{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02779291553133515, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010899182561307902, 'mean_word_length': 5.287671232876712, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A social scientist's reflection on EIA implementation of methods for threatened species

Through presenting a much-needed critical investigation of standard methods within Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the paper by Cristescu et al. (2019) represents a timely contribution to the wider field of EIA. In addition, their study opens up interesting interdisciplinary approaches. Cristescu et al. (2019) challenge whether the methods recommended in the ‘Australian EIA survey guidelines for threatened mammals’ provide accurate data, in a manner that ensures EIAs function as a means for mitigating anthropogenic impact on threatened species. The structure of their study involved comparing the recommended method with an alternative approach. Their findings suggest that the premises underlying the recommended method risks misrepresenting actual presence of koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, thereby implying that decisions are made on an incomplete understanding of the real impact of a project. There has, for a long time, been dissatisfaction with the scientific limitations of the methods used in EIAs, for example, for the collection of baseline data (Morrison-Saunders & Bailey, 2003). However, few studies have critically compared alternative methods in such detail as presented by Cristescu et al. (2019). From that point of view, the paper makes an important contribution to the broader EIA field, and could serve as a good example of how to set up a critical investigation of the standard method and its underlying premises. I, however, also see the potential to further explore how researchers, within the field, can take an even more active approach for improving EIA practices. Cristescu et al. (2019) identify the higher costs of their alternative method as a major obstacle. To overcome this, they suggest a need for: