.,
2010). In order to correct deficiencies, modifications were proposed,
which would presumably lead to compensation effects in the calculation
of the global impact. These compensation effects included the
integration of vulnerability in the EIA process.
In this paper, we analyze vulnerability in the context of the EIA with a
view to subsequently including it in qualitative methods for En-
vironmental Impact Assessment. For those cases where there is a limited
quantity of environmental information and/or a lack of economic
resources to generate such information, we propose and describe a
method for calculating Vulnerability Importance. This method indirectly
measures vulnerability by analyzing the loss of function of the
environmental factor studied within the legal, social, physical, and
biotic context in Colombia. The final section of the paper shows how this
method was applied to a Colombian context, and presents the research
results.
This should be regarded as a preliminary study that will pave the
way to subsequent research in which the Vulnerability Importance
values 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 ensure
environmentally sound and sustainable development. EIA can thus be
regarded 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 can
be used to identify the type, magnitude, and potential changes in the
environment as a result of an activity or policy. It also helps to trans-
mit this information to decision-makers. Evidently, the adoption and
implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment depends on the
institutional framework and political context of the decision-making
process (Ortolano et al., 1987).
Based on this description of the EIA, the inclusion of vulnerability in
Environmental Impact Assessment coincides with recurrent recom-
mendations to reduce uncertainty in EIA methods (Weston, 2004). This
uncertainty is present in processes that are largely made up of pre-
dictions of future scenarios in which there is a proliferation of value
assessments and the subjective opinions of project managers, govern-
ment officials, and the general public (Barker and Wood, 1999). The use
of environmental vulnerability, combined with a method for objectively
measuring it, would reduce the subjectivity of EIA methods, especially
those with a qualitative approach.
In traditional EIA methods, environmental vulnerability has only
been considered very superficially when project alternatives are
proposed. However, the general tendency is to exclude it or ignore it
altogether in the EIS (Kværner et al., 2006). Even though there seem to
be methods for measuring vulnerability, especially in the context of
climate change, little research has been carried out on this subject. In
fact, 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 secondary
concept 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 alternative
approach known as the Integrated Vulnerability Model (IVM). Despite
the fact that the IVM has only been used in certain pilot studies, the
idea is to make it an integral part of all EIS phases, even though no
quantitative calculation is involved.
Luers et al. (2003) and Luers (2005) developed a generic formula
to measure vulnerability in agriculture and land use, based on the
sensitivity of environmental factors to stress and the state of the
environmental factor as related to the threshold of change.
Wang et al. (2008a; 2008b) describe a method in which remote
sensing and Geographic Information Systems are used to analyze eco-
 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117
environmental vulnerability and the changes in the ecosystem studied.
They developed a mathematical model based on the Spatial Principal
Component Analysis (SPCA). This model includes variables pertaining to
land use, soil erosion, topography, climate, and vegetation. It classifies
vulnerability in six categories: potential, slight, light, moderate, heavy,
and very heavy.
According to Füssel (2007), the inclusion of vulnerability in the EIA
should take into account the following basic aspects:
i) The identification of the system, which can be 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 potentially
threatened by a hazard.
ii) The attribute. This refers to the properties of the system that
can be threatened by exposure to a hazard. Examples of attri-
butes include human health, income, the cultural identity of a
community, biodiversity, potential carbon capture, and timber
production.
iii) The situation of danger or risk. This refers to a potentially
harmful influence on the system being analyzed or an influence
that can adversely affect an attribute of the system.
iv) The temporal reference. This is a point or period of time when
the 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 the
objectivity, context, and effectiveness of the EIA in order to reduce the
environmental deterioration that currently affects human health and
productivity in Colombia. For this reason, vulnerability in the EIA
process should be taken into account in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), particularly in the description of the environment,
assessment of impacts, and revision of the EIS by the government. It
especially should be considered in the verification of the contingency
plan. This plan includes part of the corrective measures to be carried
out and specifically deals with emergencies that can arise during the
useful life of the project, structure, or activity. This verification reveals
if the plan takes into account the analysis of the project's vulnerability
as shown in Fig. 1.
Consequently, vulnerability can be measured by many methods
and conceptual approaches, depending on the social and ecosystem
context of the site where the EIS is being carried out. We have defined
vulnerability as the predisposition of an environmental factor to suffer
the impact of a human activity, disturbance, or perturbation. This is
in accordance with authors such as Luers et al. (2003), Smith and
Pilifosova (2002), Turner et al. (2003), Gallopín (2006) and Walker
et al. (2004). Vulnerability can thus be measured by a series of
parameters related to the stress to which the factor is exposed because
of pre-existing impacts, environmental pollution, vulnerable rare
species, sensitive populations, or another type of stressor that reduces
the resilience of the socio-ecological system (SES). The SES is defined
as 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 define
persistence and change in ecosystems or the capacity of a system to
absorb 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 the
capacity of groups or communities to deal with external aggressions
and disturbances as the result of social, political, and biophysical
changes (Adger, 2000; Gallopín, 2006; Walker et al., 2004).
Resilience in engineering contexts refers to the return speed of a
system to equilibrium (Holling, 1996). Even though this concept is
related to ecological resilience, it cannot be regarded as a way of
measuring resilience. The concept of resilience as applied to the SES
has three meanings: (i) the response of a system to perturbations;
109
GENERAL CONTENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
STATEMENT EN COLOMBIA
2. Environmental
1. General description of the
project
characterization of the area of
influence
3. Environmental zoning 4. Demand for natural resources
5. Environmental impact 6. Environmental management
assessment plan
7. Tracking and monitoring 8. Contingency plan
plan
9. Dismantling plan
Include analysis of
environmental
VULNERABILITY
Fig. 1. Inclusion of the concept of vulnerability in the EIA process in Colombia. Shaded
areas should be affected by vulnerability analysis.
(ii) its capacity to organize itself; (iii) its capacity to adapt (Carpenter
et al., 2001; Folke, 2006; Folke et al., 2002). When these three
meanings are applied in our methodology, resilience can be defined as
the degree of perturbation or disturbance that a system can absorb
and still remain in the same state (Turner, 2010). Examples of actions
that generate perturbation or disturbances and which can reduce the
resilience of an SES are the seepage of liquid waste into surface or
ground water, deforestation and poaching (Adger, 2006; Toro, 2009).
The vulnerability analysis proposed and its inclusion in the EIA
could be a valuable tool for identifying what Tran et al. (2009) affirm
is the basic issue in environmental evaluation, namely, the identifi-
cation of the resources that are most sensitive to negative impact. This
identification is crucial since these resources should be the focus of
the corrective measures specified in the environmental management
plan. The vulnerability analysis described in this paper will also
improve the evaluation of the importance of the impact in qualitative
EIA methodology. This methodology calculates the importance of the
impact by using the mathematical expression 1, where Imp stands for
the Importance of Impact; α refers to the weighting of the Importance
of Iimpact; I is the Intensity; Ex is the Extension; Mo is the Moment; Pe
is the Persistence; Rv is the Reversibility; Si is the Synergy; Ac is the
Accumulation; Ef is the Effect; Pr is the Periodicity; and Rc is the
Recovery (Conesa, 1996). Since the attributes in this method have
been assigned a value by an evaluator, the level of uncertainty is high.
Imp = α ð3I + 2Ex + Mo + Pe + Rv + Si + Ac + Ef + Pr + RcÞð1Þ
Qualitative EIA methodology is applied throughout the world
(Canter and Sadler, 1997; Sadler, 1996) as well as in Colombia. It has
the advantage of being economical and easy to use, and it is a rapid
source of information. Nonetheless, it has been criticized because
attributes are assigned values largely on a subjective basis. Opinions
regarding the importance of certain environmental impacts can dif-
fer greatly, depending on the personal values and attitudes of the
interested parties (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Duinker and Beanlands,
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 use
of any method or choice of evaluation criteria (Toro et al., 2010). In
this respect, there are various studies and/or methods that can be
used to identify and quantify the values as well as the attitudes of the
interested parties (Barker and Wood, 1999; Ijäs et al., 2010; Modak
and Biswas, 1999; Pastakia and Jensen, 1998; Sadler, 1996).
In this sense, vulnerability could be included in Eq. 1, such that its
evaluation would depend exclusively on the measurable characteris-
tics of the environmental factor without being influenced in any way
by the judgments of the evaluators. This quantitative approach would
substantially reduce its subjectivity. With a view towards a more
objective 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 the
Vulnerability Importance and where ImpVul is the Vulnerability Im-
portance, whose value is determined by the methodology described in
the following section.
Imp = α ð3I + 2Ex + Mo + Pe + Rv + Si + Ac + Ef + Pr + RcÞ ð2Þ
+ β ImpVul
Eq. (2) can be interpreted within the information aggregation
framework. The main issue addressed by this theory is how to combine
information that comes from different sources, is of different types,
and has different qualities into a single space (see, for example, Fodor
and Rudas, 2009). Rudas (2001) gives a survey of the aggregation
connectives, most of which are based on the fuzzy set theory (Zadeh,
1965). A very useful set of aggregation operators are the Ordered
Weighted Averaging (OWA) family of parametric operators, which
have 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 operator
for complex systems, the incompatibility principle (Zadeh, 1973)
should be taken into account. According to this principle, the precision
and significance (or relevance) of our statements about very complex
systems are almost mutually exclusive characteristics. The environ-
ment is a very complex system, and in an EIA, the goal is to make
relevant statements about the overall impact. As a result, we need to
use simple aggregation operators, even if they are less precise than
more sophisticated choices. The weighted average of Eq. (2) is simple
enough to maintain the interpretability of the importance of each
individual impact. In Eq. (2), Vulnerability Importance can be under-
Table 1
Indicators for environmental factors (Toro, 2009).
Factor Indicator
Wildlife habitat (WH) Vegetation cover/ecosystem surface changes
Wildlife diversity (WD) Number of endangered species
Flora diversity (FD) Number of endangered species
Surface water quality Percentage of municipalities using wastewater
(SWQ) treatment systems
Land use change (LUC) Percentage of land with overexplotation
Air 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 rate
Educational system Average years of education of the population over 15 years
(Edu)
stood as the importance of a single impact due to the vulnerability of
the impacted factor.
3. Method for determining Vulnerability Importance
Once Vulnerability Importance was defined, a method had to be
found to measure it. The procedure followed in our study consisted
of the following four phases: (i) definition of environmental factors;
(ii) definition of indicators; (iii) qualitative determination of the
vulnerability 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 largely
depends on the spatial distribution of the effects of the action as
well as on the affected environmental factors. An environmental
factor in the EIA is any environmental element or component that can
be potentially affected, either positively or negatively, by a project,
building construction, or activity. The first step in the evaluation of
Vulnerability Importance is the identification of any environmental
factors at the site that may be sensitive to this impact. Advances in the
development of methods to identify and quantify these receptors are
extremely valuable since they are useful as guidelines or as generic
lists 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 include
air quality, biological populations, communities and habitats, water
quality, and biota (Antunes et al., 2001; Donnelly et al., 2007).
For the vulnerability analysis in this research, ten environmental
factors were selected that provided relevant data regarding SES
functions, 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 information
was available for each factor. The following ten factors were chosen:
(i) wildlife habitat; (ii) flora diversity; (iii) air quality; (iv) land use
change; (v) surface water quality; (vi) social security; (vii) population
(migration, emigration); (viii) employment (temporary and perma-
nent); (ix) wildlife diversity; (x) educational system. These factors were
organized with the purpose of finding a more encompassing and ef-
fective evaluation pattern of environmental impacts. The first column of
Table 1 shows the ten indicators used. It should be underlined that
wildlife diversity and education system are two factors that are not
References
Márquez, 2005; Pereira et al., 2004; Smith and Zollner, 2005
Carrete et al., 2009; Mazaris Antonios et al., 2008; IUCN, 2006
Carrete et al., 2009; Mazaris Antonios et al., 2008; IUCN, 2006
Diario Oficial del Estado Colombiano, 1984; Gandini et al., 2000
Metzger et al., 2006; Rounsevell and Reay, 2009; Yan et al., 2009
Cheng et al., 2007; U.S. EPA, 1999a, 1999b; Liu, 2002.
Nathwani et al., 2008; Pandey and Nathwani, 1996, 2003; Pandey et al., 2006
Delgado et al., 2008; Burgess et al., 2007; Luck, 2007a; Luck, 2007b; Pautasso, 2007;
Urquiza-Haas et al., 2009
Frenkel and Ros, 2006; Gan and Zhang, 2006; Jacques and Walkowiak, 2009
Canter et al., 1985; Burdge, 1987; Tarabini, 2010; Tilak, 2007; US DOE, 1978;
Wedgwood, 2007; Wisc SPO, 1975.
 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117 111

