\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{HCode}
{\documentclass[screen, CRCHIM, Thematic, Unicode, HideArticleType, published]{cedram}
\newenvironment{noXML}{}{}
\usepackage{color} 
\usepackage{colortbl}
\def\tsup#1{$^{{#1}}$}
\def\tsub#1{$_{{#1}}$}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\def\thead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\tbody{\noalign{\relax}}
\def\endthead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\xsection#1{}
\def\tabnote#1{\vskip4pt\parbox{.88\linewidth}{#1}}
\usepackage{amssymb} 
\usepackage{multirow} 
\RequirePackage{etoolbox}
\def\jobid{crchim20220786}
%\graphicspath{{/tmp/\jobid_figs/web/}}
\graphicspath{{./figures/}}
\newcounter{runlevel}
\let\MakeYrStrItalic\relax
\csdef{Seqnsplit}{\\}
\def\refinput#1{}
\def\back#1{}
\def\botline{\\\hline}
\def\mn{\phantom{$-$}}
\def\0{\phantom{0}}
\def\inlinefig#1{\includegraphics{#1}}
\def\xmlpi#1{}
\g@addto@macro{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
\gappto{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
\usepackage{multirow} 
\usepackage{color} 
\def\nrow#1{\@tempcnta #1\relax%
\advance\@tempcnta by 1\relax%
\xdef\lenrow{\the\@tempcnta}}
\def\morerows#1#2{\nrow{#1}\multirow{\lenrow}{*}{#2}}
\def\xmorerows#1#2{{#2}}
\DOI{10.5802/crchim.218}
\datereceived{2022-08-11}
\daterevised{2022-10-03}
\dateaccepted{2022-10-20}
\ItHasTeXPublished
\allowdisplaybreaks
\def\tabularBreak#1{\hline\multicolumn{4}{r@{}}{(continued on next
page)\vspace*{-10pt}}\end{tabular}\end{table*}
\begin{table*}\setcounter{table}{#1}
\caption{(continued)}
\begin{tabular}{lclc}
\thead
\parbox[t]{2.5cm}{\raggedright Type of effectiveness} &  A/A &
Description of criteria & Source \vspace*{2pt}\\
\endthead}
}
{\documentclass[crchim]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\def\CDRdoi{10.5802/crchim.218}
\let\newline\break
\def\xmorerows#1#2{\morerows{#1}{#2}}
\makeatletter
\def\href#1#2{\url[#1]{#2}}
\def\tabularBreak#1{}
\usepackage{color} 
\usepackage{xcolor}
}
\makeatother

\usepackage{upgreek}


\dateposted{2023-01-12}
\begin{document}
%copyeditor{RK}
\begin{noXML}

%\TopicEF{Materials and Clean Processes for Sustainable Energy and
%Environmental Applications}{Mat\'eriaux et proc\'ed\'es propres pour
%des applications \'energ\'etiques et environnementales}

\title{Evaluation of the effectiveness and performance of environmental
impact assessment studies in Greece}

\author{\firstname{Iliana} \lastname{Papamichael}\CDRorcid{0000-0003-3564-2890}}
\address{Open University of Cyprus, Faculty of Pure and Applied
Sciences, Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Engineering
Sustainability, Giannou Kranidioti, 33, 2220,~Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus}
\email[I. Papamichael]{iliana.papamichael@gmail.com}

\author{\firstname{Foteini} \lastname{Tsiolaki}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-4197-5467}}
\addressSameAs{1}{Open University of Cyprus, Faculty of Pure and Applied
Sciences, Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Engineering
Sustainability, Giannou Kranidioti, 33, 2220,~Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus}
\address{Hellenic Republic, Region of West Macedonia, Directorate of
Environment and Spatial Planning, Department of Environment and Hydro
economy (Regional Unit of Kozani), Dimocratias 27, P.C. 501 31, Kozani,
Greece}
\email[F. Tsiolaki]{f.tsiolaki@kozani.pdm.gov.gr}

\author{\firstname{Marinos} \lastname{Stylianou}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-3815-3593}\IsCorresp}
\addressSameAs{1}{Open University of Cyprus, Faculty of Pure and Applied
Sciences, Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Engineering
Sustainability, Giannou Kranidioti, 33, 2220, Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus}
\email[M. Stylianou]{stylianou.a.marinos@ucy.ac.cy}

\author{\firstname{Irene} \lastname{Voukkali}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-3227-5995}}
\addressSameAs{1}{Open University of Cyprus, Faculty of Pure and Applied
Sciences, Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Engineering
Sustainability, Giannou Kranidioti, 33, 2220, Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus}
\email[I. Voukkali]{voukkei@yahoo.gr}

\author{\firstname{Georgia} \lastname{Sourkouni}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-2313-9860}}
\address{Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthaler Zentrum f\"{u}r Materialtechnik (CZM), 9 Leibnizstr., 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany}
\email[G. Sourkouni]{cogsa@tu-clausthal.de}

\author{\firstname{Nikolaos} \lastname{Argirusis}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-3788-8627}}
\address{mat4nrg GmbH, Burgst\"{a}tter Str. 42, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany}
\email[N. Argirusis]{nikos.argirusis@mat4nrg.de}

\author{\firstname{Christos} \lastname{Argirusis}\CDRorcid{0000-0001-7778-0146}}
\address{Laboratory of Inorganic Materials Technology, School of
Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon
Polytechneiou Str., Zografou 15780, Athens, Greece}
\email[C. Argirusis]{amca@chemeng.ntua.gr}

\author{\firstname{Antonis A.} \lastname{Zorpas}\CDRorcid{0000-0002-8154-5656}\IsCorresp}
\addressSameAs{1}{Open University of Cyprus, Faculty of Pure and Applied
Sciences, Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Engineering
Sustainability, Giannou Kranidioti, 33, 2220, Latsia, Nicosia, Cyprus}
\email{antoniszorpas@yahoo.com}
\email[A. A. Zorpas]{antonis.zorpas@ouc.ac.cy}


\shortrunauthors

\keywords{\kwd{AHP-SWOT analysis}
\kwd{Effectiveness}
\kwd{EIA}
\kwd{Environmental impact assessment}
\kwd{Performance}}

\begin{abstract}
As environmental management is becoming increasingly complex, adequate
assessment techniques must be utilized to forecast environmental impact
trends. The current study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the
evaluation system in Greece regarding environmental impact assessment 
(EIA) concerning projects. Data were extracted from literature and a
questionnaire, which was distributed electronically on a
Pan-Hellenic scale. Results indicated that 
the EIA system in Greece has solid foundations with a weak point regarding implementation.
Strengths, weaknesses, and threats of EIA institution were analyzed 
through SWOT-AHP (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats and 
Analytical Hierarchy Process) analysis. A dominant criterion in the analysis due to the dynamic of the deep economic recession was found 
to be the economic crisis. 
\end{abstract}

\maketitle
\pagebreak
%\vspace*{2pc}

\twocolumngrid

\end{noXML}

\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}

Environmental protection constitutes a non-negotiable substantial need
for today's society. Policy makers, governments and relevant
stakeholders need to ensure that the lives of citizens are not at risk
due to inadequate environmental protection on an urban, enterprise,
national, European and global level~\cite{1,2}. Still, according to
Statista~\cite{3}, it is estimated that by 2050, carbon
dioxide ($\mathrm{CO}_{2}$) emissions will reach 43 billion metric tons
due to the disregard of humanity for the environment. 


