Quality of Cultural Heritage in EIA; twenty years of experience in Norway

The aim of this paper is to clarify and discuss how quality, relevance, attitudes, beliefs and transfer value act as underlying driving forces in the development of the Cultural Heritage theme in EIAs. One purpose is to identify and discuss some conditions that can better environmental assessment in order to increase the significance of EIA in decision-making with regard to Cultural Heritage.The main tools used are different research methods designed for analyses of quality and quality changes, primarily based on the relevant opinions of 160 people occupied with Cultural Heritage in EIA in Norway. The study is based on a review of 40 types of EIAs from 1991 to 2000, an online questionnaire to 319 (160 responded) individuals from 14 different backgrounds, and interviews with three institutions in Sweden and Denmark.The study confirms a steadily increasing quality on EIRs over time, parallel with an improvement of the way in which Cultural Heritage is treated in EIA. This is supported by both the interviews and the qualitative comments regarding the survey. Potential for improvements is shown to be a need for more detailed background material as well as more use of adequate methods.The survey shows the existence of a wide variety of negative views, attitudes and beliefs, but the consequences of this are difficult to evaluate. However, most certainly, negative attitudes and beliefs have not been powerful enough to be detrimental to the quality of Cultural Heritage component, as nothing in the study indicates that negative attitudes and myths are undermining the system of EIA.The study shows the importance of having on-going discussions on quality and quality change over time by people involved in EIA, and how this is a necessary condition for successful implementation and acceptance. Beliefs and negative attitudes can also be a catalyst for developing better practice and advancing new methodology. In addition, new EIA countries must be prepared for several years of development and improvements after implementation. This is important in order to gain acceptance from the bureaucracy, especially from the Cultural Heritage authorities and local population.