generally included in vulnerability analysis. Nevertheless, they are very
important in the Colombian context.
The inclusion of wildlife diversity is justified because its conservation
and 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 of
millions of people who depend on wildlife diversity (Carrete et al., 2009;
IUCN, 2006; Mazaris Antonios et al., 2008). Furthermore, it should be
highlighted that Colombia is the fourth most biodiverse country in the
world. In fact, it is the first most important in amphibians and birds, the
third in reptiles, and the fifth in mammals (Delgado et al., 2008).
The inclusion of the educational system was considered necessary
because of its preventive and remedial function in society today. It has
a preventive function because it facilitates entry into the labor market
by guaranteeing access to a wide range of high-quality educational
resources as well as the acquisition of a set of basic competences. It has
a remedial function because it provides compensatory measures that
ensure equal opportunity (Tarabini, 2010; Tilak, 2007; Wedgwood,
2007). The educational system has been regarded as an environmental
factor in the EIA in a variety of research studies. In this respect, the US
Department of Energy (US DOE). (1978) and the Wisconsin State
Planning Office (Wisc SPO) (1975) require impacts on the educational
system to be annually calculated for each school district within the
area of influence of the project, construction work, or activity. Other
research studies that discusse the educational system in the context of
EIA are Burdge (1987), Canter and Sadler (1997), Canter et al. (1985),
Canter et al. (1985) and Sadler (1996). These factors and their
indicators are listed in Table 1.
3.2. Definition of indicators
Once the environmental factors are specified, each factor must
have a series of indicators that provide a vision of the environmental
state, and which include physical, biotic and socioeconomic informa-