Over these rising levels of $\mathrm{CO}_{2}$, the European Union (EU)
has acknowledged the need for a transition towards a greener society
and migration from fossil fuels and has introduced several strategies,
directives and schemes for combating environmental, social and economic
implications in the framework of sustainable development~\cite{4,5,6}. Through the European Green Deal (EGD), the EU strives towards carbon neutrality by 2050, with a goal of decreasing greenhouse gasses 
(GHG) emissions at least by 50\% by 2030, compared to 1990. Furthermore, through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations 
(UN), world leaders are urged to accomplish 17 main goals concerning 
social (i.e. SDG 1---no poverty; SDG 2---Zero Hunger etc.), economic 
(i.e. SDG 8---Decent work and economic growth etc.) and environmental 
(i.e. SDG 12---responsible production and consumption; SDG 13---climate action etc.) themes~\cite{6,7,8}. Furthermore, a key player in the smooth
transition towards a green and sustainable future with a viable economy
which leaves no one behind is the Circular Economy (CE)
concept~\cite{9,10,11}. It is mainly an economy system aiming at eliminating landfilling and waste, while optimizing the use of natural resources and closing the loop of linear production~\cite{12,13}. 
According to many researchers~\cite{14,15,16,17,18,19}, CE has captured 
the attention of policy makers and scholars, as the concept extends its
focus from waste reduction to economic prosperity. Main technologies
used in the concept of CE include the ``R'' strategies of waste
management (i.e. refuse, reuse, recycle, remanufacture, refurbish etc.)
while the Circular Economy Action Plan of the EU lays out measures to
push the transition towards circularity in a just
manner~\cite{20,21,22}. This plan alters the way products are
promoted, designed and processed, while encouraging  sustainable\break
\mbox{consumption} and the reduction of waste production and
landfilling.

Still, assessing long-term impacts of CE can be difficult as challenges
may arise through its implementation, that were not
considered~\cite{23}. Similarly, there are still debates concerning the
existence of adequate policies and tools for the correct implementation
of strategies for achieving SDGs~\cite{8,24,25,26}. This is
because environmental management is becoming more and more complex as
nations are gearing up to shift towards sustainability. This transition
requires authority figures, policy makers, scientists, researchers,
and other parties to have the necessary information and data to develop
plausible and actionable solutions and data~\cite{8,27,28}. Therefore,
assessment methods and monitoring tools must be used in order to
predict future trends regarding environmental impact as well as account
for existing effects of human activities on all three sustainability
pillars (environmental, social, economy)~\cite{23,29,30}.

In this regard, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an integral
part of decision making procedures of proposed projects, plans and
actions~\cite{31,32} and is one the most influential tools of
environmental policy~\cite{33,34}, environmental
management~\cite{35,36,37} and protection worldwide~\cite{38,39}. 
In 1985, the first EIA directive was adopted by the EU which ensured 
that the effects of specific public projects were assessed. The directive was amended three times until 2009, so that international commitment was considered in environmental legal areas. Finally, in 2014, the amending Directive 2014/52/EU was adopted and entered into force in 2017~\cite{40}. EIA could be characterized as an \textit{ex ante} decision-support tool serving as a preventive measure for practicing environmental policy and management~\cite{41}; informing stakeholders about the potential impacts 
of certain proposed projects~\cite{42} and their alternatives~\cite{43}, while it identifies likely consequences at an early stage, before final planning decisions are made~\cite{44,45}, so that irreversible damages 
are avoided~\cite{46,47}.

EIA, being a relatively transparent and accountable process, 
has the capability to provide wider information to a majority of
stakeholders like decision makers, city planners, developers,
researchers, scientists, engineers and any party, which deems the
estimation of environmental impact necessary~\cite{41,42,48}. At the
same time, EIA collaboration between consultants, academics and
interested \mbox{parties} (i.e.~policy makers) to assess relevant project
outputs and deliverables may have a significant policy and implementation
impact and long-term learning opportunities for all parties
involved~\cite{49}. EIA has gained legal and institutional validity all
over the world, even in developing countries where economic growth is a
major priority~\cite{50,51}. According to Morgan~\cite{52}, EIA
is a statutory process in about 180 countries of the world. However,
EIA varies in implementation, capabilities, and quality in each
country. EIA's scope and quality differ from country to country and 
great plurality in used methodologies and in statutory 
context~\cite{43,53} is seen. Even among EU countries, despite
common regulations, there is diversity of processes and\break 
practices~\cite{54,55,56,57}. 

At the same time, the system's effectiveness depends on the
implementation context. For example, at project level, the effectiveness
depends largely on involved actors and their interests, as well as on
the way that environmental values are incorporated in the
decision making process. On the other hand, regulatory statutory
context plays a significant role in the performance of an EIA
system~\cite{58}. Accordingly, any assessment of the effectiveness of
EIA is meaningful only when it includes socioeconomic, political and
cultural elements (i.e. country, region, business etc.)~\cite{52,59,60,61}. 

Other tools for assessing the implementation of key concepts like CE,
include key performance indicators (KPIs) which constitute
computational sets for providing a quantitative approach to data (i.e.
waste production rate)~\cite{4,62,63,64}. KPIs are
commonly used for monitoring the environmental performance of a
system (i.e. business, industrial process, city, country etc.)
and can help to quantify environmental performance for tackling the
goals set by the EU (i.e. EGD)~\cite{65,66,67,68}. Furthermore,
in order to address the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats faced by a system in the immediate or near future, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis is 
used~\cite{4,69,70,71}. The SWOT analysis components that are seen in 
the internal environment and the external environment, respectively, 
are classified according to whether they are favorable or
unfavorable~\cite{72,73,74}. When using it without combining it with 
other tools, SWOT analysis simply records the views or beliefs without relying on any analytical or hierarchical approach. This results in a 
great deal of subjectivity when ranking external (opportunities and threats) and internal (strengths and weaknesses) factors~\cite{72,75}; 
thus its results are highly dependent on the skills and expertise of 
those involved in the EIA design process~\cite{69,76}.

