Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Alternatives and Assessment in Large-scale Projects – the Öresund Bridge Eric Markus Blekinge Institute of Technology Sweden

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Alternatives – what about them? Alternatives are at “the heart of the environmental impact statement” (US Council for Environmental Quality 1978, regulation ) Search for alternatives one of the core points of EIA (and SEA) Alternatives – different ways to reach the intended goal of the project (or PPP) Alternative technical solutions, alternative locations, the ‘zero alternative’ Difficulties often overlooked or ignored Case-study – Öresund Bridge

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul The Öresund Bridge Malmö, Sweden – Copenhagen, Denmark Road & railway link Cable-stayed bridge Artificial island Immersed tunnel Total ~16 km (10 miles) long Decided in 1991/94 Opened year 2000 Cost (1990 prices): USD ~2.35 bn. © Öresundsbro Konsortiet

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul © Öresundsbro Konsortiet

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Decision-making background Idea evolved and changed over time: Over 100 years of proposals, ideas for a bridge/tunnel Included in local land-use plans long before formal decision to build Seen as a national project (goods export), then  as a local project (regional development / integration) 1950s onwards: several Government reports 1991 bilateral agreement signed (Denmark-Sweden) Aug 1993 construction of access roads started in Denmark June 1994 agreement gains final approval in Sweden June 1994 final Environmental Impact Assessment published 1995 Bridge construction started

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Alternatives in the EIA No explicit goal/purpose stated in EIA Only a limited number of alternatives considered – unclear selection criteria No discussion of alternative locations or ‘non-structural’ alternatives Limited consideration of connected projects or their cumulative impacts on the environment EIA did result in: –Limits on dredging –Design, location of artificial island changed slightly Heavy public focus and debate for/against bridge –Environmental arguments used by opponents

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Observations The link has significant ‘strategic’ impacts: social, economic; local, national; environmental Old idea – different ‘purposes’ (goals) and alternatives over time ‘Environment’ in Gov’t reports about the bridge: Until 1980s only conservation of agricultural land & conservation of outdoor recreation areas End of 1980s focus shifted to: Water flow (saline water North Sea  Baltic Sea) & some transport/traffic pollution issues

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Alternatives The ‘ideal’: ‘Reasonable alternatives to reach the objective goal of a project’ Assumes clear and unchanging goals Often assumes full understanding of goals and means Assumes consensus of goals and means? ‘The practice’: Difficult to determine the ‘objective goal’ and its alternatives Goals are changing and unclear Only a limited number of goals and means considered Planning recognises that conflicts of interest exist – does EIA/SEA?

Eric Markus - IAIA07 - Seoul Thank you for your attention! Eric Markus Spatial Planning Dept Blekinge Institute of Technology (BTH) SE Karlskrona, Sweden