Table 2
Ranges of the qualitative assignment of the vulnerability of different factors. Air quality is shaded in grey.

Indicator
Factor Category Vulnerability
Name Value

High > 60 VL
Medium-High Vegetation cover / > 40 − 60 VML
Wildlife Habitat (WH) Medium Ecosystem surface > 30 − 40
Medium Low-Low changes 0 − 30 VMH
VH

Low-Medium Low 0−9 VL

Medium Number of threatened 10 − 44 VML
Wildlife Diversity (WD)
Medium-High species 45 − 98 VMH
High > 98 VH

Low-Medium Low 0−9 VL

Medium Number of threatened 10 − 44 VML
Flora diversity (FD)
Medium-High species 45 − 98 VMH
High > 98 VH

High 80 − 100 VL

Percentage of
Moderate ≥ 60 − < 80 VML
Surface Water Quality (SWQ) municipalities using
wastewater treatment
Severe >50 − < 60 VMH
systems
Very Severe < 50 VH

High < 10 VL
Moderate Percentage of land 10 − 20 VML
Land Use Change (LUC)
Severe with overexplotation 21 − 40 VMH
Very Severe > 40 VH

Good 0 − 49 VL
Aceptable Air Quality Index 50 − 99 VML
Air Quality (AQ)
Bad (AQI) 100 − 150 VMH
Very Bad > 150 VH

High ICV ≥ 80 VL
Social Security (SS) Medium-High Life Quality Index 75 ≥ ICV < 80 VML
Medium (LQI) 65 ≥ ICV < 75 VMH
Low ICV < 65 VH

Low ≤ 25 VL
Population density in
Population (Pp) Moderate ≤ 50 VML
relation to the threat
Moderately High > 50 − ≤ 100 VMH
to diversity
High > 100 VH

Null or Low < 5.0 VL

Employment (Ep) Moderate 5.5 − 7.5 VML
Unemployment rate
Moderately High 7.5 − 10 VMH
High > 10 VH

High Average years of ≥ 10 VL

Moderately High education of the < 8 − 10 VML
Educational System (Edu)
Moderately High population over 15 <7−8 VMH
Low years ≤7 VH
112 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

tion. These indicators supply evidence of different types of situation or Table 3

explicitly reflect a tendency that otherwise would be very difficult to Ranges of the indicators of environmental factors for the quantitative assignment of
Vulnerability.
perceive, much less calculate (Niemeijer and De Groot, 2008). This
information permits the qualitative measurement of the vulnerability Qualitative vulnerability Quantitative Vulnerability
of environmental factors at the sites studied. The purpose of these valuation vulnerability valuation importance value

indicators is to provide relevant information which is timely, com- High vulnerability VH 5 100
prehensive, and reliable. Such information is the basis for in-depth Moderately high VMH 4 80
vulnerability
research, planning, policy-making, and decisions that are less biased
Moderately VML 2 40
and considerably more objective (Tegler et al., 2001). vulnerability
The vulnerability indicators adopted in this study are based on the Low vulnerability VL 1 20
information available in the Colombian environmental information
system, 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, and Estado Colombiano (DOE, 2006) [Official Gazette of the Colombian
indices of the following: (i) environmental state (quality, quantity, and Government]. This index establishes a partial value for each of the
sustainability of natural resources and the environment); (ii) anthro- following atmospheric pollutants: PM10, carbon monoxide (CO),
pogenic pressure on natural resources (extraction of resources and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ozone (O3). This
generation of pollution); and (iii) information management to facilitate signifies that the global index corresponds to the most unfavorable air
knowledge generation, decision-making, education, and social partic- quality value. The index for a concentration is calculated by using
ipation for economic sustainable development. Eq. 3, where AQI stands for the Air Quality Index; Ci is the con-
In our proposal, we include indicators that are available in the centration of the pollutant; and Li is the permissible limit value of the
SIAC. The same methodology may be applied in different contexts, pollutant.
depending on the information available. Generally speaking, the state
indicators of environmental factors are direct. Examples of such AQI = ð100 × Ci Þ = Li ð3Þ
indicators are the number of endangered species for wildlife and the
Air Quality Index for air (IDEAM, 2004; 2007). The second column of
A zero AQI value corresponds to a zero concentration of the
Table 1 shows the indicators that were identified for each factor.
pollutant. The values b100 are associated with the limit value above
For instance, in the case of the air quality factor, the indicator is Air
which it is necessary to inform the population of possible danger so that
Quality Index (AQI). This scale for the estimation of atmospheric con-
they can take the necessary measures to prevent potential health
tamination has the following objectives: (i) to inform and warn the
problems. Based on these considerations, Table 2 (shaded area)
general public of the risk of exposure to levels of air pollution; (ii) to
shows the ranges of the AQI as well as the qualitative assignment of
make all stakeholders comply with environmental regulations con-
atmospheric vulnerability. Each numerical range of the AQI corresponds
ducive to an instantaneously positive impact on the immediate con-
to an air quality category, which is taken as a reference for the qualitative
text. The greater the value of the AQI, the higher is the level of air
evaluation of the vulnerability, corresponding to the previously
pollution and, consequently, the risks to human health (Gurjar et al.,
mentioned levels (High Vulnerability, Moderately High Vulnerability,
2008; Stieb et al., 2005).
Moderately Low Vulnerability, and Low Vulnerability).
The population density in relation to the threat-to-diversity indicator
The same procedure was followed for the other indicators. The
was used for the population factor. It refers to the pressure exerted by
ranges thus obtained are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, at times
population on high-priority areas of great biological diversity.
The average education indicator refers to the Educational System
factor, and has been used in various research studies (Tarabini, 2010;
Tilak, 2007; Wedgwood, 2007). This indicator is the average number Table 4
of years of formal education of the population over 15 years of age. It Qualitative determination of air vulnerability in Colombia for regions under the
has been included because access to education is one of the basic jurisdiction of CARs.
rights of citizens. Similar justifications were also used in the selection Autonomous corporation AQI Vulnerability qualitative valuation
of the other indicators. Table 1 shows some of the bibliographic
AMVA 151 VH
references that justify our choices. CAR 132 VMH
CORPOBOYACÁ 139 VMH
3.3. Qualitative determination of the Importance of Vulnerability of CARDER 81.5 VML
environmental factors CDMB 156.3 VH
CORPOGUAJIRA 78.3 VML
CORNARE 81.8 VML
The qualitative assessment provides an estimate of the Vulnera- CORPAMAG 72.3 VML
bility of the environmental factors. The levels established are High CORPOCALDAS 133.8 VMH
Vulnerability (VH), Moderately High Vulnerability (VMH), Moderately CORPONOR 104 VMH
CORTOLIMA 91.5 VML
Low Vulnerability (VML), and Low Vulnerability (VL). As an illustration
CRC 95.3 VML
of the qualitative determination of Vulnerability Importance, the fol- CVC 106 VMH
lowing paragraphs describe the Air Quality Index (AQI) that evaluates CDA 167.3 VH
the vulnerability of the atmosphere factor. DAGMA 80.5 VML
We adopted Madrid's air quality index, which is simple to use and CORALINA 60.2 VML
DAMAB 112.2 VH
complies with the guidelines of the European Union. The calculation
DAMA 81.24 VML
of this index is in accordance with Law 34, enacted on 15 November CAS 100 VMH
2007 regarding Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere in Spain, CORANTIOQUIA 175 VH
published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE, 2007) [Official Gazette CRQ 38 VL
CAM 71.36 VML
of the Spanish Government]. It is also compatible with Resolution 601
CORPOCESAR 109.6 VMH
regarding air quality in Colombia, published in the Diario Oficial del
 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117 113