Having the above in mind, this research focuses on the effectiveness and performance of EIA in Greece, in the context of its current 
implementation status; i.e., through reformed statutory regulations, in a negative socioeconomic and political environment due to the deep economic crisis that hit the country. The effectiveness of the current Greek system 
has been studied~\cite{77,78}, though using different methods and
approaches than the one proposed here. The studies under investigation
are those which are being conducted for projects and activities with
major or significant effects to environment and consequently are
categorized as subcategory A1 and A2 according to Greek
legislation~\cite{79}.

The aim of the current research was to study the effectiveness and to
detect the strengths and deficiencies of the current EIA system in
Greece. It focuses mainly on the outcomes of the EIA system from a
substantive perspective rather than
from a procedural one. In other words,
it seeks to answer two main questions: (a) whether the system fulfills 
the objectives it is meant to fulfill and (b) which are the strengths 
and the deficiencies of the current EIA system?\looseness=-1

\section{Methodology}\label{sec2}

Before an approach or method was chosen and steps to be followed were
organized, an initial inquiry was made into international literature 
as to the types of available EIA studies that could be examined and
evaluated. 

The main objective of the current research was to track down the
weaknesses of EIA procedure in Greece and to detect the points where
the process is languishing and needs to be improved, modified or revised.
An effort was made in order to evaluate the institution of
Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) being conducted for projects and
activities in Greece. The next objective was to show what the added
value of the above-mentioned institution is. In order to give a
quantitative picture of the evaluated data, a combined SWOT analysis
and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model was used.

AHP, as well as SWOT analysis are both basic methods that are widely
used and relatively easy to understand~\cite{16,69,80, 81}. Analysis
took place in three stages. The first step involved the process of the
survey's results. Next step included the structure of the SWOT matrix
and the last step, following appropriate restructuring and grouping the
criteria initially selected was to prioritize them according to their
importance~\cite{69}.

After an extensive literature review, an initial selection of criteria
and sub-criteria was made and compiled into a list as presented
in Table~\ref{tab1}, grouping them according to their influence on the
effectiveness of the process. Among other things, the objectives that
the institutional framework seeks to meet and the broader goals of both
Greek and European policy were {used to} classify these criteria. Many
of those criteria were based on those already recognized by other
researchers and international literature.

\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{\label{tab1}Initially selected criteria per effectiveness dimension}
\begin{tabular}{lclc}
\thead
\parbox[t]{2.5cm}{\raggedright Type of effectiveness} &  A/A &
Description of criteria & Source \vspace*{2pt}\\
\endthead
\morerows{16}{\parbox[t]{2.5cm}{\raggedright{Substantial effectiveness $=$ Performance}}}  & 
\textbf{A1} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Contribution to final decision making and planning}} & \cite{36,75} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& A1.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Incorporation of proposed changes (to what extent the proposals that resulted from EIA study and emerged from consultation
process were taken into account in the final version of the project)}  &\cite{71} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & A1.2 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Main determinants of the final planning decision} &\cite{36} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & \textbf{A2} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Informed decision making}} &\cite{71} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & A2.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Quality of the research underlying EIA (i.e. validity and comprehensiveness)} &\cite{74} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & A2.1.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Scientific and reasonable outcomes of EIA} &\cite{75} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& A2.1.2 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Completeness of the EIA study in order to lead to the enforcement of conditions and restrictions that are: (a) congruent with current environmental or other related legislation, (b) compatible 
with spatial planning and urban design, (c) adequate to ensure 
environmental protection, (d) directly correlated with the specific 
project or activity and its impacts, (e) fair and proportionate to the 
size and type of project or activity accurate, (f) feasible, binding and
controllable (paragraph 7 Article 2).}  & \cite{68} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & \textbf{A3} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Enhancement of environmental protection}}  &\cite{75} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& A3.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{To what extent are project stakeholders including the competent authorities receptive to environmental issues?} &\cite{36} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 &  \textbf{A4} &  \textbf{Close collaboration} &\cite{71} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & A4.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Contribution of project stakeholders to EIA process} &\cite{36} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & A4.2 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Contribution of EIA study conductors in project planning} &\cite{36}\vspace*{3pt} \\
& \textbf{A5} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Early start} (Was EIA process initiated at the very first stages of project planning?)} &\cite{71}\vspace*{3pt} \\
& A5.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Extent to which there was already an agreement on the proposal before the EIA was conducted} &\cite{74} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& \textbf{A6} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Successful statutory consultation (Did statutory consultation bodies have a fair opportunity to contribute and were their views and comments taken into account?)} & \cite{71} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& \textbf{A7} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Successful public consultation (Did the public consultation bodies have a fair opportunity to contribute and were their views and comments taken into account?)} &\cite{71,76}\vspace*{3pt} \\
 & \textbf{A8} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Contribution to sustainability}} &  \\
 \tabularBreak{0}
\morerows{8}{\parbox[t]{2.5cm}{{\raggedright Transactive \mbox{effectiveness}} $\tau \alpha =$ {Proficiency}}}  & 
\textbf{B1} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Time (Was EIA process carried out within a reasonable time frame without undue delay or within a very short time period?)}} & \cite{71}\vspace*{3pt} \\
& \textbf{B2} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Financial resources (carrying out the EIA study did not entail excessive spending)}}  & \cite{71} \\
 & B2.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{EIA study costs with respect to the overall cost of the project} &
 \cite{36}\vspace*{3pt} \\
& \textbf{B3} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Skills---proficiency (the acquiring of skills and personnel required for the SEA did not constitute 
a big burden and these were easily accessible) or}}  & \cite{71} \vspace*{3pt}\\
&  & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{The immediate availability of competent authorities' staff with sufficient skills}} & \cite{73} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & B3.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Skills and capabilities of the responsible authority} & \cite{36} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& B3.1.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Does the competent authority have the appropriate logistical infrastructure and properly trained staff in 
order to evaluate the EIA in the shortest possible time and at the 
least cost?} &  \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & B3.2 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Skills and capabilities of EIA studies conductors} & \vspace*{3pt}\\
& B3.2.1 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Do EIA studies conductors have the appropriate training or knowledge in order to conduct EIA studies?} & \cite{77} \vspace*{3pt}\\
& B3.2.2 & \parbox[t]{10cm}{Are the required data easily accessible in order to conduct an EIA study?} &\vspace*{6pt} \\
\morerows{2}{\parbox[t]{2.5cm}{{{Normative efficacy}  $=$  {Objective} $-$ {aim}}}}  & 
\textbf{C1} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Learning process, perception and lessons learned in the process}} &\cite{78} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & \textbf{C2} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Development or changes in policy choices}} &\cite{72} \vspace*{3pt}\\
 & \textbf{C3} & \parbox[t]{10cm}{\textbf{Improvement of health and quality of life}} &\cite{72}\vspace*{2pt} 
\botline
\end{tabular}
{\vspace*{-2pt}}
\end{table*}

