Abstract
Previous evaluations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) have focused on the effectiveness of its procedural requirements in improving the quality of decision making with respect to environmental matters. Subsequent growth of other environmental regulation and the changing role of Environmental Impact Statements in the decision-making process should also be considered. The many federal and state environmental laws passed in the 1970s have, by defining the nature and acceptability of environmental impact and prohibiting unacceptable impacts, superseded the substantive role of NEPA in environmental protection. Although the EIS continues to serve as a focus for public debate regarding proposed government actions, such debates usually center around social or economic rather than environmental issues. NEPA has thus been superseded by other environmental laws, and its role in the decision-making process today has little relation to its earlier environmental significance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature cited
Bardach, E., and L. Pugliaresi. 1977. The environmental impact statement and the real world.Public Interest 49:22–38.
Callies, D. L. 1980. The quiet revolution revisited.Journal of the American Planning Association 46:135–144.
Culhane, P. J. 1978. Letter.Science 202:1034–1036.
Fairfax, S. K. 1978. A disaster in the environmental movement.Science 199:743–748.
Fairfax, S. K., and H. M. Ingram. 1981. The United States experience. Pages 29–45in T. O'Riordan and W. R. D. Sewell (eds.), Project appraisal and policy review. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Friedman, F. B. 1985. NEPA—an industry perspective.Environmental Forum 3(9):39,42–43.
Futrell, J. W. 1985. NEPA, environment's “quiet teenager”, an error to assume all is well.Environmental Forum 3(9):39,43–44.
Hart, S. L. 1984. The costs of environmental review: assessment methods and trends. Pages 339–358in S. L. Hart, G. A. Enk, and W. F. Hornick (eds.), Improving impact assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Hart, S. L., G. A. Enk, and W. F. Hornick. 1984. Concluding observations and future directions. Pages 423–434in S. L. Hart, G. A. Enk, and W. F. Hornick (eds.), Improving impact assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Hollick, M. 1986. Environmental impact assessment: an international evaluation.Environmental Management 10:157–178.
Liroff, R. A. 1978. Letter.Science 202:1036–1038.
Liroff, R. A. 1980. NEPA—where have we been and where are we going?Journal of the American Planning Association 46:154–161.
Mangi, J. I. 1983. Is the environmental impact statement an endangered species?Environmental Professional 5:158–161.
Muhic, A. R. 1984. The environmental impact statement: threatened but not endangered.Environmental Professional 6:23–25.
Russell, D. 1983. Westway halted—fish have right-of-way.Sierra 68(1):21–26.
Sewell, G. H., and S. Korrick. 1984. The fate of EIS projects: a retrospective study. Pages 359–374in S. L. Hart, G. A. Enk, and W. F. Hornick (eds.), Improving impact assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Yost, N. C. 1984. The 1979 CEQ NEPA regulations. Pages 415–422in S. L. Hart, G. A. Enk, and W. F. Hornick (eds.), Improving impact assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Yost, N. C. 1985. NEPA—the law that works.Environmental Forum 3(9):38,41–42.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Renwick, W.H. The eclipse of NEPA as Environmental Policy. Environmental Management 12, 267–272 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867518
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867518