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 the
concept of vulnerability adopted in the methodology used in this
research 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 to
generate a table of factors and indicators that fit the requirements of
the geographic scale where the project is located. If the values as-
signed to each indicator come from regional studies, our methodology
can be used in the scoping (which is not part of the EIA process in
Colombia). If they come from local studies, the values that can be used
are those that were directly assigned in the detailed evaluation of the
impacts. Moreover, the application of the methodology in other
countries could imply the revision of current legislation in relation to
the indicator in question.
3.4. Assignment of quantitative values for Vulnerability Importance
Finally, the qualitative values of Vulnerability Importance for each
environmental factor were transformed into quantitative values. For
this purpose, we applied the method developed by Dean and Nishry
(1965), which compares each factor to each of the other factors. One
of the advantages of this method is that it can be applied by one user
or a group of users. This technique has been used to assign categories
as 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 vulnerability
category, quantitative values were assigned. VH was assigned a value
of five (5), and VMH, was assigned a value of four (4) because of the
importance of these categories in the EIA. The VML and VL received
values of two (2) and (1), respectively, because they were considered
less crucial. Each factor was consistently compared to each of the
others. Table 3 shows the values obtained.

Fig. 2. Air vulnerability in areas under the jurisdiction of CARs in Colombia (Toro, 2009).
114 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117

Table 5
4.1. Qualitative determination of Vulnerability Importance
Calculation of Vulnerability Importance of the environmental factors of the departments of
Valle, Chocó, Antioquia, and Guajira.
Each of the indicators selected for the environmental factors con-
Indicators
Autonomous Corporation sidered was analyzed with the purpose of establishing its qualitative
WH WD FD SWQ LUC SS Pp Ep Edu
valuation according to the procedure described in the previous section.
AMVA VH VML VML VH VH VL VL VH VH
Continuing with the previous example, this study presents the qualitative
CAR VH VMH VMH VH VH VMH VH VH VMH vulnerability of the atmospheric environmental factor in Colombia, as
CORPOBOYACÁ VMH VML VMH VH VH VML VH VMH VH reflected in AQI values and the vulnerability assessment shown in Table 2.
CARDER VMH VMH VML VH VMH VML VML VH VH Once the ranges were established, we then made a qualitative
CDMB VMH VML VML VH VMH VML VH VMH VH
assessment of air vulnerability for the different regions in the country.
In this case, these regions were Autonomous Regional Corporations
CORPOGUAJIRA VL VML VL VH VML VMH VL VH VH
(ARC), which are official administrative entities that are in charge of
CORNARE VH VML VML VH VH VL VL VH VH
the planning and implementation of projects related to the conser-
CORPAMAG VMH VMH VML VH VMH VML VML VH VH vation, decontamination or recovery of renewable natural resources
CORPOCALDAS VH VMH VML VH VMH VML VL VH VH that have been affected in the area under their jurisdiction. Since ARCs
CORPONOR VH VML VMH VH VMH VML VML VMH VH have jurisdiction over one or various departments, this means that the
vulnerability assigned to an ARC corresponds to the Environmental
CORTOLIMA VH VMH VLM VH VH VML VML VH VH
Vulnerability Factor of the departments located within its scope.
CRC VML VMH VMH VH VL VML VML VMH VH
Accordingly, we took into account the measurements of atmospheric
CVC VML VMH VMH VH VMH VL VML VH VML pollutants made by the Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology, and
CDA VL VL VL VH VL VL VL VH VH Environmental Studies of Colombia (IDEAM, 2004; 2007).
DAGMA VH VML VML VH VMH VL VH VH VH The previously described criteria for the qualitative quantification
DAMAB VH VH VMH VH VMH VML VH VH VH of this indicator were then applied. Table 4 shows the AQI values
obtained as well as the qualitative vulnerability assessment for each
DAMA VML VML VLM VH VH VML VH VH VL
corporation in accordance with the values in Table 3. Fig. 2 shows the
CAS VMH VML VMH VH VH VML VL VH VH vulnerability of the different areas in Colombia. This vulnerability
CORANTIOQUIA VMH VMH L VH VMH VL VL VH VMH measurement or analysis should be a requirement in the spatiotem-
CRQ VMH VMH VML VH VMH VL VML VH VH poral context of the project that is the focus of the EIS. A detailed
CAM VMH VML VML VH VMH VML VH VH VH analysis should be made in all cases, though in the case of individual
CORPOCESAR VH VML VML V ML VMH VMH VL VH VH
studies, the analysis can be on a smaller scale.
This same procedure for determining the vulnerability of air
VH High Vulnerability quality was performed for the rest of the indicators. Table 5 shows the
VMH Moderately High Vulnerability
VML Moderately Vulnerability
results obtained for the regions under the jurisdiction of the most
VL Low Vulnerability important ARCs.