A combination of criteria from different models was used rather than
following a specific model of EIA effectiveness criteria. Models
developed by Theophilou \etal~\cite{82} and Chanchiptpricha and 
Bond~\cite{83} were used as a foundation after being modified, 
mostly by adding sub-criteria coming from literature
sources~\cite{42,84,85,86}. Furthermore, researchers included
sub-criteria based on the experience and knowledge of the particular
field. On the other hand, criteria that were considered inappropriate
for this particular case were subtracted (i.e. criteria 
referred to 
Strategic Environmental Assessment were not used).

Most of the selected criteria were classified in the substantive
dimension of effectiveness and a smaller proportion of them concerned
transactive effectiveness and normative efficacy even though the last
two dimensions are not clear concepts and, consequently, are harder to
be defined. The initially selected criteria, shown in Table~\ref{tab1}
formed the basis for the construction of the questionnaire. 

Since there are a lot of variables heavily influencing EIA process, such
as institutional, legal, social and political factors~\cite{42,87}, it
was considered that in order to evaluate the performance of the
process, the most appropriate approach of data collection was a
combined one. 

Primary data, regarding stakeholders and interested parties' perception
of EIA institution's performance, were collected through a Pan-Hellenic
 survey with a questionnaire, which was distributed {electronically}
while secondary data were collected from \unskip\break international
literature and the results from the research of Pediaditi
\etal~\cite{77}. Concerning primary data collection, answers collected
play an important role; they contributed to final selection of criteria
and 
helped in structuring SWOT analysis and were used to prioritize the
evaluated criteria. Evaluation data were also extracted from the review
of Environmental Terms Approval Decisions of all Category A projects
and activities issued from 2015 until the end of 2017.\looseness=-1

In order to construct the questionnaire, the objective of EIA, as
defined in literature, {expectations} and goals of statutory texts
of European Union and Greece were taken into account. Furthermore, the
use of a questionnaire aimed at providing answers regarding substantive
effectiveness as well as the conception of the respondents related with
elements of transactive and normative effectiveness. 

The questions were categorized into five (5) groups:
\begin{itemize}
\item Demographics.
\item Statutory/legislation background of EIA Studies (What was the
perception of respondents about legislation related to the
environmental licensing and conducting EIA).
\item Actual Implementation (What the respondents believed about the
way that the
statutory process is implemented). 
\item Contribution of the EIA institution (Questions about the
perception of
EIA's contribution).
\item Factors that enhance or decrease the degree of institution
performance (Questions about factors, which are inhibitory and which
ones could contribute to enhancement of performance). 
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{6pt}

The questionnaire was structured using an online tool
(\url{https://docs.google.com/forms}), and the relevant link was sent
via e-mail to the respondents. The respondents consisted of actors
involved in the EIA process (i.e. project implementation or
operation, conductors of EIA studies, environmental licensing
authorities, actors participating in statutory consultation,
environmental inspectors, political actors and environmental science
community). Respondents could fill out the form between 15/11/2018 and
30/11/2018 and during that period, 220 questionnaires were filled out.

The method of analyzing the results involved three distinct steps. One
involved editing the poll results, which contributed significantly to
the next two steps. These steps relate to the construction of the SWOT
matrix, after restructuring and appropriately grouping the criteria
initially selected and prioritizing them according to their importance.

\subsection{Step 1: editing the survey results}\label{sec21}

At the first stage, the results of the pan-Hellenic survey were grouped
and organized. Although \mbox{questionnaire} replies were organized, analyzed
and visualized into graphs automatically and in real time, by the
application ``Forms'', it was considered necessary to further
process the results and create more appropriate graphs to meet the
needs of the research. After the survey was completed and the
questionnaire platform was deactivated, the results were exported to a
spreadsheet for further processing. Respondents' answers were grouped,
based on the types of questions and the group of respondents. Then the
required calculations were made and the graphs that were judged to be
the most appropriate were created.

\subsection{Step 2: Restructuring and appropriately grouping the
criteria initially selected---SWOT analysis}\label{sec22}

The number of criteria and sub-criteria initially selected was too
large and was therefore condensed or merged to reduce
and further group them based on how they affect effectiveness
(positively or negatively). The responses to the questionnaire contributed
significantly to the construction of the final list of criteria, as
criteria or sub-criteria were added or removed depending on the
elements identified by interested parties invited to respond.
Furthermore, external factors that could affect the EIA system and its
effectiveness were identified. 

After the answers were selected, SWOT analysis was used, which
categorized the criteria according to the way they influence the
effectiveness (positively or negatively) and the area in which they do
(internal or external).

A major limitation of the method is that the importance of each factor
in decision making cannot be quantified~\cite{88}. For instance, 
factors such as the availability and uncertainty of information, and
due to the ambiguity of human perception and recognition as well as the
subjectivity of the qualitative judgment, accurate evaluations are not
easy to obtain~\cite{86}.

\begin{figure*}[t!]
{\vspace*{2pt}}
\includegraphics{fig01}
{\vspace*{3pt}}
\caption{\label{fig1}Hierarchy of SWOT groups and elements according to
AHP.}
{\vspace*{3pt}}
\end{figure*}

\subsection{Step 3: Prioritization of criteria according to their
importance (AHP)}\label{sec23}

In order to give a quantitative dimension to the {results and} overcome
some of the limitations mentioned in Section~\ref{sec22}, the next step 
was to combine SWOT analysis with AHP~\cite{89,90}. AHP is globally
accepted by the scientific community as a powerful and flexible
multi-criteria decision-making tool~\cite{91,92,93}. It is a
mathematical method for the analysis of complex multi-criteria decision
problems developed by Saaty~\cite{94} and a general theory of
measurement based on mathematical and psychological bases; it can
handle both qualitative and quantitative characteristics~\cite{69,92}.