4.2. Calculation of Vulnerability Importance in Colombia

Using the qualitative vulnerability values obtained with this

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

4. Results

Table 6
The quantification of environmental vulnerability in Colombia is
Calculation of Vulnerability Importance of the environmental factors of the de-
an initial approximation to a more in-depth study of the regional partments of Valle, Chocó, Antioquia, and Guajira.
vulnerability of environmental indicators and their integration in EIA
Factor Vulnerability qualitative valuation Vulnerability Importance
processes. This proposal is followed by other institutions, such as the
Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute Valle Choco Antioquia Guajira Valle Choco Antioquia Guajira
(IAvH) in its research on biodiversity in Colombia (Delgado et al., WH VML VL VMH VL 40 20 80 20
2008). Other government agencies that carry out research in this WD VMH VML VMH VML 80 40 80 40
same line are the Colombian Ministry of Environment, Housing, and FD VMH VML VMH VL 80 40 80 20
SWQ VMH VL VH VML 80 20 100 40
Territorial Development and the Colombian Administrative Depart-
LUC VMH VL VMH VML 80 20 80 40
ment of Statistics. From an international perspective, we can also AQI VH VH VH VH 100 100 100 100
highlight the United Nations Program for Latin America and the SS VL VH VL VMH 20 100 20 80
Caribbean and its proposal for indicators of environmental monitor- Pp VML VL VL VL 40 20 20 20
ing. The following sections present and discuss the results obtained in Ep VH VH VH VH 100 100 100 100
Edu VML VH VMH VMH 40 100 80 80
Colombia.
 J. Toro et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32 (2012) 107–117
120
100
80
ImpVul
60
40
20
0
WH WD FD
Valle-CVC Choco-CODECHOCO
Fig. 3. Comparison of the vulnerability of environmental factors in departments in Colombia.
related to the state of each factor in the departments. For example, the
department of Choco was found to have one of the lowest levels of
education and quality of life in Colombia. Consequently, it had a
greater vulnerability in factors such as Social Security and Education.
However, it has the lowest level of atmospheric pollution because of
its lack of industrial development and low population density. This
department thus has a low atmospheric vulnerability.
Exactly the opposite occurred in the departments of Valle and
Antioquia, which have a higher level of industrial development and a
greater population density. In this case, the Vulnerability Importance
for the atmosphere, flora, and wildlife was in direct correlation with
the state of the natural resources and industrial activities, especially
with the large quantity of polluting emissions generated by stationary
and mobile sources and the destruction of wildlife habitats.
The quantitative vulnerability values, generated on the sole basis
of the state of environmental factors, can be used as a component of
the EIA. It can thus be incorporated in the quantitative calculations for
the analysis of the Importance of Impact in the mathematical formula
proposed (Eq. 2) for each of environmental factors considered.
5. Conclusions
This study analyzed the concept of vulnerability and justifies its
use within the context of the EIA with the purpose of reducing
uncertainty and the influence of the subjective assessments of
evaluators in the calculation of Importance of Impact in qualitative
EIA methodology. In this sense, this study considered the use of
ecological concepts, such as environmental services. This permitted
the inclusion of vulnerability in the EIA process, even in those cases
where primary information was difficult to obtain or was not
available.
To integrate vulnerability in the EIA process, we first defined
Vulnerability Importance, and then included it in the mathematical
formula, used to calculate the magnitude of environmental impact in
qualitative EIA methodology. This method is widely used because it is
economical and easy to apply. It also has the advantage of providing
rapid results.
Vulnerability Importance is directly related to the state of envi-
ronmental factors. In our study, it was determined on the basis of a set
of environmental state indicators or indicators of the loss of eco-
system function. All value assessments of participants in the EIS were
excluded 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
115
AQI LUC SWQ SS Pp Ep Edu
Environmental Factors
Antioquia-CORANTIOQUIA Guajira-CORPOGUAJIRA
impacts more objective and reliable. Authorities and policy-makers
are thus obliged to develop corrective measures.
Since the measurement of vulnerability depends on quantitative
indicators, it can easily be included in methods that use equations to
calculate the importance and/or the magnitude of impacts, especially
those derived from matrixes (symbolized matrix, simple numerical
matrix, escalation matrix, etc.). It can also be integrated into both
qualitative modelling and quantitative modelling processes with a
view to improving the general effectiveness of the EIA. Evidently, a
decrease in subjectivity produces a corresponding increase in the
accuracy of the evaluation of impacts and improves the comprehen-
sion of results.
The application of this method in Colombia has allowed us to quantify
Vulnerability Importance in this national context for all the environmental
factors considered. The results obtained in this study reflect the usefulness
and objectivity of the methodology. This research should be understood as
an introduction to another publication in which the Vulnerability
Importance values obtained in this study will be used to determine the
magnitude of the environmental impact in the qualitative methodology.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a predoctoral grant from the
CAROLINA Foundation of Spain and the Universidad Nacional de
Colombia as well as by the Ministry of Innovation and Science of the
Andalusian Regional Government in Spain. It was carried out within
the framework of the research project, Intelligent System for the Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment of Human Activities (SINTEIA), funded by
the 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.
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 land
use and species to climate change and the role of policy in facilitating adaptation. Env
Sci Policy 2006;9:189–204.
Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) [Official Gazette of the Spanish Government], no 275 de
2007. Act 34 of 2007 November 15 Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere.
Bradley M, Smith E. Using science to assess environmental vulnerabilities. Environ
Monit 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 impact
assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 1995;15:11–43.
Burdge R. The social impact assessment model and the planning process. Environ
Impact 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 tropical
mountains 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 International
Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment. USA: Environmental
Ground 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 of
what 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 Conserv
2009;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. Sci
Total 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 Sci
Quart 2003;84:242–61.
Cutter S, Mitchell J, Scott M. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study
of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2000;90:713–37.
Dean V, Nishry J. Scoring and profitability models for evaluating and selecting engineering
projects. Oper Res 1965;13:550–69.
Dee N, Baker N. Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water
Resour 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 Colombian
Government]. 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 III
of 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 of
Susceptibility. Bogotá; 2006. p. 46232.
Donnelly A, Jones M, O'Mahony T, Byrne G. Selecting environmental indicator for use
in strategic environmental assessment. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2007;27:
161–75.
Downing T, Butterfield R, Cohen S, Huq S, Moss R, Rahman A. Climate change
vulnerability: linking impacts and adaptation. Oxford: University of Oxford;
2001.
Duinker P, Beanlands G. The significance of environmental impacts: an exploration of
the 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 and
Systems 1998;94:157–69.
Fodor P, Rudas IJ. Associative aggregation functions representing different scale types. IEEE
7th International Conference on Computational Cybernetics • November 26–29. Spain:
Palma de Mallorca; 2009.
Folke C, Carpenter S, Emqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling C, Walker B. Resilience and
sustainable 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 Dev
2006;34:631–46.
Füssel H. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate
change research. Glob Environ Chang 2007;17:155–67.
Gallopín G. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global
Env Chang 2006;16:293–303.
Gallopín GC. Human dimensions of global change: linking the global and the local
processes. Int Soc Sci J 1991;130:707–18.
Gan L, Zhang Q. The thick market effect on local unemployment rate fluctuations. J Econ
2006;133:127–52.
Gandini M, Pérez M, Madera A. Política de control de la contaminación hídrica en
Colombia. Elementos de discusión asociados a objetos de tratamiento [Policy water
pollution 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 in
megacities. Atmospheric Environ 2008;42:1593–606.
Hollick M. Environmental impact assessment in Australia: EIA and environmental
management 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 Academy
Press; 1996. p. 31–43.
IDEAM (Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Environmental Studies. Annual report
on 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 anual
sobre el estado del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales renovables en
Colombia: calidad del aire [Annual report on the state of the environment and
renewable 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 impact
assessment matrix) in the context of impact significance assessment. Environ
impact asses rev 2010;30:82–9.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature Resources). Red list of threatened
species. Geneva; 2006.
Jacques J, Walkowiak E. Low wages and high unemployment rates: the role of social
interactions 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, Jodha
NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore D, O'Riordan T, Svedin
U. Sustainability science. Sci 2001;292:641–2.
Kelly P, Adger WN. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and
facilitating adaptation. Clim Chang 2000;47:325–52.
Kotchen M, Reiling S. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation
of 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—the
content and context of the vulnerability concept in an alternative approach to
standard EIA procedure. Environ Impact asses Rev 2006;26:511–27.
Lawrence DP. Impact significance determination — back to basics. Environ Impact Asses
Rev 2007;27:755–69.
Leopold L, Clarke F, Hanshaw B, Balsley J. A procedure for evaluating environmental
impact. Washington: circular 645, Geological Survey, United States Department of
the Interior; 1971.
Liu Chung-Ming. Effect of PM2.5 on AQI in Taiwan Environmental. Model Softw
2002;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 and
biodiversity. Biol Rev 2007a;82:607–45.
Luck G. The relationships between net primary productivity, human population density
and species conservation. J Biogeogr 2007b;34:201–12.
Luers AL. The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examining
environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 2005;15:214–23.
Luers A, Lobella D, Sklard L, Addamsa L, Matsona P. A method for quantifying
vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Glob
Environ Chang 2003;13:255–67.
Márquez G. Transformación de ecosistemas y condiciones de vida en Colombia. PhD
dissertation to obtain the title of Doctor in Tropical Ecology. Universidad de los
Andes, Venezuela, 2005
Mazaris Antonios D, Athanasios S, Kallimanis Stephanos P, Sgardelis John D, Pantis.
Does higher taxon diversity reflect richness of conservation interest species? The
case for birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles in Greek protected areas. Ecol
indic 2008;20:664–71.
Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schröter D. The vulnerability
of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006;114:
69–85.
Modak P, Biswas A. Conducting environmental impact assessment in developing
countries. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 1999.
Nathwani J, Lind N, Pandey M. The LQI standard of practice: optimizing engineered
safety with the Life Quality Index. Struct Infrastructure Eng 2008;5:327–34.
Niemeijer D, De Groot R. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator
sets. Ecol indic 2008;8:14–25.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD. Core set of
indicators for environmental performance reviews: a synthesis report by the