The analysis is based on three fundamental principles: problem
splitting, pairwise comparisons of different criteria, and composition
of preferences~\cite{91}. In short, AHP is a method for deriving
analogue scales from pairwise comparisons~\cite{95}.

According to Saaty~\cite{94}, the main steps followed in the AHP
procedure in order to decompose the problem are the following:\vspace*{4pt}
\begin{itemize}
\item Define the problem and determine what knowledge we seek to gain
by using it.
\item Structure the decision hierarchy, where the goal pursued is at
the top, followed by the individual objectives, the criteria on which
they depend, and finally the alternative scenarios that are usually the
lowest level.
\item Construct a number of benchmark matrices by which the required
comparisons are made and the preferences between the criteria are
extracted.
\item Calculate the weights of each item and their overall priority.\vspace*{4pt}
\end{itemize}
After identifying the key factors that will influence the evaluation,
criteria (SWOT groups) and sub-criteria (SWOT elements) were
prioritized. This structure is schematically shown in
Figure~\ref{fig1}.

\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics{fig02}
{\vspace*{3pt}}
\caption{\label{fig2}Respondents answers concerning the main
consequence of EIA studies institution in Greece.}
{\vspace*{3pt}}
\end{figure*}

A pairwise comparison of the factors identified within each SWOT group
was then performed in order to identify which factors are most
important and to what extent~\cite{69,88}, so that a priority value and
a weight for each factor was calculated~\cite{88}. In this way,
quantified values that reflect the priorities
of the factors included in the SWOT analysis were obtained~\cite{69}.

Even though, most commonly, AHP-SWOT analysis is used to compare
alternatives, this was not the goal of the current
study~\cite{89,90,96,97}. The criteria were prioritized in
order to quantify the weaknesses and strengths of the EIA, the threats
to its effectiveness and opportunities to improve it. These
quantitative data will contribute in a more comprehensive and clear way
to the final conclusions on the institution's performance within the
environment it is called to operate.

AHP and the required calculations were made using the free limited
version of the online software\break ``TransparentChoice's AHP software''
(\url{https://app.transparentchoice.com}). TransparentChoice helps\break
organizations measure and understand how existing or future projects
can support their strategic goals by leading to better decisions about
projects and their resources.  \looseness=-1

\section{Results and discussion}\label{sec3}

\subsection{Questionnaire results}\label{sec31}

Survey results indicated both positive and negative aspects of the
EIA studies procedure. First, regarding the contribution of the
institution to the final decision, the results from the processing of
respondents' answers are shown in Figure~\ref{fig2}. The vast majority
of the respondents considered that the institution's contribution to
the final decision on a project or activity is not that important; it
is obvious that very few respondents (just 2\%) believe that by
implementing EIA, extensive changes are made in a project's
planning, while 8\% of them consider that the outcome of the procedure
is the most environmentally friendly alternative to be chosen. 

Furthermore, 142 out of 220 respondents consider that the results of
public consultation are {not taken into consideration as much as they
should (barely} or even not at all (Figure~\ref{fig3}a)) while 125 of
them believe that results of statutory consultation are accountable
(Figure~\ref{fig3}b).


\begin{figure*}[t!]
{\vspace*{-4pt}}
\includegraphics{fig03}
{\vspace*{-5pt}}
\caption{\label{fig3}(a) Perception of the respondents (per
representative party), about consultations contribution of public
opinion in environmental licensing of a project. (b) Perception of the
respondents (per representative party), about consultations
contribution of statutory consultation agencies in environmental
licensing of a project.}
\vspace*{-6pt}
\end{figure*}

In accordance with the above results, EIA studies have very little
contribution to final decision making; even if objections are raised or
criticism and doubts are expressed during statutory consultation, the
only changes made to the final decision are merely the imposition of
relevant conditions or in exceptional cases, particularly when there is
a question of compatibility with the legislation, very slight
modifications are made.

A significant 26\% of respondents disagree with the statement that
EIA studies are made in such an early stage so that they 
contribute to the final choice, 
while 11.8\% of them disagree completely with the above
statement (Figure~\ref{fig4}). In a similar question, most of the
respondents agree that EIA studies are carried out after the key
decisions related to a project or activity (location, size, applied
technology, etc.) had already been made. 


\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics{fig04}
\vspace*{-5pt}
\caption{\label{fig4}Opinions about the time of decision making and the
start-up time.\vspace*{-5pt}}
\end{figure*}

Most negative elements refer to the way EIA procedure is implemented.
The way EIA institutional context is implemented, according to the
majority of respondents, is not satisfactory in many aspects.

The majority of respondents evaluate the EIA institutional context
positively, in accordance with the answers that they gave in relevant
questions as shown in Figure~\ref{fig5}. Namely, the questions
concerned if: (a) the legislation regarding the preparation of EIAs is
clear and understandable, (b) the legislation \mbox{requirements} were
excessive, (c) the statutory context ensures that all stakeholders are
equitably involved in the decision making process or if it (d) ensures
fair public participation in the decision making process (public
consultation), (e) if the statutory context is transparent, (f) the
standardization of procedures and forms contributes to better quality
of EIA studies or if it (g) facilitates the evaluation of EIA studies
and (h) if the list of projects and activities for which EIA is
mandatory includes more projects than it should.\looseness=-1


\begin{figure*}[t!]
\vspace*{-3pt}
\includegraphics{fig05}
\vspace*{-7pt}
\caption{\label{fig5}Answers to questions (a--h) regarding the
provisions of statutory context.\vspace*{-6pt}}
\end{figure*}

On the contrary, regarding the way in which this institutional
framework is implemented, it is judged to have a negative image. In
general, it is believed that it is improperly applied by the involved
actors and that noncompliance with the EIA study content
specifications exists. The prevailing view was that studies are tailored
according to the requirements of project stakeholders, that the most
important criterion for project planning is the financial one, and that
the design and evaluation of EIA studies is highly subjective
(Figure~\ref{fig6}a--d). In addition, the control of documentation by
the authorities is considered by many of the respondents to be flexible
(Figure~\ref{fig6}a). It is \mbox{noteworthy} that out of the 81
representatives of licensing authorities that responded to the
questionnaire, only 5 {disagreed with the statement} while 26 believe
this much to be the case and 6 very much.

\begin{figure*}[t!]
{\vspace*{-4pt}}
\includegraphics{fig06}
{\vspace*{-5pt}}
\caption{\label{fig6}Answers about the respondents' opinion on
statements concerning the way EIA studies institution are implemented
(a--d).}
{\vspace*{-4pt}}
\end{figure*}

As far as the question about the quality of EIA studies is concerned,
it is notable that neither the conductors of studies nor the
representatives of authorities had a clear view, as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig7}(a--c). But when the answers are more specific, it
appears that the methods in which EIA studies are conducted have
deficiencies.

\begin{figure*}[p!]
\includegraphics{fig07}
\caption{\label{fig7}Statements about EIA studies quality: (a)
competence of authorities (b) competence of conductors (c) quality of
EIA study.}
\end{figure*}

Questions about quality and content of documents (EIA studies) were
posed in order to investigate whether they contribute in informed
decision making (Figure~\ref{fig8}a--d). Unfortunately, questionnaire
results indicated that EIA studies do not lead to informed decision
making. Very characteristic is that results refer to the conduction of
additional technical studies in next stages, indicating the lack of key
data and predictions. It is clear that EIA studies  do not contribute to
problems that are compatible with the requirements of the legislation.

\begin{figure*}[t!]
\vspace*{2pt}
\includegraphics{fig08}
\caption{\label{fig8}Answers referring to the content of EIA studies.}
\end{figure*}

The skills and proficiency of the whole Greek system (i.e. human and
material resources, data\unskip\break availability, subjectivity, etc.) in many
aspects were
considered to be factors which contribute substantially to
negative performance, although the answers varied depending on the
question. It is mostly considered that EIA conductors are not
qualified, while an important deficiency of the system is 
the lack of personnel in the competent authorities
(Figure~\ref{fig9}a--e).\looseness=-1

\begin{figure*}[t!]
\vspace*{-2pt}
\includegraphics{fig09}
\vspace*{-2pt}
\caption{\label{fig9}(a--e) Answers concerning the proficiency and 
skills.}
\vspace*{-3pt}
\end{figure*}

Referring to the cost and time, although most of the respondents did
not believe that the cost is high, they believed that the required time
for the completion of environmental licensing is unjustifiably long.
Even if the institution implemented EIA poorly, respondents considered
that it contributes to environmental protection, to some extent as
shown in \unskip\break Figure~\ref{fig10}(a,b).

\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics{fig10}
\caption{\label{fig10}Perceptions about contribution to environmental
protection.}
\end{figure*}

It should be noted that a large proportion (73.6\%) of the respondents
stated that they believe that the EIA was institutionalized in Greece
because it was demanded by European Union, while a large proportion
(66.4\%) also believe that the EIA studies are conducted only because
it is mandatory. Finally, many of them believe that there is no
environmental consciousness and that stakeholders are not willing to
take into account environmental values.

Finally, in open-ended questions, there were responses that raised the
issue of corruption, clientelism and political involvement as being
deterrents to the effectiveness of the EIA institution, as well as
the intensification of environmental inspections as a measure to
improve it.

\subsection{SWOT analysis results}\label{sec32}

After reducing and grouping the initially chosen criteria, described in
Section~\ref{sec2}, the following SWOT analysis matrix
(Figure~\ref{fig11})
was constructed.

\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics{fig11}
\vspace*{-1pt}
\caption{\label{fig11}SWOT analysis.}
\vspace*{-1pt}
\end{figure*}

\subsubsection{Strengths}\label{sec321}

Based on the replies to the questionnaires, the institutional framework
was incorporated into the strengths, as the response to the individual
elements of the questionnaire examined was positive. These elements
include the provisions of current institutional framework, examining
whether all the {necessary} decisions have been taken in order for it to
work fully. It was considered that it ensures public participation and
transparency. Standardization of procedures contributes significantly
to the process. Finally, there was a positive response to the right
scope of the EIA procedure.\looseness=-1

Although environmental protection did not have the same positive
response rate, respondents felt that the
institution contributes to some extent to effective environmental
protection and environmental performance of projects and activities.
Other strengths that emerged from the survey process were the
criterion of close cooperation and the criterion of the EIA cost over
the total cost, but these were not included in the SWOT.

{\vspace*{-1pt}}

\subsubsection{Weaknesses}\label{sec322}

{\vspace*{-1pt}}

The criteria that were classified as weaknesses due to the responses
and the AERO review 
are clearly \unskip\break exceed
the strengths. Good
institutional background does not 
imply
proper implementation; this
is evidenced by the findings of the research. For this reason, it is
also a criterion that has been classified as a weakness. Further
evidence, beyond the answers of the respondents, who advocate this
classification, is the fact that Law 4014/2011 has not yet been fully
implemented~\cite{79}. The information provided by EIA studies,
considering that it has effect on the actual effectiveness, have to
enable informed decision making. The serious shortcomings of the EIA
studies, identified from the research, showed a small contribution to
informed decision making, and consequently the lack of informed
decision making was classified as weakness.

On the other hand, although none of the proficiencies of the
investigated system had a negative sign, they were classified as
weaknesses as a whole, due to the lack of staff, inadequate training of
EIA study conductors, unavailability of data that would make the
development of EIAs more\break efficient. 

\subsubsection{Opportunities}\label{sec323}

E-governance and open data, though not fully implemented, were
considered as opportunities to improve the efficiency of the system as
they can contribute to all dimensions of efficiency in a variety of ways. 
Learning, a criterion of normative efficacy, can also be an opportunity
as a factor of enhancing effectiveness when acquired through the EIA
process; it fuels the skills and improves performance.

Finally, the benefits that can be gained, in terms of system
performance, by technological development and great development of
science, especially environmental science, are also numbered among the
opportunities.

\subsubsection{Threats}\label{sec324}

The first and most obvious threat identified is the Financial Crisis, as
it is so profound that it has affected all aspects of public life in
Greece. Consequently, it affects the implementation of the EIA
institution in a variety of ways. The fact that the economic crisis and
recession is a major threat is also \mbox{recognized} in \mbox{international}
literature. Bond and Pope~\cite{98}, for example, make it a major
threat to all forms of impact assessment, which undermines
environmental and social goals. Another threat 
identified
by the
respondents' proposals, 
in
a question where a free answer could be
given, is the issue of corruption, mainly in terms of the involvement
of political interests but also of members of specific sectors involved
in the EIA process.

\subsection{AHP results}\label{sec33}

As mentioned before, pair-wise comparisons of SWOT groups and elements
(AHP criteria and sub-criteria, respectively), based on the results of
the survey and on the researchers experience upon the subject was
performed. {Literature review} contributed significantly to the rating.
Table~\ref{tab2} presents in detail the comparisons between SWOT
elements and groups and the ratings of each item compared to each
other, according to the Saaty scale used by the software~\cite{94}.