Group on the State of the Environment. Environment Monographs N° 83. Paris:
OECD; 1993.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD. Structure of the
OECD 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 Impact
asses 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.
 J. 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. Environ
Impact Asses Rev. 1998;18:461–82.
Pautasso M. Scale dependence of the correlation between human population presence
and vertebrate and plant species richness. Ecol Lett 2007;10:16–24.
Pereira H, Daily G, Roughgarden J. A framework for assessing the relative vulnerability
of species to land-use change. Ecol Appl 2004;14:730–42.
Rounsevell M, Reay D. Land use and climate change in the UK. Land Use Policy 2009;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 to
improve performance. Canada: Environmental Agency, International Association
for Impact Assessment, Minister of Supply and Services Canada; 1996.
Samarakoon M, Rowan JS. A critical review of environmental impact statements in Sri
Lanka with particular reference to ecological impact assessment. Environ Manage
2008;41:441–60.
Smit B, Wandel J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Env Chang
2006;16:282–92.
Smith B, Pilifosova O. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Clim
Chang 2002;45:223–51.
Smith E, McKinnis P, Tran L, O'Neill R. The effects of uncertainty on estimating the
relative environmental quality of watersheds across a region. Landscape Ecol
2008a;21:225–31.
Smith ER, Tran LL, O'Neill RV. Regional vulnerability assessment for the Mid-Atlantic
Region: evaluation of integration methods and assessment results. Environmental
Protection 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 assessing
regional vulnerabilities. Washington D.C: Environmental Protection Agency; 2008b.
Snell T, Cowell R. Scoping in environmental impact assessment: balancing precaution
and 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 burden
attributable to air pollution: an illustration using the development of an alternative
air 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's
proposed 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 Dev
2007;27:435–45.
Toro J. Constructive analysis of the process of Environmental Impact Assessment in
Colombia. Proposals for improvement (in Spanish). PhD Dissertation. Granada
(Spain): University of Granada, 2009.
Toro J, Requena I, Zamorano M. Environmental impact assessment in Colombia: critical
analysis 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 most
susceptible resources for environmental integrated assessment. Ecol Model
2009;220:2335–40.
Tran L, O'Neill R, Smith E. Spatial pattern of environmental vulnerability assessment in
the 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 Acad
Sci 2003;100:8074–9.
Turner II B. Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or paralleling approaches for
sustainability 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 air
quality-air quality index. Office of air quality planning and standards Research
Triangle Park. EPA 451/K-94-001; Washington; 1999b.
Urquiza-Haas T, Peres CA, Dolman PM. Regional scale effects of human density and
forest 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 methodology
applied to synthetic fuel. Washington D.C: US Department of energy; 1978.
117
Walker B, Holling C, Carpenter S, Kinzig A, Ecology Society. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability 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 evaluation
in 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 environmental
vulnerability 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 impact
assessment: 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 China
by 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-criteria
decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 1988;18:183–90.
Yager RR, Kacprzyk J. The ordered weighted averaging operators: theory and
applications. 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. Information
Fusion October 2010;11(4):374–80.
Yan H, Liu J, Huang H, Tao B, Cao M. Assessing the consequence of land use change on
agricultural 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 National
University of Colombia in Bogotá. His work area is related to environmental
management and the main research lines are directed to methods of environmental
impact assessment. He has more than Thirteen contributions in national papers and
conferences and one paper international. Currently he works with research group
IDEA of the National University of Colombia and he is directing the research project
environmental impact assessment of the Institute of Environmental Studies.
Oscar Duarte Velasco Lecturer in the Department of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering of the National University of Colombia in Bogotá and member of the PAAS
research group (Program in Signal Aquisition and Analysis). His work area includes the
development of sotware tools based on soft computing techniques. He has developed
some software tools for the Environmental Impact Assessment based on fuzzy
arithmetic. Another of his areas of interests is the modeling, simulation, analysis and
control of dynamical systems.
Ignacio Requena Ramos Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and
Artificial Intelligence, in the University of Granada in Spain. His work area is related to
the processing of imprecision problems and uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence and
its application in Environmental Impact Assessment, using Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Sets
Theory as models for this purpose (fuzzy EIA). He has more than thirty contributions
in international papers and conferences. Currently he works with research group ARAI
of the University of Granada and he is directing the research project Intelligent system
for the environmental impact assessment of human activities (SINTEIA) funded by the
Andalusian Government.
Montserrat Zamorano Toro Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering (Area of
Environmental Technology) in the University of Granada in Spain. Her work area is
related to waste management and Environmental Impact Assessment. She has more
than twenty contributions in international papers and conferences. Currently she
works with research group ARAI of the University of Granada and she is directing the
research project Using biomass from agricultural waste in Andalucía to produce pellets
for domestic thermal application funded by the Andalusian Government.