\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{\label{tab2}Pair wise comparisons between the items of each
SWOT group and those groups\vspace*{-2pt}}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccccccccc}
\thead
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Strengths} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Weaknesses} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Opportunities} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Threats} \\
\endthead
\morerows{2}{{Strengths}}  & \textbf{\color{red}{1}} & \textbf{S1} & \textbf{S2} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{\color{red}{1/3}}} &
\multicolumn{4}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{1}}}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{\color{red}{1/5}}} \\\cline{2-4}
 & \textbf{S1} & 1 & 3 &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  & &&\\\cline{2-4}
 & \textbf{S2} & 1/3 & 1 &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  & & && \vspace*{5pt} \\
\morerows{4}{{Weaknesses}}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{3}}}} 
&  \textbf{\color{red}{1}} & \textbf{W1} & \textbf{W2} & \textbf{W3} & \textbf{W4} & 
\multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{\color{red}3}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{1/2}}} } \\\cline{5-9}
 &  &  & &\textbf{W1} & 1 & 1 & 3 & 2 &  &  &  &  &  &&\\\cline{5-9}
 &  &  & &\textbf{W2} & 1 & 1 & 3 & 2 &  &  &  &  &  &&\\\cline{5-9}
 &  &  & &\textbf{W3} & 1/3 & 1/3 & 1 & 1/2 &  &  &  & & &&  \\\cline{5-9}
 &  &  & &\textbf{W4} & 1/2 & 1/2 & 2 & 1 &  &  &  &  & &&\vspace*{5pt} \\
\morerows{3}{{Opportunities}}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{1}}} } & 
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{1/3}}} } & \textbf{\color{red}{1}} & \textbf{O1} & \textbf{O2} & 
\textbf{O3} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{1/6}}} } \\\cline{10-13}
 &  &  &  &  &  &  & & &\textbf{O1} & 1 & 1/4 & 1 &  & & \\\cline{10-13}
 &  &  &  &  &  &  & & &\textbf{O2} & 4 & 1 & 4 &  &  &\\\cline{10-13}
 &  &  &  &  &  &  & & &\textbf{O3} & 1 & 1/4 & 1 &  & & \vspace*{5pt}\\
\morerows{2}{{Threats}}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{5}}}} & 
\multicolumn{5}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{2}}} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{{\textbf{\color{red}{6}}}} & 
\textbf{\color{red}{1}} & \textbf{T1} & \textbf{T2} \\\cline{14-16}
 &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  & & & & \textbf{T1} & 1 & 4 \\\cline{14-16}
 &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  &  & & & &\textbf{T2} & 1/4 & 1 
\botline 
\end{tabular}
\tabnote{The elements in red demonstrate the contribution of each
criterion in the final results of the SWOT-AHP analysis.}
\end{table*}


When pairwise comparisons were completed, the software automatically
extracted the results regarding the relative weights of the individual
elements of SWOT and its groups as well as their total weights, as
shown in Table~\ref{tab3}.

\begin{table*}[t!]
\caption{\label{tab3}AHP results\vspace*{-2pt}}
\begin{tabular}{llcc}
\thead
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Criteria}  & {Relative (local) weights (\%)} & Overall  (global) weights (\%)\\
\endthead
1.  & Weaknesses &  28  &  28  \\
1.1.  &  Proficiency (skills)  &  11  &  \03  \\
1.2.  & 
Non-informed decision making  &  35  &  10  \\
1.3.  &  Implementation of statutory context  &  35  &  10  \\
1.4.  & Contribution in decision making &  19  &  \05  \\
2.  & Threats &  53  &  53  \\
2.1.  & Corruption--Political interference &  20  & 11  \\
2.2.  & Economic Crisis &  80  &  43  \\
3.  & Strengths &  10  &  10  \\
3.1.  & Institutional (statutory) context &  75  &  \07  \\
3.2.  & Environmental Protection &  25  &  \02  \\
4.  & Opportunities &  \09  &  \09  \\
4.1.  & E-governance--Open data &  17  &  \02  \\
4.2.  & Learning &  17  &  \02  \\
4.3.  & Technological and scientific background &  67  &  \06 
 \botline 
\end{tabular} 
\vspace*{-1.5pt}
\end{table*}

As the rating of one criterion over the other is subjective and a
matter of personal perception of each evaluator, more comparisons were
made with slight variations in order to compare the results with those
already extracted. With the differentiated comparisons, the results did
not change substantially. The accepted results of the process,
illustrated in \mbox{Table~\ref{tab3}}, were those that were the most
consistent. It is clear from the results that the threats had the
greatest weight  at 53\%, and economic \mbox{crisis} that
constitutes an element of threats was classified as the one with the 
highest local weight (43\%). Although local weight of institutional 
context was also high, due to its groups rating it, it was overall 
ranked relatively low having a global weight of 7\%.

Among the elements of weaknesses, the most dominant with the same
rating are non-informed decision making and the implementation of
\mbox{institutional} context. On the other hand, the 
highest-rated opportunities 
were technological and scientific background. The most important
elements of both weaknesses and strengths are criteria measuring the
substantive effectiveness of the system, namely its performance.

In contrast to the argument of Zvij\'{a}kov\'{a} \etal~\cite{99}, 
referring to the impact of institutional framework on the system under
consideration, in this case the \mbox{institutional} framework was considered
adequate, having comprehensible regulations. This conclusion is in line
with that of the recent research of Pediaditi \etal~\cite{77} which
presented a significant discrepancy between institutional framework
regulations and their practical application.


The institution was recognized by interested parties, who participated
in the survey, as contributing to environmental protection and to the
environmental performance of the projects. Even if EIA studies are
conducted because it is mandatory due to institutional framework, the
fact that proposed projects or activities are evaluated before being
approved may discourage project developers from proposing an
environmentally damaging project, as pointed out by Ortolano and 
Shepherd~\cite{43}. Thus, the institution contributes to the
protection of the environment. However, this is not sufficient as the
institution needs to be able to meet objectives set by the national as
well as by European legislative framework which aim at a high level of
environmental protection.

Greece is one of the last countries of the EU to adopt EIA
legislations. The approval and implementation of the EIAs by the
authorities are very complicated decisions, thus making the application
of EIA in Greece difficult. This is because, to simplify these
procedures, crucial elements that should have been evaluated are
excluded, and therefore the analysis is a far-off estimation of the
reality~\cite{100}. The system also fails to achieve one of the key
objectives of the EIA process: to identify, and to
propose, optimal alternatives. Such weaknesses are observed in many
countries. For example, Anifowose \mbox{\etal}~\cite{101}, identified
problems related to EIA preparation and lack of available data as were
highlighted in this paper, too. Rathi~\cite{50} found similar
problems, such as the fact that study approvals set conditions for
compliance with the provisions of the law, rather than specific
conditions arising from the EIA \mbox{procedure}. 

The most common weaknesses, identified in the literature were also
identified in the present system. Such weaknesses are associated with
public participation in the process~\cite{42,58,102,103}, considering
alternatives~\cite{42,104}, and cumulative impact
assessment~\cite{101,103}, as well as monitoring~\cite{35,104}.
According to Elvan~\cite{103}, EIA studies in Turkey revealed
that public participation in environmental decision making are not
binding while decisions should include members from nongovernmental
\mbox{organizations}. 

It is rather discouraging that, even though Greece has a strong
institutional framework, as required by European Union directives,
and has had a well-established EIA system for many years, 
the EIA institution in Greece
shows
weaknesses similar with the ones that are
found in EIA systems of less developed or poorer countries, such as the
weaknesses identified by Anifowose \etal~\cite{101} in Nigeria
or Ga\l{}a\'{s} \etal~\cite{104} and Rathi~\cite{50} in
the Visegrad Group countries ({Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and
Slovakia) and India respectively. Specifically, in Visegrad Group
countries, technological and 
economical
development along with changes in
legislations led to the obligatory modification of the EIA systems to
simplify the EIA processes. There are still differences in the
\unskip\break conduction of the studies during screening, scoping and preparation of
the reports, yet Visegrad group countries still work in similar ways
regarding EIA~\cite{104}}.

The results of the survey also show that the corruption and political
involvement that were identified by Williams and Dupuy~\cite{105}
in the Albanian system are also a threat to the Greek system and its
performance.

Of course, research has shown that the most important element of all is
the economic crisis, as an external factor that significantly
undermines the functioning of the system; an external factor that is
overrated, in terms of its weight against all the opportunities
recognized~\cite{106}. Specifically, the economic crisis can affect all
dimensions of efficiency, while the technological and scientific
background that has emerged as the most important opportunity can have
a positive impact on both the substantive and the transactional
dimension, but much less on the basis of its total weight in relation to
the economic crisis. The impact of an economic recession or crisis on
EIA systems has also been pointed out by other researchers in the
international literature such as Jha-Thakur and Fischer~\cite{107}, 
who presented that austerity and economic recession
inevitably cause more challenges, or Bond and Pope~\cite{98}
which include it as a threat, as important and capable of undermining
environmental and social goals.

In relation to previous surveys conducted in Greece, the institution,
despite its significant improvements and modifications, still has
weaknesses that had also been identified in the past and 
shows
low
effectiveness~\cite{54,108}. However, the fact that it has a strong
institutional framework, as well as acknowledging its contribution,
albeit small, to the protection of the environment and the
environmental performance of projects gives it a limited yet added
value.

It is encouraging though, that significant and fundamental advantages
have been identified which can contribute in improving the efficiency
of the system, along with the beginning of the Electronic
Environmental Registry operation and the preparation of planned annual
inspections by the competent authorities. Finally, it is very important
to {consider the opportunities highlighted in this study to strengthen
the EIA system and increase the skills of both the management system
and all stakeholders. \mbox{Increasing} the skills of management and
stakeholders will bring the country a little closer to adequately
monitoring and assessing the environmental impact of its projects,
systems and urban settings as well as fulfilling its EU legislative
obligations.} 

{A big step towards the fulfillment of such obligations, is the
connection of EIA studies with SDGs and circular economy. According to
Ravn Boess \mbox{\etal}~\cite{109}, EIA in both academia and policy
making is expected to act as a vehicle for achieving the SDGs. To
encompass all 17 goals of the UN, the goals must be translated into a
project level and thus create an objective assessment. At the same
time, SDGs could be used a reference point for EIA in both strategic and
project level development~\cite{109}. The necessity of the adoption of
the SDGs along with adequate monitoring and translation of the goals into
quantifiable data will initiate a responsive alteration of EIA
procedures in Greece and throughout the EU. Furthermore, as supply
chain management has become an essential business management tool, 
EIA could aid with estimating the environmental impact of a production
line along with optimization and monitoring. As these points of
optimization could be pointed out during an EIA, circular economy
principles concerning waste management, end of life practices along
with optimization points throughout the production line (of an
industry) or system (of a given city) could be analyzed to provide
adequate circularity opportunities. Technologies used in the concept of
circular economy (i.e. remanufacture, refurbish, reuse, recycle etc.)
could be assessed for their environmental benefits and impacts
along with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and EIA to design and promote
processes with long-term positive impact to the environment and
circularity~\cite{110}.} 

\section{Conclusions}\label{sec4}

As a result of this research, a number of issues have emerged, mainly
from the use of questionnaires, concerning the performance of the
institution of environmental studies in Greece. Such issues are in line
with the findings of other researchers. The overall picture, according
to the conclusions, is that the evaluation system's performance, mainly
in terms of its substantive dimension of effectiveness, is low;
although strengths and opportunities for improvement are recognized,
the dominant threat, namely economic crisis is an important factor
undermining it. Whilst the institutional framework has emerged as a
strength of the 
EIA 
system in Greece, it
has also concluded {that it is not implemented as intended, rendering
the institution ineffective in many aspects. Furthermore, considering
the weaknesses arising from the research, environmental education and
social training is necessary to encourage participation and involvement
in considering alternatives and monitoring of environmental assessment.
Decision-making processes cannot be one-sided, as social behavior is a
key component for the development of a successful strategy regarding
environmental assessment practices.} As systems and conditions within
which institutions operate change, it is clearly necessary that all
dimensions of these systems are constantly evaluated. The effort made
in this study only examined part of this aspect, and certainly further
research is needed in order to determine more accurately and clearly
the performance of the EIA institution in Greece.

\section*{Conflicts of interest}
The authors declare no conflict of interest.


\section*{Funding}
This research received no external funding.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to acknowledge Open University of Cyprus (and
the Lab of Chemical Engineering and Engineering Sustainability) for the
financial support and research facilities.

%\back{}

\bibliographystyle{crchim}
\bibliography{crchim20220786}
%\refinput{crchim20220786-reference.tex}

\end{document}
